Jim Hlavac
| Politics Home The Practicalist The Socialist Era Politics Re-Explained Fundamentals Domestic Affairs Economic Theory Foreign Affairs Libertarian Ideas Political Theory Philosophy Royalty & Theology |
Domestic Affairs
| Domestic Affairs |
The differences in the legal systems between the English speaking countries and the
rest of the world are little known to most people. After all, the law is the law, most
people would say. However, there is a fundamental difference. It is no accident that
English Speaking countries enjoy more freedom and wealth than the rest of the world:
because the legal system has a direct bearing on the ability of freedom and wealth to
occur.
It would stand to reason, that however uninvestigated the topic is the two legal
systems have dramatic and fundamental influences on the cultures in which they are
found.
The difference actually comes right back to the divine right concept. The Civil Law
is created by the legislature, by the government, and then everything either fits or
doesn't fit what the law says. By its nature the Civil Law inhibits freedom and wealth
because while it lays down prescriptive measures, and defines things limitedly, no one
can know the full reality a people face in their daily lives. Yes, the Civil law works,
much as feudal dukedoms worked. But that doesn't deny the essential limiting factor
that the legislature can not conceivably cover every single aspect of the world and
thus somehow something is not going to fit. And the Civil Law presumes that all things
not mentioned either don't exist, or are prohibited because they are not permitted.
Questioning the Civil Law is virtually impossible because it claims to simply be the
sum total of legal knowledge and thought. The fact that contortions of logic and
language must be used to get around what the law really "says" is just a part of the
ultimate limitations, even absurdity of it.
The origins of the Civil Law is imperial Rome, which is clearly the state deciding
what is the law. And then the next major renovation of the code was by Justinian, a
Byzantine emperor, shortly after 600 AD -- again the state leading the way in crafting
the law, with obviously its own interests at the center of it. Then the next major
revision, and the one that most modern codes are based on is the Code Napoleon.
Made by another emperor. So three Empires had a hand in crafting the Civil Code. It
can not conceivably have the rights of man within it. It only contains the parameters of
obedience to the state and the empire. Any rights now included in Civil Codes stem
from the Common Law. The famed French Rights of Man, the United Nations' Rights
of Man -- come directly from the Declaration of Independence -- which is based
squarely in the Common Law.
The common law on the other hand stems from the daily actions of millions of
people. There is no defining statements about it. Or within it. The law is a constant
state of flux. It doesn't make a difference what the law says, if a person can argue
coherently to a judge that the law is really such and this, and not that and so, then a
judge can rule, and the further delineation of the law is decided.
The first manifestation that is identifiable historically is the Magna Carta, which laid
out the rights of lesser royalty against the King John of England. Why is there no John
the Second of England? No King would dare name his son after the king who gave
away the absolute power.
The common law stems from the mists of time, and indeed, is "natural," in the
sense that any group of people without a legal system codified use a "common law"
that is simply the way elders of a tribe listen to a dispute and solve the problem based
on basic societal norms as compared to the situation at hand.
rest of the world are little known to most people. After all, the law is the law, most
people would say. However, there is a fundamental difference. It is no accident that
English Speaking countries enjoy more freedom and wealth than the rest of the world:
because the legal system has a direct bearing on the ability of freedom and wealth to
occur.
It would stand to reason, that however uninvestigated the topic is the two legal
systems have dramatic and fundamental influences on the cultures in which they are
found.
The difference actually comes right back to the divine right concept. The Civil Law
is created by the legislature, by the government, and then everything either fits or
doesn't fit what the law says. By its nature the Civil Law inhibits freedom and wealth
because while it lays down prescriptive measures, and defines things limitedly, no one
can know the full reality a people face in their daily lives. Yes, the Civil law works,
much as feudal dukedoms worked. But that doesn't deny the essential limiting factor
that the legislature can not conceivably cover every single aspect of the world and
thus somehow something is not going to fit. And the Civil Law presumes that all things
not mentioned either don't exist, or are prohibited because they are not permitted.
Questioning the Civil Law is virtually impossible because it claims to simply be the
sum total of legal knowledge and thought. The fact that contortions of logic and
language must be used to get around what the law really "says" is just a part of the
ultimate limitations, even absurdity of it.
The origins of the Civil Law is imperial Rome, which is clearly the state deciding
what is the law. And then the next major renovation of the code was by Justinian, a
Byzantine emperor, shortly after 600 AD -- again the state leading the way in crafting
the law, with obviously its own interests at the center of it. Then the next major
revision, and the one that most modern codes are based on is the Code Napoleon.
Made by another emperor. So three Empires had a hand in crafting the Civil Code. It
can not conceivably have the rights of man within it. It only contains the parameters of
obedience to the state and the empire. Any rights now included in Civil Codes stem
from the Common Law. The famed French Rights of Man, the United Nations' Rights
of Man -- come directly from the Declaration of Independence -- which is based
squarely in the Common Law.
The common law on the other hand stems from the daily actions of millions of
people. There is no defining statements about it. Or within it. The law is a constant
state of flux. It doesn't make a difference what the law says, if a person can argue
coherently to a judge that the law is really such and this, and not that and so, then a
judge can rule, and the further delineation of the law is decided.
The first manifestation that is identifiable historically is the Magna Carta, which laid
out the rights of lesser royalty against the King John of England. Why is there no John
the Second of England? No King would dare name his son after the king who gave
away the absolute power.
The common law stems from the mists of time, and indeed, is "natural," in the
sense that any group of people without a legal system codified use a "common law"
that is simply the way elders of a tribe listen to a dispute and solve the problem based
on basic societal norms as compared to the situation at hand.