This is prompted by the latest developments at ICAC regarding the activities of some ALP politicians. The point that I want to make is to avoid thinking that every single thing that we don’t like can be stopped by the laws of the land. A robust moral framework is required as the first line of defence to make certain kinds of actions practically unthinkable by decent people.
Legal positivism is the idea that “positive”, that is proper laws, are made by the state in the same way that “proper” money is made by the state as well. The alternative Scottish/Austrian theory of laws, and all other social institutions including money, is that they evolve as unintended consequences of the actions of countless people in the catallaxy, the extended order of people going about their daily business of work and play. Or play and more play if you are an academic.
One of the disastrous consequences of legal positivism is the spoken or unspoken assumption that if it is not illegal then it is ok.
All kinds of things are not OK but beyond policing the use of force and fraud, beware of state intervention and regulation! Especially to achieve what are regarded as desirable economic or moral outcomes.
You mean like … I don’t know… making false representations to a State Corporate Affairs Commissioner to register an incorporated association to facilitate a fraud?
H B Bear
18 Mar 13 at 3:43 pm
Nearly as bad is the assumption that if something is illegal it is wrong..
DriftForge
18 Mar 13 at 3:46 pm
Quite so…all leading to lines like: “I did nothing wrong” (repeat ad nauseum)
Fred C Dobbs
18 Mar 13 at 4:22 pm
The ideas from Locke and Mill etc, came from a society that based its morals on the Christian Ten Commandments.
Jettison that base of morality, and it then becomes necessary to pro and prescribe human behaviour by regulation, as is the case in all the collectivist societies.
Louis Hissink
18 Mar 13 at 4:24 pm
At bottom, our democratic institutions make the underlying assumption that the participants will “do the right thing”.
The left, by scrapping that mode of behaviour, think that they have garnered a match-winning advantage. They need only prove it is “legal”, not that it is “right”.
The only remaining question is… are they correct?
mct
18 Mar 13 at 4:24 pm
Our laws rest still largely upon an assumption that the Judeo-Christian moral /ethical framework predominates in society, and will repress unacceptable forms of behaviour that might not be illegal per se. The problem is that it is simply no longer true. We have many people in Australia with different religious and cultural backgrounds and they often see things rather differently. The problem is only going to increase with the declining participation and influence of the religion in society generally, particularly the christian religion, and the further import of people from different and quite diverse cultural / religious backgrounds. Frankly I think is one of the reasons for the rise of nanny-statism; the government has to ban certain things that previously people simply would not have done.
Brett
18 Mar 13 at 4:30 pm
Is there a weighting involved in the framework?
Nobody would believe turning left on a red light at 4am in the morning when there are no other cars on the road is the same as making false representations to a State Corporate Affairs Commissioner to register an incorporated association to facilitate a fraud
Token
18 Mar 13 at 4:38 pm
In NSW the Trade Union Party is mobilising the rent-a-crowd to stop law abiding shooters shooting feral animals in National Parks, giving the illegal shooters free reign to stock the same parks with piglets they can come back and shoot later.
But of course it’s not for the ‘vironment’, it’s to reelect the same bozos currently fronting ICAC.
Forester
18 Mar 13 at 4:41 pm
In much simpler terms: you cannot legislate morality into existence.
John Mc
18 Mar 13 at 5:08 pm
While this is a natural consequence of a multicultural society, the profit-at-all-costs brigade also have a lot to answer for in their abandonment of moral concerns.
desipis
18 Mar 13 at 5:34 pm
I’ll take legal positivism over the Stalinist approach of that which is not expressly permitted is forbidden any day.
Whilst our modern concept of rule of law has its genus in religous mores, I am not persuaded that religiosity of itself tempers inappropriate behaviour. I know my fair share of devout Christians who are also sociopaths.
How about the simple test of what will be the conseqeunces for others of my actions and inactions? Perhaps better known as the golden rule. It’s easy to remember and it works.
