Tom Woods : Rule of Law is a Myth

[ClydeCoulter]

Article here:
http://tomwoods.com/blog/the-rule-of-law-is-a-myth/

I talked to Georgetown University’s John Hasnas the other day about what he calls “the myth of the rule of law.”
...

Here is a link to the actual article discussed between Tom Woods and the author John Hasnas.
http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
Justice or just us is most assuredly not blind.

[Henry Rogue]

Great subject Clyde. I've been thinking about this subject for a while. Not only that it is a myth because people interpret the laws, therefore rule of men, but that it makes society chaotic, in that many laws apply to some people and not to others.

[green73]

I've had this queued to listen to. Looking forward to it.

[PierzStyx]

So law is ultimately a realization of what the social zeitgeist holds to be of value and holds to be just. Makes sense.

[green73]

So law is ultimately a realization of what the social zeitgeist holds to be of value and holds to be just. Makes sense.

I haven't listened to it yet, but that's my understanding of how laws would arise in a free society.

[Henry Rogue]

Here is a link to the actual article discussed between Tom Woods and the author John Hasnas.
http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
Justice or just us is most assuredly not blind.

[tommyrp12]

Nail on head.





The Myth of the Rule of Law by John HasnasPublished On December 25, 2013 | By Pete Eyre | Articles

Quote:
This raises an interesting question. If it has been known for 100 years that the law does not consist of a body of determinate rules, why is the belief that it does still so widespread? If four generations of jurisprudential scholars have shown that the rule of law is a myth, why does the concept still command such fervent commitment? The answer is implicit in the question itself, for the question recognizes that the rule of law is a myth and like all myths, it is designed to serve an emotive, rather than cognitive, function. The purpose of a myth is not to persuade one’s reason, but to enlist one’s emotions in support of an idea. And this is precisely the case for the myth of the rule of law; its purpose is to enlist the emotions of the public in support of society’s political power structure.

People are more willing to support the exercise of authority over themselves when they believe it to be an objective, neutral feature of the natural world. This was the idea behind the concept of the divine right of kings. By making the king appear to be an integral part of God’s plan for the world rather than an ordinary human being dominating his fellows by brute force, the public could be more easily persuaded to bow to his authority. However, when the doctrine of divine right became discredited, a replacement was needed to ensure that the public did not view political authority as merely the exercise of naked power. That replacement is the concept of the rule of law.

People who believe they live under “a government of laws and not people” tend to view their nation’s legal system as objective and impartial. They tend to see the rules under which they must live not as expressions of human will, but as embodiments of neutral principles of justice, i.e., as natural features of the social world. Once they believe that they are being commanded by an impersonal law rather than other human beings, they view their obedience to political authority as a public-spirited acceptance of the requirements of social life rather than mere acquiescence to superior power. In this way, the concept of the rule of law functions much like the use of the passive voice by the politician who describes a delict on his or her part with the assertion “mistakes were made.” It allows people to hide the agency of power behind a facade of words; to believe that it is the law which compels their compliance, not self-aggrandizing politicians, or highly capitalized special interests, or wealthy white Anglo-Saxon Protestant males, or _______________ (fill in your favorite culprit).

Additional reading on legal fiction's.
Ancient Law
By Henry Sumner Maine

[HOLLYWOOD]

Very Good Interview... today's Drudge on Boehner and Lerner



Not only is there NO Rule Of Law...

Based on not what you may be accused-charge of, but who you are, by a system that authorizes law which is morally and ethically based on Racketeering, Influence, Corrupt Organizations.

Principle of Equality and Common Law... someone that states, "There is no rule of law" means there are influences from outside the law that overrules. buying into the 'Use of Force' by the power structure.

One only has to ask, Is the rule of law a huge money maker for government, it's employees, and the private legal industries? Back to the ole, "Money Is The Route of All Evil"

I also wonder just how much money exchanges hands between the public and private law parties each year. Betcha a boat-load.

[nayjevin]

I've had this queued to listen to. Looking forward to it.

It is quite good, Tom Woods is a very good radio voice and interviewer. Hasnas is very articulate and interesting to listen to.

