Which comes first Laws or Lawyers
-
@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.
Can you be an IT pro and a car mechanic? Of course. But you don't say that your car mechanic aspect is what fixed the computer.
-
@coliver I understand this.
But to have the idea of laws, you must be a "lawyer" (creation of laws, not modern well established politicians and lawyers)
and to be very clear, this is a question of which came first.
Laws or Lawyers.
I would say lawyers must've come first to even have the idea of a "law" even if the Lawyer was a king of some country.
-
I'll give a great example, King George III. He was insane. Totally loopy. No clue what was going on at all (it was a disease, he didn't mean to be a bad guy.) Yet he wrote the laws.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
@coliver I understand this.
But to have the idea of laws, you must be a "lawyer" (creation of laws, not modern well established politicians and lawyers)
and to be very clear, this is a question of which came first.
Laws or Lawyers.
I would say lawyers must've come first to even have the idea of a "law" even if the Lawyer was a king of some country.
So you're redefining words. I guess with your definition you are correct.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
@coliver I understand this.
But to have the idea of laws, you must be a "lawyer"
this is where the flaws in logic come in. You have made a leap. You certain do not have to have an idea of laws to make them AND understanding the concept of laws in no way makes you a lawyer. Not in the least. That's why I keep pointing out that lawyers study THE law, not the concept of laws.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
I would say lawyers must've come first to even have the idea of a "law" even if the Lawyer was a king of some country.
And I say the opposite because that's not what the term lawyer means. The idea of a law is law as a concept, and not connected to the study of THE law as laid down by the politicians, which is the exclusive thing that can make you a lawyer.
-
@scottalanmiller 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. <-- 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.
In remarks to the bold statements.
How is that difficult to understand? Genghis Khan ruled over a huge area, and made law. Law which was written with blood and force.
He wasn't a politician, he was a dictator who made laws to suit him.Government.
Point 2 - laws exist in modern form to say "you can't murder" religion is essentially law, but before laws existed. Religion has been around long before "law" yet you accept those to be fundamentals of law. Why?
People created these to protect themselves / others and to punish for doing "bad" things.
-
You could use a term like a legalist, although that's used in other circles, or a "person interested in legalities" to define someone who writes laws. But even then, you are enforcing a degree of non-arbitrarianism that may not exist.
There are actually very large, well established legal circles that believe many laws are natural and are just inherent in the universe and required nothing to be established, they just always "were."
So the idea that a law can sprint from "nothing" actually is a well established legal principle.
Religions also often believe this carries forward to a greater degree like the ten commandments. They came from God, rather than "the universe" but still did not arise from people.
That someone normally thinks on a law before making it is certain, but not required. That that person is a lawyer, is not true. Until the law has been created, the lawyer has no law to study.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
How is that difficult to understand? Genghis Khan ruled over a huge area, and made law. Law which was written with blood and force.
He wasn't a politician, he was a dictator who made laws to suit him.And he wasn't a lawyer and may not have thought about the laws, etc. How is he connected to your point?
-
@DustinB3403 said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
Point 2 - laws exist in modern form to say "you can't murder" religion is essentially law, but before laws existed. Religion has been around long before "law" yet you accept those to be fundamentals of law. Why?
People created these to protect themselves / others and to punish for doing "bad" things.
Right... before there were lawyers. The lawyers could not exist until they had a law to study.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
@DustinB3403 said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
How is that difficult to understand? Genghis Khan ruled over a huge area, and made law. Law which was written with blood and force.
He wasn't a politician, he was a dictator who made laws to suit him.And he wasn't a lawyer and may not have thought about the laws, etc. How is he connected to your point?
He was a dictator, forcibly making people do his bidding, he wrote law to unite the land in his control.
He by himself was government and lawyer, judge, jury and executioner.
Therefore politicians, lawyers laws all came about at the same time.
Only until people united and said we need to sort this shit out, did different roles come to exist.