Empire Strikes Back
18 Mar 13 at 5:42 pm
What do you mean desi, by the profit at all costs brigade? Do you mean small govt libertarianish people, or rapacious money-junkies who are quick to seek the govt teat if that is the best way to get or keep a dollar? People like Friedman and Hayek can’t be accused of lacking morals. And is the socialist and social democrat side of things all pure and fresh?
I suspect this story is not supporting your case
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/sep/08/charitable-giving-country
Pedro
18 Mar 13 at 5:50 pm
@Brett 18 Mar 13 at 4:30 pm
Cute response!
Last time I checked Judeo-Christian beliefs still underpin the law of Australia.
And every single person in this country knows or has an immigrant relation.
Not even Tony Abbott can change the Australian Constitution without destroying the Australian Democratic experiment!
NoFixedAddress
18 Mar 13 at 6:37 pm
The Greens are calling for euthanasia laws. Victoria has allowed late term abortion laws. I think Brett is right, we are already in the quagmire where human life is a disposable commodity.
Gab
18 Mar 13 at 6:44 pm
@Gab,
Not disputing those ‘laws’ are on the books.
Nor the rest of the draconian legal positivism laws.
But as far as I know they can be taken off, call it negative positivism if you will.
NoFixedAddress
18 Mar 13 at 6:58 pm
Australian Negative Positivism.
NoFixedAddress
18 Mar 13 at 7:00 pm
And also as bad – if something is legal then it is right.
Ellen of Tasmania
18 Mar 13 at 7:15 pm
“the profit-at-all-costs brigade also have a lot to answer for in their abandonment of moral concerns.”
Who are you talking about? People who try to exploit their customers in a free market will soon go broke unless they are propped up by corporate welfare or state protection of some kind.
Poor Old Rafe
18 Mar 13 at 7:22 pm
If I were to broaden the point, it would cover anyone who claims what they do is acceptable just because they can convince others to behave (vote/buy/ignore/etc) in a way that enables their actions.
desipis
18 Mar 13 at 7:31 pm
I’m sure heroin dealers are shaking in the boots at the thought of market forces.
desipis
18 Mar 13 at 7:33 pm
This has to be one of the most stupid comments I’ve seen on this site. The Christians adopted the ten commandments that originated thousands of years before Christ. I’m amazed at such ignorance, but I guess I shouldn’t be, coming from the stable that nurtures Joe Cambria.
hammygar
18 Mar 13 at 8:01 pm
Tell me of once place in the world where they operate in a true market economy?
NoFixedAddress
18 Mar 13 at 8:03 pm
Gee Rafe I totally disagree with you for once. Legal Positivism IS the gradual expression of common sense through the codification of the law.
Using the expression “decent people” is a completely circular argument. Whichever laws have evolved to ban stuff that people thought of and found unthinkable are the only laws we ought to have, and by definition the people who they satisfy are the “decent” ones.
It is manifestly the surest protection for human will, ingenuity and progress to create a legal environment in which anyone can attempt to do anything, as long as everyone else thinks it’s OK.
The reverse is the totalitarian, age-old human conceit that mere mortals in the here and now are somehow qualified to say in advance what society should look like and so what should or shouldn’t be allowed.
I think you need to go back to the books a bit.
Ooh Honey Honey
18 Mar 13 at 8:08 pm
its that Catholic Pope that did it!
NoFixedAddress
18 Mar 13 at 8:10 pm
Just so we know what legal positivism is:
Given this, need to hit the books yourself, OHH.
dover_beach
18 Mar 13 at 8:16 pm
Correction: you need…
dover_beach
18 Mar 13 at 8:17 pm
Oh yea, tell us, Desi. Like what?
JC
18 Mar 13 at 8:18 pm
I’m sure heroin dealers are shaking in the boots at the thought of market forces.
