4 ms·
Sure, they each have their own specific beliefs. But none of them are tapped into the objective “what a law is”. Because that doesn’t exist. It’s just a nice my
by OpieCunningham 6y ago
Sure, they each have their own specific beliefs. But none of them are tapped into the objective “what a law is”. Because that doesn’t exist. It’s just a nice mythology we tell ourselves in an attempt to trick our brains into thinking a 3 branch form of government with checks and balances is well checked and well balanced (which it may be, but if we think of 1 branch as objective even when it can’t be, it makes us feel better about the whole system).
- nickff 6y ago>"But none of them are tapped into the objective “what a law is”. Because that doesn’t exist." Well there are canons of interpretation, each of which describes how one can read and understand what legislation and law mean. You seem to be dismissing the canons as being incorrect, and I'm not exactly sure why. Do you think it is possible to interpret a law faithfully? What about a contract?
- OpieCunningham 6y agoI’m not dismissing canons of interpretation as being incorrect. I’m stating that canons of interpretation are themselves nothing more than subjective opinion. And there are surely many versions. Some of which align with conservative beliefs and some of which align with liberal beliefs. So what is a “correct” canon of interpretation? Or are canons of interpretation just another layer of obfuscation used to pretend there are objective opinions?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]