So the thread on Objectivist Government is turning into a tin hat thread about Obama as a muslim Manchurian candidate?
softwareNerd wrote:
So the thread on Objectivist Government is turning into a tin hat thread about Obama as a muslim Manchurian candidate?
I like asides. No one knows everything. And as Mark Twain warned, “Be careful about reading health books. You may die of a misprint.”
There is more that I would like to say, so thanks for the prod softwareNerd.
Does the history of Western Law apply to Objective Law? In “The Structure of Liberty” Lon Fuller mentions eight basic rules of law. I got these second hand, from an old letter from Ross Barnett on Atlantis, when Jimbo Wales owner of Wikipedia, was the moderator, so they are not quotes, but what Ross remembered. And there are some comments of his that I edited:
Having rules at all, rather than deciding issues of justice ad hoc (or, for the particular end or case at hand without consideration of wider application.)
Having clearly understood rules.
Having rules that do not change rapidly, so one can use them to make decisions.
Having non-contradictory rules, so it is possible to obey them (or the law of compossibility)
Having rules that do not require one to do things beyond one’s power.
Having rules that are well publicized.
Having rules that are not retroactive.
Having rules where there is congruence between the rule as articulated and the rule as actually applied.
Note that rule #4 is the rule of law version of what, in rights theory, is the law of compossibility.
The result?
“The pluralism of Western law . . . has been, or once was, a source of freedom. A serf might run to the town court for protection against his master. A vassal might run to the king’s court for protection against his lord. A cleric might run to the ecclesiastical court for protection against the king.”
The rule of law developed as each of these legal systems, attempting to curry “customers” away from alternative legal systems that could be chosen, granted “benefits to their customers”. Use our service, and you’ll be sure of avoiding ex post laws. Come to us, and we make sure your legal duties are clearly communicated. Join us–publicize our rules and make them enduring.
Thus a polycentric legal system (market justice) was responsible, historically, for developing what is now known as the rule of law. Better, in a sense, to think of it as the unintended consequence of the rule of laws.
So I see no reason not to rethink these “common laws,” and add them if appropriate to a more ideal Objectivist or Tea Party Constitution, or much more likely, to State, County, or City laws. I think the wisdom gathered into common law should not be lost.
Two that have been mentioned are *Adverse Possession* and *Coming to the Nuisance.* These are used by a judge to show *precedent.* This use of precedents is known as stare decisis. We could not have civil proceedings or criminal trials now without precedent. There are thousands of real estate precedents.
Riparian or waterfront laws are abundant in every state. So once again the simple declaration that a person may do as they like on their property as long as they do not violate the rights of others is a gross oversimplification. No you can’t. And knowledgeable people are aware of this fact.
Semper cogitans fidele,
Peter Taylor
Riparian or waterfront laws are abundant in every state. So once again the simple declaration that a person may do as they like on their property as long as they do not violate the rights of others is a gross oversimplification. No you can’t. And knowledgeable people are aware of this fact.
Peter Taylor has trouble accurately quoting or referring to what someone else has said. I said:
Property rights are the right to the use and disposal of some thing. And yes, you can rightfully do as you please on your property as long as you do not violate the rights of others by whatever it is you do.
[bold added]
Of course, rightfully and lawfully are not necessarily the same, though they should be.