You bet they are. Just like bootleggers in the US all went broke and disappeared at the end of Prohibition, and the ‘exploiters’ i.e the Al Capone extortionists disappeared as quickly as they arrived.
John Mc
18 Mar 13 at 8:20 pm
Kero Boy:
If people don’t want their names mentioned on this blog, the moderator will oblige and see that sort of spineless leftwing spite is stopped in it’s tracks
Failure to observe that rule will get you banned and see your offending comments deleted. I promise that will happen.
As for the most stupid/amusing comment on a blog… Yours would be by far seeing it was voted as such in 2012.
That’s the one where you suggested you wanted to kill yourself in observance to social justice.
Let’s have a looksee, shall we? This one.
This one was voted as pretty close to being the most stupid until you trumped yourself with the self-emulation “scare”. Seek medical help and get yourself of heavy duty drugs.
It’s obvious Kero is a hard science graduate.
(one last thing Kero, I promise you’ll be taken in a stretcher and straight to a mental ward if you stay around)
I know you’re totally fucking in the head Hammygar. So you also being a stalker doesn’t surprise one little bit. You creep.
JC
18 Mar 13 at 8:34 pm
Hammy,
Did you bring your own straw with you or did you steal it from someone here, in order to create your strawman aargument?
Louis Hissink
18 Mar 13 at 8:40 pm
He’s just trying to get back at me as a result of leftie spite. They are all so spiteful.
JC
18 Mar 13 at 8:49 pm
Hammy – none of that. please refer to JC as “JC”.
Sinclair Davidson
18 Mar 13 at 9:04 pm
He’s not already posting from one?
Squawkbox
18 Mar 13 at 9:12 pm
Oh what rubbish. Everyone knows that JC is Joe Cambria. Just like most people can identify Homer whatever nom he knows. I’m Gareth Hamilton, so I’m not using a nom.
hammygar
18 Mar 13 at 9:25 pm
hammy it is not for you to divulge another’s name.
You have been warned.
Gab
18 Mar 13 at 9:27 pm
I note that Cambria is a practicing Catholic. Everyone knows what that means these days. He thinks he’s the embodiment Of Jesus Christ, which is why he uses his initials.
He threatened me with physical violence in a thread a day or two ago. I suppose that’s OK with you, eh, Sinc?
hammygar
18 Mar 13 at 9:30 pm
hammy – let it go.
Sinclair Davidson
18 Mar 13 at 9:30 pm
Gareth
If you won’t play by the rules, you’ll get banned, which would cost the rest of us a lot of LOLs. Play nice, your posts are hilarious and I wouldn’t miss them for quids.
Cato the Elder
18 Mar 13 at 9:30 pm
What does that mean these days, Gareth, Do tell.
Gab
18 Mar 13 at 9:33 pm
Keep it going Kero Boy.
You’re fucked in the head Kero. You go around publicly stating you are thinking of taking your own life and you stalk people around the web after being told to fuck off because of the gibberish you babble. And you do talk gibberish.
frankly I couldn’t give a rats what your name is as I don;t care one bit.
JC
18 Mar 13 at 9:33 pm
Sinclair you permit that arsehole to go on the with the foulest abuse of me and other commenters on this blog who are not of his fascistic views. What has he got on you?
You’re making up rules as you go along just to suit that pig.
hammygar
18 Mar 13 at 9:34 pm
Liar. I invited to you say some of those things to my face if you wanted to. And like a typical coward you call that a threat.
JC
18 Mar 13 at 9:35 pm
Kero
There’s only one filthy disgusting pig around here and that’s you, you stalker.
Go one flip out. You all do in the end demanding fairness… Your version. Just piss off as no one wants to read your abysmal crap. You’ve been told often enough, you disgusting piece of shit.
JC
18 Mar 13 at 9:38 pm
Back on thread, legal positivism is NOT the problem. It simply says that the two systems are separate. Something is not moral simply because the law requires it, at the same time something is not immoral simply because the law prohibits it. Imagine if the Conboy’s medja laws get up — those laws will in my view be immoral; and breaking those laws not immoral.
