America now has more than 250,000 laws . . . and counting.
We Americans take great pride in our freedom. We call ourselves “the land of the free, home of the brave,” have Lady Liberty in New York Harbor and the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia. America is synonymous with freedom in the minds of most. Much of the rest of the world, however, is thought a land of darkness which doesn’t benefit from our unencumbered bliss. Thus do we speak of the free and unfree worlds.
In reality, it’s not that simple. There is neither such thing as a people with complete freedom nor one completely bereft of it; it’s a matter of degree.
While many realize this, few understand that there is a barometer with which liberty can be measured: The number of laws in existence.
By definition, a law is the removal of a freedom, as it dictates that there is something you cannot or must do. If the former, you’re not free to do it; if the latter, you’re not free to do otherwise.
Many rightly point out that some laws free us from the tyranny of our fellow man. Prohibitions against murder, rape and theft, for instance, provide us the freedom to walk down the street unmolested. Yet for two reasons this barometer of liberty is still valid. First, when we speak of how free a nation is, we refer to freedom from government intrusion. Second, while such laws are necessary and just, they do nevertheless deny us certain freedoms. Only, we’re not going to worry about freedoms whose removal only bothers Tony Soprano.
Yet we long ago transitioned from making just laws to just making laws, which is why I look forward with a sense of foreboding. Every year our nation enacts more and more laws but hardly ever rescinds any, which means every year we become progressively less free. I call this “creeping totalitarianism.”
While this is the big picture, we usually just focus on the little picture. Currently it’s fashionable to bemoan the Patriot Act and wax apoplectic about how the sky is falling, as if it’s 1789 and we’re confronted with our very first extra-constitutional measure. Oh, I’m not saying good people shouldn’t debate these matters; no one stresses strict adherence to the Constitution more than I do. But the danger is that when we stare intently at and stand too close to one piece of the puzzle, it appears bigger and seems like the whole world. And if we fail to take a step back and gain perspective, we won’t see that there is a big picture, one formed by countless prohibitionary pieces.
The truth is that unconstitutional and excessive laws have increasingly become a staple of government for many decades. They are a product of a statist mentality which, while endemic to the Left, infects both major parties and most minor thinkers. America now has more than 250,000 laws . . . and counting. That is the big picture. And it looks an awful lot like Big Brother.
This is one reason I’m big, too – on small government. When people lament the Patriot Act or some other boogeyman du jour, they often warn that we’re losing our “democracy.” What should concern them is that we have lost our limited constitutional republic. What is democracy? In point of fact, it’s entirely possible for a people to tyrannize themselves. Democracy is sometimes just millions of people slowly and inefficiently making the bad decisions that a dictator could make with the stroke of a pen.
This is why one of the worst decisions is saying, “There oughta’ be a law.” While we do need protection from the tyranny of our fellow man, we also need protection from the tyranny of our fellow man in government. Making just laws accomplishes the former; resisting excessive laws accomplishes the latter. This is a law of liberty.
It’s our failure to understand and obey this law – not a particular politician, party or policy (although statism thoroughly imbues the Democrats) – that has allowed for the trampling of the Constitution.
So how free are we really? The most relevant answer is that we’re not as free as we were 20 years ago, not nearly as free as we were 50 years ago, and we’ll be even less free 20 years hence. That is, unless we free ourselves from our legislate-society-to-perfection mentality.
No one knows why the symbol of freedom I mentioned earlier, the Liberty Bell, cracked in 1846. But it hasn’t rung since. The cracks in our liberty are more easily understood, if not so easily repaired. Let’s hope it, with the right combination of tones, still rings for our children.
SD@SelwynDuke.com
http://www.SelwynDuke.com
Read more articles by Selwyn Duke
When I was a kid, 50 years ago, “There oughta’ be a law.” was a cartoon I enjoyed reading in the newspaper. It always had some silly irritation, like someone smoking nearby, and the idea was clear that these things bug us, but they are something to laugh about and NOT something we need a Congress to outlaw. BTW, democracy was discredited 2,500 years ago and we don't live in one. The USA is a republic so let's stop promoting democracy and start promoting republicanism.
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | December 13, 2007
Yes, and isn't it interesting that those who generally insist at the top of their lungs that "you can't legislate morality" are so feverishing trying to do so with an ever-increasing Federal Code?
