Which comes first Laws or Lawyers
-
The history of the legal profession reflects this with soft laws (verbal) predating written laws and written laws predating the first notion of lawyers by thousands of years. And then the first lawyers did nothing more than advice normal people on what to do, they could not even argue for them directly in court for a long time.
Think about the tribes of Israel. They had laws without lawyers for a very long time.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
The history of the legal profession reflects this with soft laws (verbal) predating written laws and written laws predating the first notion of lawyers by thousands of years. And then the first lawyers did nothing more than advice normal people on what to do, they could not even argue for them directly in court for a long time.
Think about the tribes of Israel. They had laws without lawyers for a very long time.
But the laws were simple... Don't kill in cold blood, don't commit adultery, don't make idols...
One I am thankful for being abolished: Don't eat pig.
-
@dafyre said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
@scottalanmiller said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
@dafyre said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
Lawyers were not needed until two guys said "Let's write this down" and couldn't agree on some of it. So they brought in a third party, and said "Tell us what you think" ... Thus lawyers were born, lol.
Almost. The lawyer cannot exist (literally, it's impossible for someone to be a lawyer) until a law is codified (orally, written, whatever.) Only then does a lawyer have the potential to "read" said law and advise clients on it or in some types of law, argue it before a court.
Right. In my case, I was thinking more of a written agreement between two people, not necessarily a law. But they'd still need a third party (I guess arbitrator would be a better word choice here) to help them iron things out.
If lawyers had to come before laws... then an arbitrator would be the equivalent of the egg, lol.
A contract isn't a law, though. A contract only exists because of a law of contracts. That's the only way to have a legal agreement. Without a law to say that contracts are valid, there can be no lawyer involved (as there is no law.) An arbiter could exist, but they could not be a lawyer and nothing would be binding as there is no law to make it so.
-
What started this discussion? Seems kind of pointless other then for arguments sake.
-
@dafyre said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
@scottalanmiller said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
The history of the legal profession reflects this with soft laws (verbal) predating written laws and written laws predating the first notion of lawyers by thousands of years. And then the first lawyers did nothing more than advice normal people on what to do, they could not even argue for them directly in court for a long time.
Think about the tribes of Israel. They had laws without lawyers for a very long time.
But the laws were simple... Don't kill in cold blood, don't commit adultery, don't make idols...
Sure, but that's not really a factor. If laws came first, it answers the question. Lawyers have nothing to do with the creation of laws, and having laws is a necessary component to have lawyers. Laws have to come first, there is no possibility of the opposite.
-
@coliver said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
What started this discussion? Seems kind of pointless other then for arguments sake.
@DustinB3403 just felt that lawyers had to come first.
-
@coliver said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
What started this discussion? Seems kind of pointless other then for arguments sake.
Like many other such topics here... If for no known reason other than: Because we can?
Edit: Oh... There was a reason this time.
-
@dafyre said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
@coliver said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
What started this discussion? Seems kind of pointless other then for arguments sake.
Like many other such topics here... If for no known reason other than: Because we can?
Edit: Oh... There was a reason this time.
Which basically boils down to because we can.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
That's funny. Even the etymology of the word lawyer derives from the word law. Egg and chicken indeed.
-
I'm of the camp that you have to understand how to preside over others.
To do that, you'd write laws into existence that are either for your benefit or the benefit of the community. This to me means you have to understand what a law is / could be (before laws existed) so you could create them to reap the benefits.
-
@coliver said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
What started this discussion? Seems kind of pointless other then for arguments sake.
I had to go back and read what started it. It was that he was blaming lawyers for laws, making one of those "if we got rid of the lawyers" arguments about things. And I pointed out that it isn't their fault, their job is just to work with the laws that they have. If we wanted better laws, we have to make better laws. Lawyers are like IT, we work with what vendors give us. Until someone makes an OS for us to use, IT is helpless. If the OS isn't great, you can't blame IT, we use the technology, we don't built it. Same with lawyers, they are an artefact of the laws, not the other way around.
But he is convinced of the opposite. That all of the lawyers created the legal system and the laws and that until there were lawyers were didn't have laws.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
I'm of the camp that you have to understand how to preside over others.
To do that, you'd write laws into existence that are either for your benefit or the benefit of the community. This to me means you have to understand what a law is / could be (before laws existed) so you could create them to reap the benefits.