The real problem comes from thinking that the 2 separate systems are co-extensive, so that if it’s not illegal it must be morally OK. Lying is not illegal in most circumstances but is orally questionable anyway.
Cato the Elder
18 Mar 13 at 9:39 pm
You know, I’m no such thing, but lets assume I am what does it mean, Keroboy? What exactly?
JC
18 Mar 13 at 9:39 pm
Orally –> Morally.
Whoops
Cato the Elder
18 Mar 13 at 9:41 pm
Hammy – how hard can it be?
You get a lot of slack because you are one of the finest trolls we’ve ever had. Don’t spoil it now.
Sinclair Davidson
18 Mar 13 at 9:44 pm
It simply says that the two systems are separate. Something is not moral simply because the law requires it, at the same time something is not immoral simply because the law prohibits it.
But good, effective law that benefits good people is always underwritten by a moral code.
Good law is three things:
1. founded in a rational, effective, consistent moral code;
2. functional; and
3. enforceable
If that’s not the case it’s bad law that should be repealed.
John Mc
18 Mar 13 at 9:44 pm
Sinclair
If you choose, take a look uptread. I hadn’t made a comment on this thread until Kero boy decided to stalk me and mention what he thinks is my name.
He derailed the thread for no the reason than leftie betaboy spite- spite towards me.
He’s mentally disturbed and needs medical help.
Kero boy wrote this. He shouldn’t be here. He should be in a mental ward as he seems to be flipping out.
JC
18 Mar 13 at 9:46 pm
THR was one of the more genuine, intelligent and ‘honest but wrong’ trolls ever on the Cat.
John Mc
18 Mar 13 at 9:46 pm
“As a practising Catholic I sincerely believe in redemption.”
Source: BrookesNews Monday 5 November 2005.
Changed your mind about that have you?
hammygar
18 Mar 13 at 9:46 pm
Come on Hammygar – so someone is threatening to punch your lights out here in blogland?
You know it wont hurt a bit so get over it and dont bother Sinc.
Aliice
18 Mar 13 at 9:48 pm
Yup.
In fact, separating the two systems allows us to say “this law is immoral and should be repealed”
Unlike say oh, Sharia law, where the suggestion that a law might be immoral is nonsensical
Cato the Elder
18 Mar 13 at 9:48 pm
Wow. Hammy really is stalking JC. That’s creepy.
Gab
18 Mar 13 at 9:48 pm
The arsehole keeps referring to me on Kero Boy. He has no more right to do that that my referring to him as his real name, which he knows I’m correct on.
You’re just playing favourites Sinclair because his fascist political views coincide with yours.
If you’re consistent, make him refer to me as hammygar or Gareth.
hammygar
18 Mar 13 at 9:50 pm
Well played, Hammy.
Steve of Ferny Hills
18 Mar 13 at 9:51 pm
That’s supposed to be a gotcha, is it, Kero Boy?
I’m guessing that in your current state of mind being Catholic is worse that going around blogs publicly stating you’re going to kill yourself.
Seek help Kero. You’re in no state to be commenting on blogs, you disgusting piece of shit.
Do you understand Kero… you were actually suggesting suicide for nebulous reasons. As I said, you mentally disturbed.
JC
18 Mar 13 at 9:54 pm
Just Google it Steve. Not too hard to find.
hammygar
18 Mar 13 at 9:55 pm
JC / Hammy – stop. No more.
Sinclair Davidson
18 Mar 13 at 9:55 pm
Well Sinc? One rule for me, but not for him, eh?
hammygar
18 Mar 13 at 9:57 pm
Never argue with the ref.
Steve of Ferny Hills
18 Mar 13 at 9:59 pm
Yes, because you’re disgusting and I know it pisses you off. I do this because you have no purpose to be here other than trolling and fucking up threads…. Like this one.
