(no subject)
An interesting rumination.
I've been thinking a lot lately about the nature of law, at its most minute point. At its very base, I feel that a law is something which expands or contracts freedoms or abilities. For example, you can pass a law against murder, or a law allowing gay marriage. This carries the subtle implication defining what a freedom or ability is. If you have an expansion or contraction, it implies an action from a point to a point. Therefore, if you pass a law against murder, outlawing murder is a final point, and there must be a beginning point. We could easily confuse this with the opposite polarity, which is that there needs to be a law allowing murder. Rather, I feel like there is a societal presumption of how things ought to be, and the law is put in place to help cushion the disparity between what might happen versus what we think should happen.
There is also the balancing effect where passing a law in one place may cause an implication that another place which does not have the law is somehow lacking the effect the law has. If I pass a law banning handguns in one city, it may cast the impression that handguns in another city are legal, and therefore if you are in the other city you are more likely to be shot. The underlying notion here is that when you pass a law, you are not only changing something, but you are putting that concept into the mind of those are are paying attention, and thus they may think about that concept when they otherwise wouldn't.
Another element that comes into play here is personal bias. If someone who is a lawmaker has a vested interest in something, they may support a law enabling their viewpoint on that notion. They may also likely juggle their support based on both what they think their fellow lawmakers will support, and what they think the general public will support. If a lawmaker is in power, they usually have two options: support policies which they personally like, and support policies which they feel will cast them well in the public eye. In some situations, both options apply to a decision. In many situations, the lawmaker must choose between their own instincts and what will keep them in office.
When most people vote, they either vote for politicians who serve their party line, or politicians whose name they recognize. People also usually vote on their biases, considering what they want to have governing their own lives. When you bring a group of people together, inevitably personal interests and biases will clash, and often a "societal" standard is composed of what a person thinks other people want them to think, rather than what they themselves actually think. To me, this ultimately means that a general societal presumption is a mirror of the actual desires, at best. In theory, we can use laws to balance this out, to use laws to close the gap between what we want and what we think other people want us to want.
Will probably brainstorm this more in a while.
I've been thinking a lot lately about the nature of law, at its most minute point. At its very base, I feel that a law is something which expands or contracts freedoms or abilities. For example, you can pass a law against murder, or a law allowing gay marriage. This carries the subtle implication defining what a freedom or ability is. If you have an expansion or contraction, it implies an action from a point to a point. Therefore, if you pass a law against murder, outlawing murder is a final point, and there must be a beginning point. We could easily confuse this with the opposite polarity, which is that there needs to be a law allowing murder. Rather, I feel like there is a societal presumption of how things ought to be, and the law is put in place to help cushion the disparity between what might happen versus what we think should happen.
There is also the balancing effect where passing a law in one place may cause an implication that another place which does not have the law is somehow lacking the effect the law has. If I pass a law banning handguns in one city, it may cast the impression that handguns in another city are legal, and therefore if you are in the other city you are more likely to be shot. The underlying notion here is that when you pass a law, you are not only changing something, but you are putting that concept into the mind of those are are paying attention, and thus they may think about that concept when they otherwise wouldn't.
Another element that comes into play here is personal bias. If someone who is a lawmaker has a vested interest in something, they may support a law enabling their viewpoint on that notion. They may also likely juggle their support based on both what they think their fellow lawmakers will support, and what they think the general public will support. If a lawmaker is in power, they usually have two options: support policies which they personally like, and support policies which they feel will cast them well in the public eye. In some situations, both options apply to a decision. In many situations, the lawmaker must choose between their own instincts and what will keep them in office.
When most people vote, they either vote for politicians who serve their party line, or politicians whose name they recognize. People also usually vote on their biases, considering what they want to have governing their own lives. When you bring a group of people together, inevitably personal interests and biases will clash, and often a "societal" standard is composed of what a person thinks other people want them to think, rather than what they themselves actually think. To me, this ultimately means that a general societal presumption is a mirror of the actual desires, at best. In theory, we can use laws to balance this out, to use laws to close the gap between what we want and what we think other people want us to want.
Will probably brainstorm this more in a while.