Are not EPA laws someone's idea of what is moral and what is not regarding the environment? How about murder? Rape? Incest? Washing your hands before returning to the restaurant kitchen? "Hate" crimes? Driving too fast? Trespassing? Cruelty to animals? HIPPA and privacy laws? A shotgun with the barrell too short? Street drugs?
That's 12. Only 249,988 to go. Perhaps not all reflect morality, but a disproportionate number do.
Laws are necessary — but more are not necessarily better.
Comment by Steve Sabin | December 13, 2007
[…] clipped from http://www.intellectualconservative.com […]
Pingback by “Creeping Totalitarianism”- How free are we? « Stand Up | December 13, 2007
May I add seat belts, OSHA, alimony, and discrimination laws? The Republicans are not immune from this, but isn't it interesting that the party that supports the abortion of an 8.5 month old fetus and free birth control (our population is too big) also supports funding health care and are against the war (our population needs to be kept alive).
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | December 13, 2007
The author distinguishes between “making just laws” and “just making laws”. The question ‘what is a just law?’ has exercised jurists and philosophers for centuries. The problem is that the answer is generally subjective, not objective; and it is subjective because there is nothing against which to measure whether a law complies with what we would call ‘justice’.
The reason for this is that there are simply no PRINCIPLES that laws must comply with. If we had clearly defined principles to which all laws must comply, or at least which no law can contravene, then any law would be ‘just’ only if it complied with, or did not breach, any of those principles.
In the series of articles on IC [The Ten Principles of Freedom] I demonstrate how this should work. The most important aspect of the principles is that they should be principles everyone consents to, or at least cannot refute without claiming some greater freedom than everyone else. The principles should also be defined by reference to a discernable ‘purpose of life’.
In this way we would have ‘absolute freedom’ limited only by those principles we all agree to. Thus, any laws made would have to comply with the universally agreed principles. Laws complying with those principles would then be ‘just laws’, requiring observance. Any laws which exceeded or breached those principles would be ‘unjust’, and could simply be ignored, or challenged.
Under the present constitution, ‘rights’ perform this task, but not very well. ‘Rights’ set out some very limited areas into which government cannot intrude, therefore leaving government to do as it pleases in respect of everything else. That is not freedom, and it leads to tyranny. The Ten Principles set out those very limited ‘obligations’ all the people would agree to adopt which have the effect of limiting their absolute freedom. They are mutually agreed principles to protect us from the “tyranny of our fellow man”, and indeed, from the tyranny that many of us are tempted to visit upon our “fellow man” if presented with the power and opportunity to do so.
Yet, as the author points out, we seem to stumble blindly on from one law to the next as politicians ravage what is left of our freedom. One day we will wake up to discover that we have absolutely no freedom left whatsoever – and that day is not that far away.
Joseph BH McMillan
http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | December 14, 2007
As I walk out of my office after interviewing 3 people of different national origins even though I have a candidate to promote from within I make my way to my car where I put on seatbelt and turn off my cell phone. I drive 24 MPH to the local drug store where I attempt to stock up on medicine for a household of ill children and adults. After buying my quota I travel to the next drug store to fulfill my needs, and return to my car where I remove the government issued ticket for parking too close to a private enterprise without having a limp (something about a blue sign is transcribed on the document). I check to see if my state mandated insurance would cover such an innocent mistake-but to no avail. I continue to make my way home where I dutifully shovel the snow from my sidewalk (within my 12 hour window of opportunity before I am fined) and sit in my chair. It is here that I must ask, "What freedoms are we missing?" After all I still have my remote.
Comment by Honker | December 14, 2007
Sometimes laws are oppressive, sometimes ill-advised, sometimes unconstitutional, and sometimes unjust. There are even illegal laws.
But the existence of these kinds of laws are a separate issue from the concept of liberty (I prefer this term over "freedom"). Liberty is not the ability to go through life unimpeded by bad or oppressive law. Liberty is the governance of self (self-control).
A person who cannot control himself is a slave to his own desires and appetites. He is oppressed by his own destructive choices. But a person who can control himself, who can embrace that which is true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable… well, that person is free no matter the legal environment that surrounds him.
Comment by Mountain Man | December 14, 2007
Mountain Man, I agree with your sentiment, but must take issue with the content.
‘Spiritual’ freedom (I prefer the word freedom) is distinct from social/government freedom. ‘Freed’ of any obligations towards others (such as a wife and children), we can of course indulge our ‘self-purification’. But I don’t see how that is not just another indulgence in our own vanity. If we detach ourselves from the world we live in, and abrogate our responsibility towards those we bring into the world, yes! we may be ‘free’ of our responsibilities – but we will become slaves to our vanity – even if it is a “true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable” vanity.
