What Is Law, Why Does Law\r\nExist?\r\n<\/p>
Author: Stephen DeVoy<\/i><\/p>\r\n
This essay answers the questions \"What is law?\" and \"Why\r\ndoes law exit?\" It is directed to those living in societies that are\r\ndemocratic or societies such as the United States of America where the illusion\r\nof democracy is maintained. We limit our discussion to democratic and\r\npseudo-democratic regimes because the answers to these questions are somewhat\r\ndifferent in openly dictatorial regimes and theocratic (religious)\r\nregimes. These questions in the context of openly dictatorial regimes and\r\ntheocratic regimes will need to be answered elsewhere.<\/b><\/p>\r\n
Law is set of restraints on the liberty of individuals, groups and\r\ngovernments agreed to by some democratic process. Since only individuals\r\nhave natural rights, the rights of groups and governments are constructs and\r\nnever absolute in any objective sense.<\/b><\/p>\r\n
There are two primary rationales given to support a perceived need for\r\nlaw. One rationale is based on the belief that humans are evil by nature\r\nand must be restrained by force to avoid engaging in evil deeds. The other\r\nrationale is that in order to cooperate, in terms of behavior and the sharing of\r\nresources, some protocol is needed to govern that cooperation and encourage\r\ncooperation and that the force of the government must be behind that protocol in\r\norder to guarantee that such cooperation will exist.<\/b><\/p>\r\n
From the start, law is a rejection of ethics. Ethics\r\nalready provides all of the tools necessary to moderate human behavior and\r\nencourage cooperation. Law is based on the belief that ethics are\r\ninsufficient and that force (i.e. the threat of violence) is necessary to\r\nachieve compliance. Therefore, law encourages the abandonment of ethics in\r\nfavor of legal compliance. Law encourages obedience rather than self\r\ncontrol.<\/b><\/p>\r\n
The aforementioned points raise many issues and we will discuss them\r\nhere. Is it true that individuals are evil by nature? Is it true\r\nthat the threat of violence is necessary to create cooperation among individuals\r\nand harmony in their interactions? Is ethics insufficient with regard to\r\nthe regulation of human behavior? Does law destroy the ethical\r\nimpulse? If law does destroy the impulse to be ethical, does this mean\r\nthat law encourages a lack of ethics which, by definition, would be the\r\nencouragement of evil? Let's address these questions.<\/b><\/p>\r\nAre Individuals Evil By Nature?\r\n
Unless scientific experiments are conducted on human individuals this\r\nquestion cannot be answered objectively. Such experiments would require\r\ncontrolling the environment of human individuals from birth until death and\r\nevaluating human behavior across the life time. Using humans in this\r\nmanner, necessarily without their consent, would violate Kant's\r\nPractical Imperative. That is, such individuals would be used not a\r\nmeans to their own end but as a means to some end outside of themselves (i.e.\r\nscientific progress). Since we reject utilitarianism unless it is fettered\r\nby some absolute principles and the Practical Imperative is one of these\r\nprinciples, we must reject conducting such experiments on human\r\nindividuals. Therefore, we are limited to observing human individuals in\r\ntheir own natural environment. This, of course, will make our conclusions\r\nless than fully objective or absolute. However, progress can still be\r\nmade.<\/b><\/p>\r\n
In the course of my life I've noticed a wide gap in human understanding\r\nbetween those who are the parents of children and those who have never been the\r\nparents of children. Seldom, outside the relationship between a parent and\r\na child, does anyone have the opportunity to observe fully the development of a\r\nhuman individual. Having had this experience myself and having watched the\r\ndevelopment of my own daughter, I have never seen any tendency toward evil on\r\nher part. Just the opposite is true. I have seen only the desire to\r\ndo good. Naturally, since children lack knowledge and experience, at least\r\non the scale of an adult, they often act out of ignorance and do things which\r\nharm others. For example, a child is likely to ask questions that adults\r\nlearn not to ask because adults understand that humans become wounded by other\r\nhumans over the course of their