From this
I have not learned anything “in law”. As you said, what is called law now, which is usually statutory law, is contradictory, without jurisdiction, and based almost exclusively on violence.
We need to get to basics with this.
What is law? What is justice? Until we can define those two things, its impossible to speak intelligently about whether legal systems work or can be optimized.
Ah, thorny. Perhaps we could consider the law as those social rules aimed at preserving a human society from anti-social elements?
As for justice, that is too subjective to furnish a decent definition, at least for me.
Anglo-Saxon justice originally centered around restitution(hence the concept of wergeld), which only changed because the kings of England started taking the reparations as a source of revenue(thus leading to state prosecutors, thus to completely defeating the original point). I’d say it’s a far better definition than our current system uses.
The law is the process of creating, enforcing, and adjudicating rules operative against every individual.
Justice is a situation where all interests of all relevant parties are reconciled.
Are these bad definitions and should they be more specific? I invite everyone’s criticism.
One is bad, the other I think is quite good.
This one I quite like. Justice is restorative.
This one is very problematic. First of all, there is no “the law”. Every territorial monopoly has a “the law”, there is no universal law for all people, everywhere.
Second, where does the authority come from to create, and jurisdiction to enforce and adjudicate?
This one is very problematic. First of all, there is no “the law”. Every territorial monopoly has a “the law”, there is no universal law for all people, everywhere.
Second, where does the authority come from to create, and jurisdiction to enforce and adjudicate?
I don’t think that’s the point tho. I think Prateek was describing laws as they currently exist, not where they come from. I think “the way we decide upon the rules” is ambiguous enough to not make a value judgement on it.
Please don’t take this thread off track. Prateek and I both understand what the discourse is about.
Its possible you are being too hard on Prateek here. If prateek had written
‘Law’ is the process of creating, enforcing, and adjudicating rules operative against every individual as in a MachineryOfFreedom type market-anarchy, would that have passed muster?
If so, the question of authority is answered because it is merely the liberty of those individuals involved in the process. (I.e. they either do not require authoritym or it is explicitly granted by whom it concerns)
I only asked Prateek where the authority and jurisdiction came from.
Obviously not.
Handwaving Nir.
Please, its not obvious why not , so give me a clue. Maybe I’ll feel an idiot when you point it out, but I am willing to accept the danger 
Saying that voluntarism handwaves the question of authority is maybe to miss the point, the point that authority to do what is a liberty is automatic (and not derived from will of the people or a constitution or some such).
How can you create rules and laws against individuals in a market anarchy? Hint, where does the word rule come from? Are all rules laws, and all laws rules? If not, what is the difference?
If you and I enter into a business contract, we might both agree on an arbitration organisation to which we would go in case of dispute. The arbitration agency might stipulate behaviour necessary for us to adhere to in order to not cause it to rule against us. for example.
I am comfortable with assuming that whilst Law can have an aggregated sense (the sum of many rulings considered overall) which Rule does not, it can also behave in the singular much as the word rule can. Is that controversial, will it cause big problems?
What does that have to do with Law?
I cannot understand this. Can you rephrase it in a clearer manner?
Are all rules laws? If not, why?
In the interest of trying to move this along Nir, you are into natural rights, correct? If you are, then natural rights are derived from natural law. Still good?
Are the rules you and I make for ourselves, the same as natural law? Can you and I create natural laws? In the absence of a contract, consent, can we create laws comparable to natural law which others must adhere to or be found in violation and subject to some penalty or censure?
It would have to do with Law if Prateeks definition of Law was adhered to.
ok.
They are the same in that they are rules, but they are not the same in other respects, like whether they were agreed to by consenting parties.
No, you and I cannot create natural laws
If censure can include ‘shunning’ and other modes of legitimate interactions then you and I can surely apply ‘rules’/laws against third parties who have not consented to our laws. There is no problem with this, since we do not controvene natural law in so doing. We remain within our liberty.
I’ve already challenged Prateek’s definition. It would be better if you responded to my challenge.
So the answer is, “they are not the same”. That’s good. I think it is important to distinguish between rules and laws. We can create rules, we cannot create laws.
Some argue that the word law means order. I do not know whether there is lexical semantics involved in this argument, i.e. that law is a synonym for order. If it was so, then I could use both of them interchangeably in a sentence, because their meaning is supposed to be identical or very close. Actually, these two words do not have the same lexical definition, but the etymology of law is “something established, set up”. Well, I think it is not confusing if I say that order means “something that is arranged in a concrete way”, and that law means “something that arranges in a concrete way”. Thus, law is the thing that does the provision and order is the concrete arrangement brought into being afeter provision takes place. To put it in other words - a law prescribes the way in which a thing to be directed and order is the description of the direction of a thing that results from a precursory act of directing.
I think it is reasonable that when talking about law you make a distinction between natural law and so-called artificial law. Natural law refers to natural persons. Such persons are the existing in the reality human individuals. This law is natural, because it is what the human nature predicates the condition in which human persons to live ought to be. This is the only just condition. If it is disrupted then there is harm, pain and death that occurs because someone has violated the natural state of order between humans. This natural state is a state where a person’s body and other property are free from violent interference executed by another person.
Artificial law is the one that refers to artificial persons. Such persons, for example, are a president, a prime minister , a citizen and etc. There does not exist in the reality a citizen, there exists a natural person who currently occupies the post called “citizen”. There exists a division of artificial persons. The different types have got different status, according to which different artificial law applies. So, there does not exist one uniform artificial law.
vaduka, thank you for an excellent post. You are one of only a handful of people who distinguish between human beings and persons.