“I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit” Eccl 1:14.
Joseph BH McMillan
http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | December 14, 2007
Mr. McMillan,
I'm sorry, I do not follow you. Who said anything about indulging in our own self purification or being freed of our obligations? Who suggested we should detach ourselves from the world or abrogate our responsibilities?
You are refuting points that I did not make.
How can one fix their minds on what is noble when it is not noble to ignore those who we have responsibilities toward? What is admirable about being free from our obligations? What is lovely about vanity?
I simply cannot see how you reached your odd conclusions based on my post.
Comment by Mountain Man | December 14, 2007
Mountain Man, if I have misread your post, please accept my apologies.
The way I read it, clearly incorrectly, is that you were arguing that we could maintain our ‘liberty’ even if subjected to oppressive laws (and, by the way, I don’t see how we could have an illegal law – by definition something that is illegal is not lawful).
You then define ‘liberty’ as something that is “true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable… “ and which therefore makes a person embracing those attributes “free no matter the legal environment that surrounds him.”
And, as I understood from your post, “Liberty is the governance of self (self-control).”
Given that basic position, I then try to figure out how I can exercise “governance of [my]self” while subjected to oppressive laws which disable me from meeting the responsibilities I have towards my family. Let me take an extreme example (purely for illustrative purposes). I am arrested for being Islamophobic because I tell my children that the basis of Islam is essentially “unoriginal and decadent” (Albert Schweitzer’s description, by the way, not mine). I am charged with a “Hate Crime” and convicted. My children are taken into State custody and given up for adoption – me being an unfit parent for having the ‘audacity’ to encourage my children to challenge the ‘state imposed truth’ that Islam is a ‘peaceful and tolerant’ religion.
Now, of course, while spending my time incarcerated, I could work on “governance of [my]self”, no doubt with a little help from the authorities so that I expunge from my mind such hideous attitudes towards the beliefs of others.
In this scenario, it seemed to me that you were suggesting that irrespective of laws (just, wrong, or whatever) I could still be “free” (according to my misreading of your post), “no matter the legal environment that surrounds” me.
So what I read into your position is that I should subject myself and my family to whatever some ‘bozo’ decides I should do or think, as long as I indulge myself in “governance of [my]self”. That, to me, is the epitome of self-indulgence – or vanity, which is the same thing.
My scenario may sound fanciful, but believe me, it is not. The scenario I have outlined is exactly what happens to parents in Germany who homeschool their children – because Germany does not tolerate ‘world views’ contrary to the state declared ‘world view’.
So, yes, I may indulge myself in “self-control” under oppressive laws; I could even attain ‘nirvana’ or ‘salvation’ rotting in prison while others indoctrinate my children, but that is utter vanity. It is an abrogation of my responsibilities in order to indulge my vanity of “self-control”.
Freedom, Mountain Man, is worth fighting for! As the Scots declared in 1320, “It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."
And I applaud my ancestors for their courage; and lack of vanity.
Joseph BH McMillan
http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | December 15, 2007
Mr. McMillan writes: " I don’t see how we could have an illegal law – by definition something that is illegal is not lawful."
Many laws are passed by the myriad of governmental entities across the country. These laws may be constitutional or not i.e. gun and abortion laws. Enforcement of these laws is done selectively by a prosecutor, and punished more selectively by a judge and sometimes a jury. Only when a case is taken to SCOTUS is it determined to be constitutional or not. Those that are declared unconstitutional become illegal laws. From the time these laws are enacted, enforced, and adjudicated they are illegal. With 250,000 laws on the books how many are illegal is a question (One percent = 2,500). But it seems to me that there is no question of the existence of illegal laws.
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | December 15, 2007
In September, 2004, Mr. Duke wrote, “The Reality About Legislating Morality”
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/duke/040914 in which he states, "You have no choice but to legislate morality." This is absolutely true. Every law ever written is the codification of someone’s concept of what is right or wrong.