lives and certain questions bring up hurtful\r\nmemories. Thus, mature adults will seldom ask \"embarrassing\r\nquestions\" of each other unless the intent is to do harm. Children,\r\non the other hand, are merely curious and the drive to satisfy their curiosity\r\ncan provoke them to ask questions, in ignorance, that adults would not\r\nask. This is not because the child intends to harm. It is because\r\nthe child is attempting to obtain information for the purpose of enhancing his\r\nor her understanding of life and the universe. Increasing understanding is\r\ngood and so the child's questions are motivated by good, not evil, even if they\r\nunintentionally do harm.<\/b><\/p>\r\n
Of course, I have observed evil children. When I was a child I was\r\noften subjected to violence by evil children in the school system of my home\r\ntown (Dedham, Massachusetts). Sometimes I had the opportunity of seeing\r\nthese children with their parents, dealing with their parents in the school\r\noffice or learning about the relationship between these children and their\r\nparents. When I had this opportunity, it always appeared to be the case\r\nthat their parents encouraged their evil behavior or that the children were\r\nimitating their parents, either in terms of how their parents behavior towards\r\ntheir neighbors or each other. Whenever I encountered racist children, I\r\nfound that their parents were racist too. In the few cases where this was\r\nnot the case, I found these children to be friends of children who learned to be\r\nevil from their parents.<\/b><\/p>\r\n
The worst children in my hometown were the children of police\r\nofficers. These children bullied other children. They also got away\r\nwith their bullying, no doubt because their father or mother was a police\r\nofficer. I find this correlation between being the child of a police\r\nofficer and being an evil child highly revealing. It implies that the\r\ncloser one gets to the law, the less ethical one becomes.<\/b><\/p>\r\n
I have lived in other societies and I have traveled widely. I have\r\nfound that the behavior of children changes much as the relationship between\r\nethics and law changes. In societies were ethics is the primary means of\r\ncontrol, either due to a weak government or the lack of law enforcement, I've\r\nfound children to be more ethical and more influenced by their belief\r\nsystems. In societies such as the United States of America, Canada or the\r\nUnited Kingdom, were law takes precedence over ethics, despite the higher degree\r\nof order I have observed a greater tendency towards bizarre and unethical\r\nbehavior on the part of children.<\/b><\/p>\r\n
From my own personal experience, it seems that legalist societies\r\ncontribute to the corruption of children. For example, in the United\r\nStates of America where strict limits are placed on the consumption of alcohol\r\nand\/or tobacco by children, we have far more children abusing alcohol and\r\nchildren engaging in unethical behavior to obtain cigarettes. It is the\r\nimposition of law that prompts the curious child to use unethical means to\r\nsatisfy his or her curiosity.<\/b><\/p>\r\n
On the whole, I do not believe that children have any natural impulse to\r\nevil and that they, in fact, have a natural impulse towards good. By the\r\ntime they grow up, they have been contaminated by the evil nature of adults and\r\nthe legalistic society adults have created. The evil that adults have\r\nlearned comes from attempting to cope in a world with constraints on their\r\nliberty. Those who are able to thrive within the legal framework may\r\nremain ethical but those whose talents, abilities or nature is incompatible with\r\nthe framework laid down by law must cheat, lie, steal and harm to survive. \r\nThey teach these skills to their children who become as evil as their\r\nparents. Those with the \"correct\" talents and abilities to\r\nthrive within their society's legal framework take one of two paths. They\r\neither play by the rules and live moderate lives or they cheat, lie, steal and\r\nharm others in an effort to take advantage of those who remain ethical. \r\nSuch \"successful\" people rely upon the law to handicap their ethical\r\ncounterparts and then rob them blind.<\/b><\/p>\r\n