Not true, fuckface. I choose not to reveal my name and it’s my right. Anyways I doubt that’s your real name.
You’re the fascist pig around here, fuckface. You would take a hammer to the back of our heads when we weren’t looking , if you could.
You would be Stalin’s willing executioner if you could get into a time machine.
I choose to call you kero boy and will continue to.
JC
18 Mar 13 at 10:00 pm
So Kero boy doesn’t like his team handle?
Tough. You never get to choose your nick-name, you just have to grin and bear it. OTOH, trying to expose the identity of someone who has chosen to use a screen name is bad manners and worth a banning, IMO.
Cato the Elder
18 Mar 13 at 10:02 pm
Sinc
I didn’t start this. Kero boy did for no other reason than leftie betaboy spite.
In fact he should apologize to you me and the readership for screwing up another thread.
JC
18 Mar 13 at 10:02 pm
Well Sinclair? Do you have an even-handed administration or do you not?
hammygar
18 Mar 13 at 10:04 pm
You still there John Mc?
Ignore the kids, they’re noisy but not dangerous
Cato the Elder
18 Mar 13 at 10:04 pm
Hammy what’s got up your nose? You’ve been called Kero boy etc here for over a year and now you choose to complain? Bit hypocritical of you.
Gab
18 Mar 13 at 10:05 pm
I think Kero is trying to get banned.
I wonder why?
Cato the Elder
18 Mar 13 at 10:06 pm
Lol… That’s not even handed, you incomparable tool, Kero boy.
The difference is a nick name over a blog handle vs real names.
You really are fucking stupid as well as being mentally disturbed Kero Boy. That’s a twofer. The odds are really stacked against.
JC
18 Mar 13 at 10:09 pm
Now stop pestering me, Kero boy as I’m trying to get into Q&A.
If you really think it’s unfair, fuck off and go away. That’s the right thing to do instead of drama queening into trying to destroy another thread.
JC
18 Mar 13 at 10:11 pm
Drat. I was interested in this topic.
Thanks for nothing, Kero Boy.
Cato the Elder
18 Mar 13 at 10:13 pm
Rule 4 now about to be drafted, eh Sinclair? I call this retrospective legislation, a truly fascist tendency.
hammygar
18 Mar 13 at 10:19 pm
The post that the pig quotes from me is not from Catallaxy.
hammygar
18 Mar 13 at 10:21 pm
The pig claims I’m pestering him. I went for months on this blog totally ignoring his ignorant comments before I started to come back at him. He’s the pesterer.
hammygar
18 Mar 13 at 10:23 pm
Can I send you a box of Kleenex, Hammitup?
Gab
18 Mar 13 at 10:25 pm
Lol
He’s really flipping out.
Hey Kero.. honest question.
You recall that you once said you had written that stuff about ending your life for the greater good of social justice because at the time you were suffering deep depression.
Let me ask you…
You basically started this stalking on this thread serving no purpose. I hadn’t made a comment here up to that time.
How do we know, or what confidence can you give us about your present mental state?
JC
18 Mar 13 at 10:27 pm
FFS – cato wants to discuss legal positivism.
Sinclair Davidson
18 Mar 13 at 10:28 pm
Which, this one?
We know, you dummy. Everyone knows that.
JC
18 Mar 13 at 10:29 pm
the basis of the common law is everything is permitted that is not expressly prohibited by law.
the common law is a set of rules designed to maximize economic efficiency
Jim Rose
18 Mar 13 at 10:29 pm
Fair enough Sinclair. I’ll bow out.
JC
18 Mar 13 at 10:30 pm
Hamster is negative legally and every other way.
JamesK
18 Mar 13 at 10:30 pm
You still there John Mc?
I’m still here.
