Starting to study Law: Argue Objectivist principles?

[fflynn17]

I have just recently begun studying law as a Paralegal certificate student, but I may end up in law school in a year or so. Should I concentrate only on what they are teaching me, or should I work on also integrating what I have studied as a student of objectivism to what they are teaching me and argue these points in my papers?

[KendallJ]

Should I concentrate only on what they are teaching me,

NO

or should I work on also integrating what I have studied as a student of objectivism to what they are teaching me

YES

and argue these points in my papers?

DEPENDS on the context. If arguing will get you crucified and you put your degree at risk, then there is no reason to sacrifice yourself to it. However, if arguing it will get you crucified, then you should ask yourself how good the education actually is since it would seem like your professors aren't open to reason.

[dbc]

Whether you seek a paralegal certificate or a J.D., you should concentrate on the topics at hand and seek to integrate them with your philosophy.

You will not have many opportunities to argue for Objectivist principles in your papers. In law school, the majority of your writing will take place in the context of end-of-semester tests. The exams will consist of the professors presenting you with fact patterns and asking you to analyze the facts under legal concepts specific to the class (torts, contracts, real property, etc.). With few exceptions, you are not presented with an opportunity to argue for what the law ought to be.

There are some exceptions to this. A Philosophy of Law (Jurisprudence) class will likely require you to critically analyze some particular legal philosophy. Law reviews also offer a place to present a particular way to address some legal issue.

Good luck!

Dan

[DavidOdden]

I think you might have more opportunity to argue for Objectivist principles, but maybe not, depending on the nature of the classes. You can apply Objectivist principles not only to discussion of what the law ought to be, but also what it is. Rand has a lecture on the concept of "objective law" online at the ARI page (memory fails me as to where, right this moment), and one thing that she points out is that objective law means that a man can know what is prohibited, and what the penalty for violating the law is. So objective law refers not just to "law justified by reference to objectively valid principles", but also "law stated so as to be objectively interpretable by anyone".

There is a typical reaction that the average Joe has regarding laws, namely "They'll do whatever they want to" or "They'll interpret that however they see fit", i.e. "The meaning of law is completely subjective, the law is whatever you want it to be, as long as you have the power to interpret the law". While that may end up being true some of the time, it is, so far, not yet an actual meta-principle of law in the US.

Although it is in the realm of objective justification in the creation of new law that things have gotten the worst, the realm of subjective interpretation of existing law is the most dangerous. A sufficiently subjectivist court can do vastly more damage by (mis)interpretation of proper law. Thus I encourage Objectivists with an interest in law to put the matter of interpretation of law very high on their to-care-about list. To some extent, you just have to spew back what you were taught; OTOH you sometimes have choices, so you might focus on some aspect of "fair use" hocus pocus if you had to write something about copyright law.

[fflynn17]

Thank you for your replies.

I guess I am concerned that I will spend too much time on "what should be" that I will miss something critical to "what is". All new knowledge must eventually be integrated with the totality of one's knowledge, I just was looking for direction on how much I should focus on "what should be".

As you can see, I live in Vermont, the state with the only avowed socialist US senator, so I will have to be careful about not being too vocal, while still being a "voice of reason" in the classroom.

I am returning to school at age 45 after a long career as a retail manager. I just finished the BBA that I started in 1980 through two online courses at Northwood University (right near you, Kendall!) and my grounding in Objectivism was a huge help to me in an online International Trade class. I was still amazed that many people didn't realize that "free trade" means just that, free with no governmental interference. It was a new concept to many people, probably because it has never really existed.

[KendallJ]

I just finished the BBA that I started in 1980 through two online courses at Northwood University (right near you, Kendall!) and my grounding in Objectivism was a huge help to me in an online International Trade class.

Ah, a Woodie! Northwood is a little gem of a school right in my backyard. My house is only a mile or two from campus. A lot of free market thinking there. Congratulations!

[intellectualammo]

Rand has a lecture on the concept of "objective law" online at the ARI page (memory fails me as to where, right this moment)

Dave, I think the one you are mentioning may be the one located on the registered user page, under Ayn Rand Multimedia Library, and it's in the Interviews section, under the title of "Objective Law".