My first job was as a box-boy in a market in California 50 years ago. On every grocery cart there was a placard inscribed with a note that read something like: “Removing this cart from the premises is a violation of CA State Law 5015.156f.” My thought as a naïve 16-year old was surely there must be a law against stealing in general, so why do they have to have a special law against stealing grocery carts? Judging from length of the law number, apparently we have to specify what constitutes “stealing a grocery cart” other than the all-inclusive “taking something that is not yours.” By now, the paragraph numbers for the laws against stealing must vastly exceed 5015 because there are lots of things worth stealing today that didn’t exist 50 years ago. The same can be said about hacking on the internet. There has been a law against vandalism since time immemorial. Why do we need a special law to cover computer vandalism?
Not long ago, someone noted that we had tens of thousands of laws that, essentially, enforce the Ten Commandments. Which brings me around to what seems to be missing in this article is the role that religion plays in filling in the gaps of our legal system. We can’t possibly write laws to cover every situation, so there must be another all-encompassing moral code that regulates human behavior.
Comment by sedonaman | December 15, 2007
Ivan, I take your point, but I think it is one of semantics.
At one point in time Scotus may declare abortion legal; at another time Scotus may declare it illegal (or unconstitutional). Which of the laws is legal, and which illegal?
Scotus, like government, simply has no point of reference (in terms of principles) in determining whether a law is legal or illegal. Scotus simply makes it up. That is why each of the main parties is so eager to elect Judges to Scotus: then they determine what is a ‘legal’ law, and what is an ‘illegal’ law. It is, as I have said, simply semantics.
But a law, by definition, cannot be illegal. When a law is struck down, it is no longer a law. The person or body promulgating the law may have acted beyond his or their power, and thus illegally, but the law is a law, until of course it is determined otherwise.
And a question: if Scotus does one day declare abortion ‘illegal’ as being an infringement of the unborn child’s right to life, will all those women who have availed themselves of the ‘opportunity’ afforded by the ‘legal’ abortion laws committed murder?
Joseph BH McMillan
http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | December 15, 2007
"We can’t possibly write laws to cover every situation, so there must be another all-encompassing moral code that regulates human behavior." Well said, sedonaman.
That is the reason we have so many laws - we have largely abandoned the moral heritage on which our forefathers depended to establish liberty as a founding principle of this country.
Laws only govern the outer man, and then only when the inner man has already accepted the governance of the Creator. Laws are irrelevant to the lawless. More laws are basically the expanding attempt by society to govern the ungovernable.
And that is the point that Mr. McMillan hasn't yet grasped. Laws are simply the imperfect human manifestation of a supernatural, universal, absolute morality. Liberty must first be accepted from the Creator before it has any meaning in the laws of man.
The failure of man-made laws to embrace liberty is a symptom. The correction of unjust laws does not increase liberty.
Comment by Mountain Man | December 15, 2007
Mountain Man, if there is a “supernatural, universal, absolute morality” then it seems to me that the only place we can find that morality is in the Ten Commandments. And, as Christ said, those Commandments are immutable: “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law” [Matthew 5:18].
Further, so far as such a morality is concerned, according to the Scriptures, the Ten Commandments are the only words God spoke, “and He added no more. And He wrote them in two tables of stone ..” [Deuteronomy 5:22].
And the purpose of the Ten Commandments is to perfect the image God created of Himself on the earth. Man’s duty is thus to perpetuate that image – that is made clear by God’s command to the man and woman He had just created to “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it” [Genesis 1:28].
We perpetuate that image of God by having children, and we perfect that image by teaching our children the Ten Commandments: “And these words which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart. And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children” [Deuteronomy 6:6&7].
“Fear God, and keep His Commandments: for that is the whole duty of man” [Ecclesiastes 12:13]. “Blessed are they that do His Commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city” [Revelation 22:14].
Now, the remarkable thing is that the joining of a man and a woman to bring new life into the world places obligations on the man and the woman in respect of that new life – and those obligations even predate the union which gives rise to that new life. And when we examine those obligations, we discover that they are the source of what we call ‘morality’. And that ‘morality’ is a mirror image of the Ten Commandments.
The Ten Principles of Freedom set out those obligations, and the ‘morality’ that emerges from those obligations. And as I argue in the series of articles on the Ten Principles, these are the only principles that can attract universal consent, and which are rooted in the only discernable purpose of life. Those Principles should thus be the foundation for the promulgation of all laws, and the principles on which courts should determine the validity of any law.
Adoption of the Ten Principles of Freedom would have the effect of preserving our freedom while at the same time being the basis for determining the validity of any law or governmental action.