John Mc
18 Mar 13 at 10:31 pm
Thanks JC, maybe Kero Boy will piss off if you ignore him
Cato the Elder
18 Mar 13 at 10:36 pm
Jim
Exactly. The judges rule on law, not morality. If law is a social construct then we have the prohibitions we insist on (or that statist crap like Gillard can get away with).
It has to be that way, or before you know it we have a Green theocracy no better than the mullahs of Iran
Cato the Elder
18 Mar 13 at 10:38 pm
The irony is that Hammy’s first comment here was aimed at me but then he may not have realised that I have a pet parrot named Ermagine, and a rottweiller named Jesus, and the rest seems to be history. The parrot has remained silent, incidentally.
Louis Hissink
18 Mar 13 at 10:40 pm
That’s funny, I know a rotty called Grevious (for obvious reasons) who likes to eat possums, which are a little like hamsters.
Synchronicity, eh?
Cato the Elder
18 Mar 13 at 10:42 pm
Tennis balls are cheaper as a solution to possums.
Gab
18 Mar 13 at 10:44 pm
But Grevious is a nice boy and he likes to eat possums . . . .
Cato the Elder
18 Mar 13 at 10:49 pm
Positivism seems to be linked to religion in the sense that one’s behaviour is prescribed by an authority, so if anything novel appears, and is not covered in the litany, it is wrong.
Common law, as Jim points out, proscribes some agreed to number of activities, but otherwise has nothing to say about the rest, and should be termed negativism.
Negativism, according to some, is the highest form of reasoning, for instead of defining what something is, and hence rejecting all else, proceeds by identifying what something isn’t, leaving open an infinite number of alternaive possibilities. Positivism simply slams the door shut on subsequent discussion. Hence why the religious are universally intolerant.
Louis Hissink
18 Mar 13 at 10:49 pm
I’ll have to borrow him some day.
Gab
18 Mar 13 at 10:49 pm
Louis
I think you may be using the term in a different way. I’m using it in the same sense as at Dover’s reference up-thread.
Positivism says that there is no necessary connection between law and morality. Hence, to repeat myself, under our system it makes sense to say that a law is immoral, while under a theocratic legal system such as Sharia, that suggestion is nonsense.
I prefer what we’ve got, thanks.
Cato the Elder
18 Mar 13 at 11:07 pm
I give in, back to the salt mines for me.
Cato the Elder
18 Mar 13 at 11:08 pm
This all means Hammy was actually posting all of that utterly laughable tripe, all this time, with a straight face?
Convert me to atheism, no righteous God would ever permit anything so tragic.
wreckage
19 Mar 13 at 12:10 am
Cato,
Just realised I am actually using it a different way, my confusion.
Louis Hissink
19 Mar 13 at 12:38 am
A robust moral framework is required as the first line of defence to make certain kinds of actions practically unthinkable by decent people.
But the fucking numpties in charge of Australia now are NOT decent people. Hence the bullshit we’re currently witness to. You couldn’t force them into a moral framework if you tried, because they’ve been re-framing what morality* means from the day they got into office.
* = I’m specifically NOT talking about sexual or marital standards here.
perturbed
19 Mar 13 at 1:51 am
Sorry Dover I stopped reading this thread last night because of all the fuckwitticism.
How is that different to what I said? That is more or less what I said. NOT idealism, ONLY what people decide to ban, and until then considerable freedom to find out what is possible. Perhaps read what I wrote again? Or not, whatever.
Ooh Honey Honey
19 Mar 13 at 7:31 am
a mate of mine at law school explained it to me very simply that legal positivism is the view that “the law” is whatever the legislature enacts, ie whatever it posits.
for me that’s another name for lawless tyranny.
vlad
19 Mar 13 at 10:15 am
I have toyed with the idea of deleting comments in response to Hammy but I don’t want to upset valuable contributors like JC who don’t agree with my puritanical, mr nice guy approach.