People do that everyday though. We call them politicians.
-
@coliver said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
@DustinB3403 said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
I'm of the camp that you have to understand how to preside over others.
To do that, you'd write laws into existence that are either for your benefit or the benefit of the community. This to me means you have to understand what a law is / could be (before laws existed) so you could create them to reap the benefits.
People do that everyday though. We call them politicians.
And we heavily dislike many of them.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
I'm of the camp that you have to understand how to preside over others.
To do that, you'd write laws into existence that are either for your benefit or the benefit of the community. This to me means you have to understand what a law is / could be (before laws existed) so you could create them to reap the benefits.
While I don't agree and can prove so (kings can make laws without thinking, you can make an automated law system, etc.) to your foundations here... even if all of this was true, it has no connection to those people being lawyers. Lawyers study NOT the benefits, effects or whatever of laws that could be, they read what the allowances and penalties are under the laws that ARE. They don't study the concept of law, they study the actual law.
-
@coliver said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
@DustinB3403 said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
I'm of the camp that you have to understand how to preside over others.
To do that, you'd write laws into existence that are either for your benefit or the benefit of the community. This to me means you have to understand what a law is / could be (before laws existed) so you could create them to reap the benefits.
People do that everyday though. We call them politicians.
Exactly. This is done, but not by lawyers. By definition, they can't be lawyers because a lawyer doesn't create laws.
-
https://media2.giphy.com/media/VpEkoQiMqtu5q/200_s.gif
sssssnick
All I know...
ssssnick
Is which one....
ssssnick
Will come last.
schlick-shlack
-
@scottalanmiller said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
@coliver said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
@DustinB3403 said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
I'm of the camp that you have to understand how to preside over others.
To do that, you'd write laws into existence that are either for your benefit or the benefit of the community. This to me means you have to understand what a law is / could be (before laws existed) so you could create them to reap the benefits.
People do that everyday though. We call them politicians.
Exactly. This is done, but not by lawyers. By definition, they can't be lawyers because a lawyer doesn't create laws.
They can be a lawyer and a politician but from a chicken and the egg standpoint we know that laws by definition came first.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
@coliver said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
@DustinB3403 said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
I'm of the camp that you have to understand how to preside over others.
To do that, you'd write laws into existence that are either for your benefit or the benefit of the community. This to me means you have to understand what a law is / could be (before laws existed) so you could create them to reap the benefits.
People do that everyday though. We call them politicians.
Exactly. This is done, but not by lawyers. By definition, they can't be lawyers because a lawyer doesn't create laws.
So a politicians can't also be a lawyer or the opposite?
That is clearly wrong.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
@scottalanmiller said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
@coliver said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
@DustinB3403 said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
I'm of the camp that you have to understand how to preside over others.
To do that, you'd write laws into existence that are either for your benefit or the benefit of the community. This to me means you have to understand what a law is / could be (before laws existed) so you could create them to reap the benefits.
People do that everyday though. We call them politicians.
Exactly. This is done, but not by lawyers. By definition, they can't be lawyers because a lawyer doesn't create laws.
So a politicians can't also be a lawyer or the opposite?
That is clearly wrong.
Your argument is that because they are a politician they are also a lawyer. Not all lawyers are politicians and not all politicians are lawyers they are two groups that are often, but not always, mutually exclusive.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
I'm of the camp that you have to understand how to preside over others. <-- This means that you don't believe that there is such a concept of a king or anyone that can seize power through any means but understanding how to preside? This is a statement so weird I'm not sure how to dispute it. It's like saying that the earth can't be round because, it just can't be.
To do that, you'd write laws into existence that are either for your benefit or the benefit of the community. This to me means you have to understand what a law is / could be (before laws existed) so you could create them to reap the benefits. What law of the universe dictates that laws have to be written to a certain benefit? And moreso, what additional law states that you have to understand them to attempt that?
This is layer after layer of disconnected assumption that is demonstrably untrue in the real world. Sure this can happen and does, but nothing "makes" it happen. Anyone can seize power, even a robot in theory, without any understanding. That person or thing could make laws, potentially arbitrarily. Even if they weren't arbitrary nothing says that they will study or understand the ramifications or goals.
And then, at the end, even if all of this were true, nothing connects these things to being lawyers.