Essentially the myth is that people think that in an ideal legal system there is a standard that will apply consistently to bring justice to varied situations. That if the rules are good enough, law is a matter of computation, not judgment. Yet the words are chosen and interpreted by individuals in various ways. Hasnas points out that even the 1st amendment, which is written with very clear language, is problematic in its application, from the standpoint of consistency. 'Speech' can mean burning flags, for instance, to some people and not others.

[Henry Rogue]

Laws can't apply themselves and interpretation is subjective, therefore it is in fact "rule by people", not laws written on a piece of paper. The author also makes the case that inflexible laws would result in injutice as well.

[Feelgood]

A little off topic, but weird. I went ahead and download Tom's app from Google Play. After installing my AVG on my Android phone flagged his software as "malware" and urged me to delete the app. I was like WTF? Just ignored the warning and it seems fine.

[ClydeCoulter]

Laws can't apply themselves and interpretation is subjective, therefore it is in fact "rule by people", not laws written on a piece of paper. The author also makes the case that inflexible laws would result in injutice as well.

I agree with his analysis of the rule of law being a myth.

But I'm not, at least yet, on board with the idea of free market law. I see too many problems with it, in my mind, some of which is agreement on versions or which version of law applies at any given time. But, I'm also not a "oh, let's make a contract" type of person, either, I like to judge by a mans word, or rather his ability to keep it.

I wrote a paper on my view of law (which had some things in common with the article) in the early 80's during college (ARC), I wish I still had a copy of it to review.

[nayjevin]

I'm not, at least yet, on board with the idea of free market law. I see too many problems with it, in my mind, some of which is agreement on versions or which version of law applies at any given time.

Could you explain this? I don't totally understand, it seems to me that jurisdictions would be smaller and therefore more numerous, but that each would have its own law to which all under it would agree.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I agree with his analysis of the rule of law being a myth.

But I'm not, at least yet, on board with the idea of free market law. I see too many problems with it, in my mind, some of which is agreement on versions or which version of law applies at any given time. But, I'm also not a "oh, let's make a contract" type of person, either, I like to judge by a mans word, or rather his ability to keep it.

I wrote a paper on my view of law (which had some things in common with the article) in the early 80's during college (ARC), I wish I still had a copy of it to review.

A free market in law would be like a free market in shoes, electronics, or anything else. They'd all somewhat resemble each other, but they'd have their own quirks and differences.

[ClydeCoulter]

Could you explain this? I don't totally understand, it seems to me that jurisdictions would be smaller and therefore more numerous, but that each would have its own law to which all under it would agree.

A free market in law would be like a free market in shoes, electronics, or anything else. They'd all somewhat resemble each other, but they'd have their own quirks and differences.

I wrote a paper describing what I thought about law, when I was in college (jr college, ARC). I wish that I still had it, because it is still in my heart but seems, at least in part, locked up.

There are those that have no need of law. They will go out of their way to not harm another. They don't wish to take from others anything that is not given freely, whether in trade or charity. They also do not wish to engage in any conspiracy against another. Their motive, in many cases, is not profit or gain, but knowledge and/or an increase in that pursuit of liberty and happiness, for others equally as well as themselves. And when they make a mistake and do harm another, it is a burden that is heavy on them until they are right with the person that they harmed. They are those that do not seek any advantage over another human being, but also would like to be treated the same.

When laws are made, in order to punish the ruthless and lawless, it ends up being used to harm those that do not need it. Because those that the law was made to punish do not care for laws anymore than they care for their neighbor that they stole from. It is not law that the lawless are trying to break, it is their lust and greed that they are trying to satisfy. Therefore, law ends up being the tool that is used by those seeking advantage against those that do not need law. And, those that do not need the law are busy with their own work and are no threat to the ruthless or anyone else (that is, until they have had enough).

If we look at smaller units of government, we see examples like Towns, Townships and HOA's (Home Owner Associations). Do not even the smallest of matters become a thing of law in these environments? And who, of all people are more likely to rise to positions of administration, or to raise their voices in indignation? Those that mind their own business or those that are busybodies?