Of course I have a reputation to maintain as “the grand old man of Australian blogging” (Ken Parish) and “possibly the foremost blogger in Australia” (thanks Ron, why not go for the southern hemisphere while you were at it).
Poor Old Rafe
19 Mar 13 at 10:32 am
I assume you mean my comments as well as those abusing me, especially by he whose name cannot be revealed.
I note that the new rule 4 hasn’t been placed on the site yet. I also note that those with whom you and Sinc disagree with, such as Homer Paxton and Harry Clarke could be mentioned without sanction when they used to comment.
To call he whose name cannot be revealed a valuable contributor is hyperbowl of the worst kind. His only contributions to this site are vile personal abuse.
hammygar
19 Mar 13 at 3:51 pm
“I have toyed with the idea of deleting comments in response to Hammy”
then who will JamesK have to look down on.
Pedro
19 Mar 13 at 3:55 pm
Thank you Hammy.
For weeks people have been claiming your dopey rants were all satire. In this thread you prove you actually believe the hateful and envy driven bile you dump at this blog.
Token
19 Mar 13 at 3:55 pm
OHH, well, I’m not sure that “Legal Positivism IS the gradual expression of common sense through the codification of the law”; that seems to me an expression with which natural law theorists would have no problem. A major difference between the two is that positivists will say that law and morality are independent while natural law theorists will argue that law and morally are not independent; that law, properly understood, has a moral character to it but does not itself exhaust the morality of a society.
dover_beach
19 Mar 13 at 4:11 pm
Yes, that is really quite disappointing. Here I was giving the bloke credit for wit and it turns out that he was for real??
Still not quite sure I buy that… but have no idea what to make of his biliousness on this thread.
mct
19 Mar 13 at 4:14 pm
Kero
Just refer to me as JC. It’s not hard, you left wing fascist twerp
You’re a leftwinger so you get off on obeying rules.
You whiner.
JC
19 Mar 13 at 4:37 pm
In case you don’t realise if you only deal heroine your profits due to market forces have collapsed already due to the competition with Cocaine and Methamphetamine (speed or ice).
kelly liddle
19 Mar 13 at 4:39 pm
I used to think hammy was troll bait, but the more i read the more i realised he’s just dumb as a stump. There’s no plot there, in fact, there’s no there there.
Pedro
19 Mar 13 at 5:56 pm
I don’t know why you right-wing dopes at Catallaxy think I don’t really believe in the positions I expound in this blog. Of course I’m sincere. The trouble with right-wingers is they think that anyone who doesn’t share their twisted view of the world is somehow wicked or stupid. I can tell (as I’ve done in the past), that my views are quite mainstream. It’s yours that are weird and stupid.
hammygar
19 Mar 13 at 8:08 pm
Here we go, Kero continues to fuck up the thread with irrelevant turgid crap.
Sinc, just get rid of the mentally deranged swine.
having said that, I’ll bite.
Easy, because your positions are so off the planet and dumb they remind people of the trick played on lefties by “Composta” who fell for it hook line and sinker … even the genital warts schtick.
Kero, you’re a parody of yourself.
You stated on another blog that you wanted to kill yourself as a result of the guilt felt that Australia taken from the aboriginals.
Ask yourself in a quiet moment of contemplation- while sitting alone as I’m sure you always do anyway- how mainstream is making a public declaration of suicide? Ummm Kero.
JC
19 Mar 13 at 8:16 pm
(wiping my way through the storm of mental dandruff..)
“Morality” is whatever a dominant % of society decide is “moral” and the law is a formal expression of all those decisions. There is a lag between the coalescing of those decisions and expression in law which always causes tension and debate, and despair in those who are unable to understand the long term nature of the process.
(I’m not even sure what it means to say “law and morality are independent” unless it is some religious thing said by people who still think their belief system is the “real” one, I don’t get all that stuff)
But fundamentally, positivist law bans things if and when enough people want them banned. Everything else is allowed, and that is an infinitely long list of things. That represents freedom for people to continually discover what people are capable of, and that’s why we don’t live in caves.