In addition, they would sweep away the ridiculous distinction between law and morality, and between secular values and religious values – while at the same time not imposing religious values on those who refuse to accept the possibility of a Creator.
So I find it odd that you say that I have not grasped the ‘fact’ that “laws only govern the outer man, and then only when the inner man has already accepted the governance of the Creator.”
It seems to me that we accept the governance of the Creator by doing “His Commandments”, perpetuating His image on earth by joining in a union to bring new life into the world, and perfecting that image of God by diligently teaching our children the Ten Commandments. It is thus the same laws which govern the” inner man”, and the “outer man”.
Of course, if we conceive of accepting the “governance of the Creator” as limited to ‘saving’ ourselves from some eternal damnation, then there may be something in the distinction you draw, but that seems to me contrary to Scripture, and utter vanity. “Not everyone that saith unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but only he that doeth the will of my father which is in heaven” [Matthew 7:21].
And the will of the Father is the perpetuation of the image He created of Himself on the earth, and perfecting that image by “doing His Commandments” and diligently teaching them to our children.
Therefore, if we are to seek to do God’s will on earth, we have a duty to seek to establish human governance in accordance with God’s law – the Ten Commandments. Adopting the Ten Principles of Freedom as the basis for government and a barometer for determining the validity of any laws would at least have the effect of achieving that while making allowance for those who do not believe in God.
Sedonaman, I think what I have said here also addresses your point about an "all-encompassing moral code that regulates human behavior."
Joseph BH McMillan
http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | December 16, 2007
Mr. McMillan
First I’ll agree with you that what is written here is semantics and it’s pointless to get into a “Yes it Is”/”No, it is Not” thing like children do. I see your “Laws must be legal” point, but I still maintain that the main problem with so many laws is, that statistically, some of them are certain to be outside the definition of “Legal”. Just a few days ago I saw a sign on a rest room door that read “Unisex Restroom, Men and Women” and I questioned a colleague with “Should this not read “Or” rather than “And”?” If we are to accept your semantics argument then only a man and a woman must use the restroom simultaneously. Surely not the intension of the sign maker.
Then to your question: if Scotus does one day declare abortion ‘illegal’ as being an infringement of the unborn child’s right to life, will all those women who have availed themselves of the ‘opportunity’ afforded by the ‘legal’ abortion laws committed murder?
Not necessarily! It depends on the Scotus ruling. It could be forgiven or held retroactively to be anything up to genocide, much as the laws allowing the killing of Jews during the holocaust. Then I’m disturbed by your conflating abortion with murder and the idea that the overturning of Roe v Wade would declare abortion equal to murder. It would not! It would only allow the states to make and enforce laws concerning abortion. In fact, I believe there are state laws now and they would become “Legal” if Scotus were to rule Roe v Wade to be invalid.
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | December 16, 2007
For those of you who remember the televised case of Scott Peterson, and his conviction on two counts of murder, his wife's and his unborn child's murder, how could this be? If he could have murdered the unborn child as the courts decided, then it is not a stretch in my opinion for abortion to be equated with murder. Please keep in mind that I am pointing out what I think to be a discrepancy in the law. If it is indeed California law that he could be convicted of the baby's murder, then why could his attorney's not appeal this ruling as invalid law since the unborn baby has no rights in the eye of the law?
Comment by hvance | December 16, 2007
The proliferation of laws is merely a symptom of a much larger problem, and Mountain Man has nailed it: the inability to self-govern according to a higher, immutable set of laws that come from God himself. That is what made this country great at one time, but no more.
Consequently, we must codify every tiny infration, as Sedonaman points out, because we are so fixated on devious ways to break the law that - as my employer likes to say - "we have to ask the perfect question to get an honest answer." We are left to sorry commentaries on the national conscience such as having to define the meaning of "is" or claiming that there is some inherent right to privacy that supercedes a parent's right to know that their 13-year-old is seeking an abortion.
For every new law that is passed, it is merely another stake in the ground memorializing the slow passing of a once-great country that has lost its moral compass. That legislators have remained fully employed for 231 years in this country is a bad thing and it shows absolutely no signs of slowing.
Comment by Steve Sabin | December 16, 2007
Mr Ivanovich, I’m pleased that we can agree the semantics point (I think). Regarding abortion, I was posing a question, one I think applicable to every law which may be struck down. I agree that the effect of a law struck down can depend on the court ruling. My point is that neither government, nor the courts, has any set of principles with which their laws and decisions must comply. As you rightly say, they simply decide what the effect will be.
