“The best laws cannot make a constitution work in spite of morals; morals can turn the worst laws to advantage. That is a commonplace truth, but one to which my studies are always bringing me back. It is the central point in my conception. I see it at the end of all my reflections.”
Good insight from a master. Add to it the very striking feature of say U.S. law vs. that of EU, NZ and say Aus. The U.S. legal system is rules based. Rules can be gamed and made to take twists and turns. In fact gaming and winning by clever use of the “rules” is a time honored tradition in the U.S. In europe a principles based regime is dominant. Very important distinction. The rules based regime of the U.S. explains the well known statistic that 70% of the worlds lawyers are present in a country with 6% of the population. If you reflect upon this–it explains a lot in terms of what is going on and of course the attendant habits of mind of the elite in the U.S. which is well staffed with lawyers…….Its about gaming and thus following the rules not principles be they ethical, moral traditional etc…..
Very good that..
I was trying to get at that earlier, when I talked about literalism and fundamentalism.
In the US it seems that as long as you are within a technical limit of something, noone cares if what you’re doing is completely against the spirit or general principle of the rule.
Of course, at least, people are at least concerned about being within the technical limits..
In many other countries, even that doesn’t count.
But in some ways, breaking the rules seems a more honest infraction than subverting them in spirit..
I make the point in LOE about the law being the wrong place to try to change things because the laws have become a kind of fun house mirror, reflecting back to us our own perfect legality…. and yet terribly distorted, to any clear sighted perception.
Yes, but the rules do take on a sense of narrative fallacy do they not? Plus legalisms excuse all manner of things. Indeed some countries have no rules or technical limits but we should not use that as rationale for such sub optimal outcomes. Its one thing for things to be very tawdry at 1000 or 2000 per year in family income and all manner of vissicitudes (we have both been to such places) but for a rich presumably educated country that extols virtues and makes claims of excellence one has to aspire to more and thus judge more harshly–what is within the ability of many developed and or rich countries should well be within the grasp of the U.S.–or perhaps not. Somehow I suspect that rule by scientists, engineers, businesswomen, teaches, cab drivers would be superior to that of lawyers. Of course I may be romanticing the common man and indeed corruption and the search for advantage and priviledge is endemic to most humans. A tough one my friend..
The narrative fallacy…
That’s what the courtroom is built on..
you have two narrators, an audience, and then the common man romanticized (the jury)…
But perhaps because he is part of a “wise crowd” rather than a mob, he is NOT romanticized…
But who is the hero of the narrative?
Is he THE LAW?
Or THE COMMON MAN?
Who is the narrator?
Is it THE PROSECUTOR?
Or THE DEFENSE?
OR THE JUDGE?
THE LAW, THE STATE?
Several dissertations there, i think