It seems, then, that law encourages evil within human society and that\r\nevil is a natural capacity of human individuals but not encoded in their\r\nmakeup. The capacity for evil appears to overcome the natural tendency to\r\ndo good when a legal framework is present.<\/b><\/p>\r\nIs ethics insufficient with regard to the regulation of human behavior\r\nor is the threat of violence necessary to create cooperation among\r\nindividuals and harmony in their interactions?\r\n
Let us begin with a definition for violence. Violence is when force,\r\neither physical, economic or psychological, is used in an effort to causally\r\neffect the course of events. Is it necessary to apply such violence to\r\ncreate cooperation among individuals? Note, the question is not whether\r\nviolence can create cooperation between individuals, for clearly it can. \r\nThe question is whether violence is the only available means to create\r\ncooperation between individuals.<\/b><\/p>\r\n
Most ethical systems encourage cooperation between individuals. This\r\nis true even in universal ethical egoism where each individual is encouraged to\r\nact in his or her own self interest, for it is usually in the self interest of\r\nindividuals to cooperate with other individuals. This is true because no\r\nindividual is an island. We are all embedded in a society and we need to\r\nexchange goods and comfort to survive. We also need to exchange genetic\r\nmaterial to reproduce. Therefore, even the most selfish of ethical systems\r\nrequires some degree of cooperation between individuals.<\/b><\/p>\r\n
Since individuals start their lives as good (see previous section),\r\nindividuals are open to the adoption of ethical systems if only as a means to\r\nsatisfy their natural curiosity or to understand other human individuals. \r\nThis is why teaching a child religion during his or her formative years can have\r\na profound effect on that child's behavior when he or she later grows up,\r\nwhether or not he or she is in the presence of law. In fact, those raised\r\nwith strong moral systems are likely to self regulate their own behavior even if\r\nthey know they can get away with evil behavior. The same is true for\r\nchildren raised in non-religious ethical systems.<\/b><\/p>\r\n
From the above it follows that if we raised our children to be ethical and\r\ndid not teach them to be evil and if we prevented them from interacting with the\r\nchildren of parents that did not teach their children to be ethical, such\r\nchildren would grow into adults who would behave as good individuals and who\r\nwould cooperate when it was ethical to do so. Clearly, we do not want them\r\nto cooperate when it is not ethical to do, even if the law encourages or\r\nrequires it. Thus, ethics is sufficient to regulate the behavior of\r\nchildren raised within a system of ethics provided they are not subject to the\r\nevil behavior of those who are not.<\/b><\/p>\r\n
This, of course, leaves a large gap for surely many children are raised by\r\nunethical parents. The question, however, should be whether, in the long\r\nterm, an ethical society will overcome a legal society. Without revolution\r\nand the destruction of the state this seems unlikely. Therefore, as long\r\nas their is government there will be law for law destroys ethics and law is left\r\nas the only means to moderate human behavior. If we go to the next step,\r\nhowever, and destroy government, then we can create a society ruled by ethics\r\nand not by law. In the absence of law the unethical will not be able to\r\nrely upon the law to justify their actions or to protect themselves. In\r\nthe absence of the force of law, the unethical must either adapt and become more\r\nethical or become isolated. In the struggle of the fittest belief systems,\r\nin the absence of the unnatural force of law, ethics will out compete and\r\ntriumph.<\/b><\/p>\r\nDoes law destroy the ethical impulse?\r\n
I have already given much evidence in the above text that law destroys\r\nethics, but does it destroy the impulse towards ethics as well? The United\r\nStates of America is, in practice, a corporatist\r\nsociety. No where does law play such a role in American life than within\r\nthe corporation. Do not mistake this claim to mean that corporations\r\nbehave in compliance to the law, often they do not. Nevertheless, they use\r\nthe law to destroy the ethical impulse and they do this for one simple reason -\r\nthey can.<\/b><\/p>\r\n
