4 ms·
The first half of the article, which makes the point that there are enough contradictions in law to allow for the deduction of any politically desirable conclus
by zeteo 16y ago
The first half of the article, which makes the point that there are enough contradictions in law to allow for the deduction of any politically desirable conclusions, is quite compelling. I believe that most judges are rather moderate in this respect, and usually choose to interpret law in ways that are close to generally accepted social norms; but the observation that there is a very great deal of subjective discretion involved in this process, and that the social norms do change from century to century is very acute.
The second half is, by comparison, a let down. I happen to believe that the state needs to have a monopoly of force, in part because there are regions that have tried a free market in violence (such as contemporary Somalia and 4th century BC Ancient Greece) and it hasn't worked so well for them. And a monopoly of force necessarily implies a monopoly of legislative and judiciary functions to guide that force in a manner that is not too harmful to the rest of society. It's no wonder the author waffles when confronted with the question of what market-based law would look like - it's simply a concept that can't be defined too precisely without making it look completely unpractical to even the most unbiased reader.
- cschwarm 15y agoI wholeheartedly agree with your summery. I was absolutely fascinated by the first part; such a shame, the author wasn't able to apply its point to his own suggestion: Whether the law is made by one body or by many -- it will remain an authority, a government made by people, used to impose one set of values to other people, and open to misuse. His blind faith in free markets seems to have clouded his judgment. Counter-examples to his free market for laws are easy to find. Sharia laws in Britain are just one example. Women are hardly 'free enough' to voluntarily accept its authority. What about children: Can they voluntarily accept the authority of a certain court? According to the cases of child indoctrination and abuse by crazy religious parents, priests, and schools, not so much. Markets fail rather often (depending on the definition of failure). Shoes are a perfect example of a free market that somehow 'works', but is inherently inefficient in many regards. One just needs to try to find a shoe that (a) fits, (b) is subjectively good looking, and (c) priced fairly. Now imagine one would additionally need to look for (d) an acceptable court for clearing disputes!