humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Mar 17, 10:41 am, Gordon Sollars wrote:
> In article > @u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, ilou...@hotmail.com says...
>
> > On Mar 16, 7:26 pm, Gordon Sollars wrote:
>
> > > I find it amusing that you and Charles Bell have the same legal
> > > philosophy.
>
> > "the same" is a bit of a stretch :)
>
> > It seems sensible to suggest that were the law defined by something
> > other than force then people could disregard or interpret it as they
> > wished.
>
> As I said, the same a Charles. You are both legal positivists - to
> you, the sovereign power is legislatively omnipotent.

It depends by what you mean by legal positivism. As far as I
understand the concept legal positivists believe there is a lack of
connection between the law and morals..... which I in fact strongly
disagree with. I think there is a clear connection between laws and
morals but we are imperfect beings that make mistakes.... so at times
there is indeed a disconnect between the law and morals. Sometimes
laws are plain dumb.

> I conjecture that
> you share an authoritarian epistemology with him as well - but that in
> itself is no distinction in this group. ;-)

You are probably far more authoritarian than I am. I would rather die
than consciously kill someone and would be quite reluctant to use
force against someone. My ideal system of government is one where the
minimum application of force is used. I am not caught up in politics
of the day of whether that government take the form of capitalism or
egalitarian forms. It's not really that important an issue compared to
humanity's survival in the nuclear would.

> > Lawmakers aren't saying "pretty please do this for me"
> > though... they are saying "do it...or else". In this case there was no
> > "or else" meaning the law wasn't implemented.... thus is has
> > effectively been discarded or edited.
>
> It has been neither discarded nor edited, but it might have been broken.
> International law often presents a problem of comprehension to legal
> positivists. "Where is the Authority?!", they cry.
>

One one side you are saying he didn't follow the law (aka he broke the
law) or the other you are saying there is no new law. If he broke the
law then why isn't he in jail?