But when a ‘bad’ law is struck down (even a law once upheld by SCOTUS), and it has had the effect of infringing someone’s liberty, should someone not be held accountable? I appreciate that there are occasions when there will be accountability, but more often than not, there won’t be.
If government and the courts were constrained in what they could do by a set of principles, especially principles agreed to by all the people, then they could be held accountable for the effect of a breach of those principles by passing laws or making decisions which contravene or exceed those principles. And at least we would know the basis on which laws and judicial decisions were required to be made. That is what the Ten Principles are all about.
Further, the effect of the Ten Principles would render these semantics about ‘just laws’, ‘duty to obey the law’, and even ‘illegal laws’, irrelevant. Any law would only be a law if it complied with the Ten Principles. Any laws promulgated which breached those principles would give rise to a legal liability on those officials (executive, legislative, or judicial) for any interference with the freedom of any person. And such officials should be barred from holding any further public office.
We would then be closer to having a concept of ‘justice’ that actually means something more than what a select group of people decide it should mean.
hvance, I agree with what you say, and I think it is again a symptom of the lack of any principles on which such decisions are made.
Joseph BH McMillan
http://www.freedomvrights
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | December 16, 2007
hvance:
Re: Case of Scott Peterson
Perhaps a quote is in order here to help us understand the dual legal nature of the human fetus. Gulliver is stranded on an island ruled by a race of intelligent horses and attempts to explain to the ruler of the horses the legal system in England:
“… there was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving, by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid. To this society all the rest of the people are slaves. For example, if my neighbor hath a mind to my cow, he hires a lawyer to prove that he ought to have my cow from me. I must then hire another to defend my right, it being against all rules of law that any man should be allowed to speak for himself. Now, in this case, I, who am the right owner, lie under two great disadvantages: first, my lawyer, being practiced almost from his cradle in defending falsehood, is quite out of his element when he would be an advocate for justice, which is an office unnatural he always attempts with great awkwardness, if not with ill will. The second disadvantage is that my lawyer, must proceed with great caution, or else he will be reprimanded by the judges, and abhorred by his brethren, as one that would lessen the practice of the law. And therefore I have but two methods to preserve my cow. The first is, to gain over my adversary's lawyer with a double fee, who will then betray his client, by insinuating that he has justice on his side. The second way is, for my lawyer to make my cause appear as unjust as he can, by allowing the cow to belong to my adversary, and this, if it be skillfully done, will certainly bespeak the favor of the Bench.” Jonathan Swift, Gulliver’s Travels, c.1726.
Those who see a striking similarity between what Gulliver described and our law today would agree that we apparently have inherited much of it from English Common Law.
If we approach the legal status of the human fetus (or any child for that matter) under a system in which “by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black and black is white” we can see that the question, “Is a human fetus a human being?” is answered by, “It all depends.” On what, you might ask, after all, something is either human or it is not, it would seem.
Where the rubber meets the road in all the legal mumbo-jumbo from abortion to child custody, the ultimate answer depends on only one real question: does the mother want the fetus/child/whatever? If the mother wants it, it’s human, hence Peterson’s second conviction; if she doesn’t, it’s not, hence the abortionist’s innocence. Simple as that.
The inescapable conclusion that the fetus/child/whatever is the de facto property of the mother is evidenced by her apparently more latitude on what she may do with her fetus/child/whatever than what I have with my real estate which is governed tightly by local ordinances and homeowner association CC&Rs.
Once we recognize that children are the property of the mother, just as slaves were the property of their masters, whether they are/were human beings or not, just depends, and suddenly most questions like yours answer themselves. And that, my friend, is a sad fact of American jurisprudence today.
Comment by sedonaman | December 16, 2007
The legal experience of the ancients up to the middle ages was very different from what we
have today. In the distant past, the LAW was fixed and almost impossible to change, it was the
mores of the people that could be changed easily. Today, we have the opposite situation. The
LAW changes by the day, but the mores of the people are unmovable. Certainly, there are some
factors that affect the mores of the citizens, but essentially people resist changing their behavior.
Perhaps it is for this reason that the LAW is changed frequently, in an attempt to affect the mores
of the public.