-
A single person is in a power of pure position created all of the above, politicians, lawyers and even government.
Kings and tyrants alike created the positions. But to create laws, you must understand them.
Which means you have to study "balance" or judgement.
Which means you must be a lawyer first, before laws exist.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
@scottalanmiller said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
@DustinB3403 said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
How is that difficult to understand? Genghis Khan ruled over a huge area, and made law. Law which was written with blood and force.
He wasn't a politician, he was a dictator who made laws to suit him.And he wasn't a lawyer and may not have thought about the laws, etc. How is he connected to your point?
He was a dictator, forcibly making people do his bidding, he wrote law to unite the land in his control.
that's an assumption. He made laws, did he think through them? Maybe, maybe not. Nothing forces him to have done so. As he seized power, nothing implies that he possessed any understanding of what making laws would do.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
He by himself was government and lawyer, judge, jury and executioner.
There is zero reason to believe that he was a lawyer. Do you have any reference to him taking time to study the laws after they were written or him acting as a lawyer advising clients?
Gheghis was a busy man. He definitely had no associationwith being a lawyer.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
@DustinB3403 said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
@scottalanmiller said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
@DustinB3403 said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
How is that difficult to understand? Genghis Khan ruled over a huge area, and made law. Law which was written with blood and force.
He wasn't a politician, he was a dictator who made laws to suit him.And he wasn't a lawyer and may not have thought about the laws, etc. How is he connected to your point?
He was a dictator, forcibly making people do his bidding, he wrote law to unite the land in his control.
that's an assumption. He made laws, did he think through them? Maybe, maybe not. Nothing forces him to have done so. As he seized power, nothing implies that he possessed any understanding of what making laws would do.
But you're making the assumption he knew not what he was doing, clearly to document something you must have some concept on SOME level of what the hell is going on.
No matter how bat**** crazy you are as in your example.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
Therefore politicians, lawyers laws all came about at the same time.
Again, you make a couple of random, inaccurate statements that, even if true, don't lead to the conclusion you make. Even if Ghengis Khan WAS a lawyer (he was not), his role of lawyer could not exist until after his role of law maker was completed. It's that simple. Even the rules doesn't have the power to make a lawyer without laws, it's a conceptual paradox. It cannot happen.
So even in your flawed example, it still causes the law to come first.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
@scottalanmiller said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
@DustinB3403 said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
@scottalanmiller said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
@DustinB3403 said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
How is that difficult to understand? Genghis Khan ruled over a huge area, and made law. Law which was written with blood and force.
He wasn't a politician, he was a dictator who made laws to suit him.And he wasn't a lawyer and may not have thought about the laws, etc. How is he connected to your point?
He was a dictator, forcibly making people do his bidding, he wrote law to unite the land in his control.
that's an assumption. He made laws, did he think through them? Maybe, maybe not. Nothing forces him to have done so. As he seized power, nothing implies that he possessed any understanding of what making laws would do.
But you're making the assumption he knew not what he was doing, clearly to document something you must have some concept on SOME level of what the hell is going on.
No matter how bat**** crazy you are as in your example.
No, I don't need that assumption. I only need to assume that he didn't HAVE to know.
-
Let me give you this example.
If I get pulled over for speeding, I'm entitled to represent my self in court correct?
Doesn't this by definition make me a lawyer? I'd be insane to do so under most circumstances, but I'd likely have a solid understanding of the law if I felt confident to defend myself.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
A single person is in a power of pure position created all of the above, politicians, lawyers and even government.
No, lawyers are a self creating thing. They are an artefact of laws.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
Let me give you this example.
If I get pulled over for speeding, I'm entitled to represent my self in court correct?
Doesn't this by definition make me a lawyer? I'd be insane to do so under most circumstances, but I'd likely have a solid understanding of the law if I felt confident to defend myself.
Yes, you can be a lawyer to yourself because the law already exists. If there was no law, you could not be your own lawyer.