It is the opposite of sitting down and designing a perfect world by writing down “how it will be”, with anything not on that list being declared illegal. This is the totalitarian philosophy, and it stops all progress dead, and the people usually end up living in caves.
That’s my understanding, maybe I’ve got the labels wrong, but labels inevitably cause confusion. I’d rather just say what I think.
JC and Hammygar please go and do this somewhere else.
Ooh Honey Honey
19 Mar 13 at 9:06 pm
Yeah I would second that… you both are not still going at it are you? Is this the longest blue in the Cat’s history?
Kero boy and Fascist boy???. Its an explosive combination no?
Aliice
19 Mar 13 at 9:20 pm
Dont ban either Sinc. Let the market decide. This argument is not sustainable…and will self correct.
Aliice
19 Mar 13 at 9:22 pm
Honey
Don’t give me that crap as I never started this. Try the pox on both houses routine with someone else and not me. Otherwise check further up the thread and find out what happened. If you don’t choose to then stay right out of it.
JC
19 Mar 13 at 9:27 pm
I just knew you would turn on me JC ….I was expecting Hammy to do the same! It pays to stay out of arguments but sometimes I just cant help myself LOL…I dont actually have any problems at all with you and kero going “hammy and tongs”!
Aliice
19 Mar 13 at 9:32 pm
Ooh Honey Honey
The sad aspect of “moral” laws is that they are generally made not when the majority of people want them made. They are made when the successful narrative is achieved.
So most of these laws are achieved when the vocal minority win the narrative. Too often this is the same time as the silent(er) majority say … whatever.
This is again the difference between tolerance and acceptance.
dismissive
19 Mar 13 at 9:32 pm
Oh it was ooh Honey Honey you turned on JC – ah never mind – who cares…I just wish you would both stop calling on Sinc to ban something!
Aliice
19 Mar 13 at 9:34 pm
I don’t know why you’d expect that Aliice. I tend to roll with the punches, but I fought back this time against he whose name cannot be revealed.
I certainly have no intention of turning on you. Why should I?
hammygar
19 Mar 13 at 9:38 pm
Smacks of moral relativism.
But, as I said above, this isn’t legal positivism. That is just a way of describing the common law which again, has more affinity to natural law theory than positivism.
Maybe a little reading here might help here, say of the Hart-Fuller debate, for example. Briefly, though, it simply means that the law is not the “formal expression of all those decisions”; law is simply whatever the government of the day says it is – unjust laws are still laws.
No, positivist law is simply whatever the government has enacted through its legislative offices; if those laws are unpopular, unjust, immoral, it doesn’t matter, they are still law according to the positivist.
But you’ve caused confusion by adopting a term and using it inappropriately. If you just said what you thought without appearing to talk about positivism I wouldn’t have been confused; but the former would have been difficult since your comment was aimed at correcting Rafe’s understanding of legal positivism.
dover_beach
19 Mar 13 at 9:54 pm
OK I see. I have misused the term. Certainly Jim Rose’s description of common law is what I was talking about.
Is it not the case though that the two are synonymous if legislation and case law are truly representative of public sentiment? In other words the more effectively democratic a society is, the more “whatever the government has enacted through its legislative offices” will resemble what is accepted by most people as just.
I am a moral relativist in that I think there is no objective universal morality by which we can judge others, and it is really just what people settle on at that time and place.
I am not a moral relativist in that I have no qualms stating that my morality is the best and will judge others according to it alone.
Anyway it is why I am against a Bill Of Rights.
And please let me apologise to everyone for introducing confusion to the thread through my ignorance. Lord knows I don’t want to take up valuable real estate on a Catallaxy thread with comments that in any way detract from a careful analysis and discussion of the matter raised in the original post!
Ooh Honey Honey
20 Mar 13 at 6:57 am