Yes, we have many laws, some more outrageous than others. Here in Texas, enforcement of the
LAW is so feeble and weak, I am able to make the argument that there IS NO LAW. Without
enforcement of the LAW, there is NO LAW. I have a fist full of court orders and none of them can
be enforced by anyone…..not even by the court that issued them. My ex-wife has had four
protective orders put on her, for her violence and threats of violence against me and the kids. It
means absolutely nothing. She has moved out of state to escape the jurisdiction of the Texas
courts and took the three kids with her. The court orders ALL state that she and the kids are to
remain in Burnet County. Not only is there no enforcement of these Texas court orders, they are
not worth ten cents in Arkansas.
I have worked in public service for 33 years and the longer I worked in state and local government
the more I saw state law and local ordinance ignored with impunity. Yes, that is what the law says,
and NO, that is not what we are going to do. Maybe it is just Texas, you say? I also worked in
Tennessee, Arkansas, and Oklahoma. It was the same everywhere. No wonder there are tens of
millions of illegal aliens in this country. There is no law.
Comment by DonReynolds | December 20, 2007
DonReynolds:
Re: No law
Texas is not alone when it comes to non-enforcement of the law.
Academia has been, and still is, fighting tooth and nail to overcome a statistical under-representation of minorities in their admissions and faculty. They assume that any under-representation is due to de facto discrimination and refuse to accept any other cause as possible. However, no campus has yet admitted that it ever discriminated against racial minorities. Accordingly, there is an active University of California Committee on Affirmative Action And Diversity to find ways to circumvent the law – ten years after the voters passed Proposition 209 in 1996 to end race-based affirmative action. http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/committees/ucaad/ucaad.12.10.04.minutes.pdf
In addition to that, there is a “UC President’s Task Force on Faculty Diversity” whose job is also to circumvent the law in faculty hiring:
“The enactment of Proposition 209 in 1996 raised many questions about the status of faculty diversity efforts at the University of California. However, the Task Force found that the non-discrimination requirement in Proposition 209 can be understood as supporting the University’s commitment to provide equal opportunity in hiring, compensation and all other employment programs. Where there is under-representation, the University must take steps to address the barriers that prevent full participation of minorities in academic careers. Further, schools and departments in every field can identify the academic values that are enhanced by a diverse teaching and research environment. Strategies to select and advance scholars with the expertise to foster those academic values are essential if UC is to maintain its excellence as a premier public institution.”
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/facultydiversity/executive-summary.pdf
This is exactly what the people voted to eliminate when they passed Prop 209.
More links:
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/facultydiversity/report.html
“In 1996, Californians voted to ban race and gender preferences in government and education. Ten years later, the chancellor of the state-funded University of California at Berkeley, Robert Birgeneau, announced a new Vice Chancellorship for Equity and Inclusion, charged with making Berkeley more ‘inclusive’ and ‘less hostile’ to ‘underrepresented minority . . . groups.’ This move is just the latest expression of the University of California’s unrelenting resistance to the 1996 voter initiative, in every way possible short of patent violation. Stasi apparatchiks disappeared more meekly after the Soviet Empire’s collapse than California’s race commissars have retreated after voters tried to oust their preference regime.”
“Affirmative Action Showdown”
By Heather MacDonald
City Journal | January 30, 2007
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26670
Comment by sedonaman | December 21, 2007
Omaha, NE
http://www.fathersrightsne.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=520
Due to my ex-wife's Adultery / sexual deviancies and the Court's subsequent awarding of the custody of my son to her, I've been fighting for custody for a number of years now.
What has changed, however, is that my fight has moved from being against my ex-wife to being against a "Judge" and has in fact turned into a referendum on the entire legal system.
While there were not only laws supporting my position, there were also State Supreme Court rulings supporting my position, too. Nevertheless, the "judge" completely ignored them.
What good is a law when an official of the government doesn't have to abide by it?
DRS
Comment by drsanto | December 23, 2007
One other thing I wanted to add…
I have spent some time in the Biblical book of Leviticus (the Biblical Book of the Law) and while studying for a custody battle came to read through men’s laws.
Of course, it sounds “common sensical”, but I was struck by how much reading men’s laws reminded me of the book of Leviticus; that the legal code was men’s attempt to delineate right from wrong. Again, I know it sounds like “common sense”, but once I saw “the law” from that perspective, it was much easier to understand.
One other thing about it struck me as funny~ It takes volumes and volumes and volumes and volumes for men to state their laws, but G_d is much more efficient. :-)
DRS
Comment by drsanto | December 23, 2007
Omaha, NE
http://www.fathersrightsne.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=520
In my first post (which didn't seem to take) I asked, what good is a law if everyone is not required to follow it?