Of all the corporations I have worked for, the most unethical is a defense\r\ncontractor in Austin, Texas. Due to the nature of this defense\r\ncontractor's work, it would not be an exaggeration to say that their technical\r\nworkers, as a rule, have a high level of individual intelligence. I would\r\nnot be surprised if the results of giving each such individual an IQ test would\r\nshow that not a single one has an IQ below 130 and that the average is in the\r\ngenius range. However, having a specific level of intelligence does not\r\nmake one ethical. If anything, given the chance to rationalize unethical\r\nbehavior, intelligence will often choose the unethical path.<\/b><\/p>\r\n
This observation holds strongly at this defense contractor in Austin,\r\nTexas. I had the misfortune of being on their management team. I was\r\nan advocate of greater freedom and greater rewards for workers. I wished\r\nto see workers treated ethically, however, at every turn upper management chose\r\nto do whatever was in the best interest of the two individuals comprising upper\r\nmanagement and not what was ethical. Every time an issue where ethics\r\nshould play a role, their position was that, \"well, if there were not law X\r\nwhich could make us liable for Y, we would do ethical thing E, but since we\r\nmight suffer Y we'll follow the advice of lawyers who encourage U (an unethical\r\nprocedure) based on their understanding of X. In nearly every case the\r\nprobability that Y would be the outcome of E was zero or near zero. \r\nNevertheless, they would choose to do the unethical U over the ethical E every\r\ntime.<\/b><\/p>\r\n
A couple of the members of the management team (e.g. myself) wanted the\r\ncorporation to institute an ethics panel to evaluate projects proposed by the\r\nU.S. Military that we believed may have ethical implications. This idea\r\nwas roundly and fiercely rejected by upper management. I saw many\r\nunethical things happen in during my tenure as a manager. In the presence\r\nof law, upper management had totally and completely lost the natural impulse\r\ntowards ethical behavior.<\/b><\/p>\r\n
I've seen similar things at different corporations. I have seen\r\nindividuals fired with no reason given based on the argument that \"the law\r\nsays we don't need to give a reason.\" I've seen good individuals\r\ndenied references on the basis that \"some corporation may sue us if they\r\nfind the worker less than desirable.\" I've seen older people fired\r\nbecause they were older, Muslims held down from higher positions because they\r\nwere Muslim and others fired because of their political beliefs. In all\r\ncases, the corporation would bend its rules and harass the individuals with\r\nwarnings and other documentation that was not distributed with any sense of\r\nfairness. Individuals would be targeted for documentation to support\r\nfiring decisions that were actually based on other criteria such as age, race or\r\nreligion. The law enabled them to do this. It gave them the tools to\r\ndishonestly justify their unethical acts.<\/b><\/p>\r\n
Corporations pollute the environment because they can. Corporations\r\ndo not pay their fare share of taxes because they can. Corporations steal\r\nfrom their employees because they can. This \"because they can\"\r\nactually means \"because the law says they can.\" The law is used\r\nas a hammer to stamp out and destroy the ethical impulse. It is the\r\nprimary destroyer of ethics. By definition, that which destroys ethics is\r\nevil. Law, therefore, is evil.<\/b><\/p>\r\nSummary\r\n
Having further examined law in the context of a democratic society, let us\r\ntake a look at our original questions once again.<\/b><\/p>\r\nWhat is law?\r\n
Law is a mechanism whereby society destroys the ethical impulse to create obedience\r\namong those not in power and as a tool to provide justification for unethical\r\nacts by those in power.<\/b><\/p>\r\nWhy does law exist?\r\n
Law exists in order to maintain a classed society by enhancing the freedom\r\nof those in power to act unjustly and destroying the ability to rebel of those\r\nenslaved by the powerful.<\/b><\/p>\r\n\n","contact":"","link":"http:\/\/anarch.netfirms.com","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/html","summary":"A rational anarchist introduction to the concept of law.","numcomment":0,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/","filesize":null,"article_url":"\/news\/2004\/12\/120024.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[]}