In my particular case (see link above), my ex-wife was involved in both adultery and sexual deviancy, but was still awarded custody of my son. This was despite not only a NE law (Neb. Rev. Stat. 42-364 (Supp. 2004)) referencing sexual behavior as a test of parental fitness, but also State Supreme Court rulings as precedent.
So, I ask again a different way~ what good is a law if even the government doesn’t heed it?
DRS
Comment by drsanto | December 23, 2007
Omaha, NE
In my first post (which didn't seem to take) I asked, what good is a law if everyone is not required to follow it?
In my particular case (see link above), my ex-wife was involved in both adultery and sexual deviancy, but was still awarded custody of my son. This was despite not only a NE law (Neb. Rev. Stat. 42-364 (Supp. 2004)) referencing sexual behavior as a test of parental fitness, but also State Supreme Court rulings as precedent.
So, I ask again a different way~ what good is a law if even the government doesn’t heed it?
DRS
http://www.fathersrightsne.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=520
Comment by drsanto | December 23, 2007
http://www.fathersrightsne.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=520
DRS
Comment by drsanto | December 23, 2007
DRS, I couldn’t agree more (your point of man’s laws versus God’s Law).
The fundamental point about God’s Law, however, is that the specific laws set out for example in Leviticus, are the laws derived from the PRINCIPLES which form the basis of the laws. God’s LAW is the Ten Principles set out in the Ten Commandments. “These words the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the mist of the fire and cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: AND HE ADDED NO MORE. And He wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me” [Deuteronomy 5:22].
The great Jewish philosopher Philo explained it this way: “that of His laws God Himself, without having need of anyone else, thought fit to promulgate some by Himself alone [the Ten Commandments], and some He promulgated through the agency of His prophet Moses [such as the laws in Leviticus], whom He selected, by reason of his pre-eminent excellence among men, as the most suitable man to be the interpreter of His will. Now those which He delivered in His own Person by Himself alone, are both laws in general, and also the heads of particular laws; and those which He promulgated by the agency of His prophet are all referred to as those others.” [Decalogue Para V]
So, for example, the ‘sexual’ laws in Leviticus Chapter 18 and Deuteronomy Chapter 22 flow from the Seventh Commandment. That Commandment sets out the general principle from which Moses interpreted the will of God as revealed in the Commandment.
But the specific laws promulgated by Moses were not themselves ‘set in stone’. They reflected the times. Therefore, things like the punishments for breach of specific laws were much harsher than we would consider appropriate today. Further, many of the specific laws had to accommodate the circumstances when Moses formulated them in accordance with the Ten Commandments.
It is also worthy to note that no specific punishments are set out in the Ten Commandments.
The beauty of the Ten Commandments is thus that they would remain constant (set in stone) while the laws derived from them could ‘evolve’ with changing circumstances.
That is why we find Christ saying this: “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, commiteth adultery.” [Mathew 19:8 & 9]
Christ was not suggesting that the seventh Commandment be changed, but only a specific law which Moses had promulgated pursuant to that Commandment. Christ specifically said this about the Law, the Ten Commandments: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” [Mathew 5:17-18]
Likewise, when the adulteress was brought before Christ, although he did not condemn her to a stoning, he did say “go, and sin no more” [John 8:11]. Christ was not suggesting that the Law did not apply, only that the punishment for the sin was too harsh. He also took the opportunity to suggest that those quick to condemn consider their own behavior.
The reason that we have such an abundance of laws today is that we have abandoned (or perhaps never instituted) this model of law making. We simply have no PRINCIPLES which inform the laws made by our lawmakers. They simply make it up as they go along, as do the courts. That leads to uncertainty and inconsistency which in turn engenders a contempt for the law, the lawmakers, and the judiciary.
That is why I argue so strongly for the Ten Principles of Freedom. They would provide a clear and unambiguous basis for the promulgation and application of law, and the limits of government. They would be Principles that everyone agrees to so the enforcement of laws made pursuant to those Principles could be regarded as ‘just’ – because each and every one of us would only be compelled to submit to what we had agreed to. Lawmakers and judges would then be what they should be – servants of the people, rather than the other way round.
I’d be very interested to hear your views on the Ten Principles if you have the time to consider them.
Joseph BH McMillan
http://www.freedomvrights
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | December 24, 2007