Why do we have laws?

@LeftistLawyer

Laws also exist to protect property and the property class from being rebuked by the rest

@CorvidCrone So, choice #3?

@LeftistLawyer I voted both choice 3 and 4 because I interpreted option 3 as extracting resources from the powerless and protection of property from retribution as slightly different ‍️

@LeftistLawyer
My recollection is, we developed laws to socialize and control private grievances and acts of vengeance.

@LeftistLawyer
I answered #3 in the spirit of: "the purpose of a system is what it does."

@steff By the powerful against the powerless, right? That would make sense.

@LeftistLawyer@kolektiva.social Not necessarily, equal individuals or families would start wars of vengeance against one another, historically, because one family member stole from or cause the death of another family's member. Laws are an attempt to create a civil society where the community becomes the injured party. Certainly, we can view the manipulation or creation of laws today within the modern framework of industrial capital, but the original intent was to help maintain a broader community or civil order.

@steff Everything is “necessarily.” I too could provide 1000 caveats to the general rule. But, in general laws are *always* about power imbalance because the corollary to creating a law, is enforcing a law. One doesn’t enforce against an equal … that’s a stalemate. Thus, we hope the state, carrying the enforcement stick, will be less arbitrary and capricious than Grog the bully down in the next cave over.

@steff And, of course, that all goes out the window when society intentionally elects the bully to own the libs. Then, we get arbitrary and capricious all over again, beginning a reprisal spiral straight down the shitter to failed state.

@LeftistLawyer
I feel like that's a bit of an over-simplification. The Vikings had laws. The Iroquois confederation had laws. Laws arise when the need for an organized state arises. Without a state, you're arguing we descend into Hobbesian anarchy where life is brutish and ruled by strength. There are, of course, other theories of the state: where the state arises out of mutual need and a desire to broaden society for aid, protection, procreation, etc. Thus laws initially arise as a way for the state to scale communal order. Certainly, we can look at the modern state (with it's bureaucracy, technocrats, and corruption) and forget the original purpose of need for the rule of law.

@steff Key word ... "need." The "need" for a state arises due to arbitrary and capricious power imbalances. (Grog make rule cuz Grog big and mean and have big club). The forming of a state (the many) grabs back the power and imbalances it to the many. (We regret to inform you, "Grog," that with the authority of the people, 20 of our enforcers will be coming to take your club and throw you into a pit until you can play nice with others). The social compact therein formed is only held together if the state doesn't use it's power imbalance arbitrarily and capriciously.

@LeftistLawyer@kolektiva.social Again, that's a very Hobbesian view. The argument that "might creates order" is not only imperialist, but leads to the conditions which you seem to object to. Additionally, this has not been the case across all human history. In certain places, "Grog's 20 enforcers" have been met by 60 who ban together - even if temporally - for protection and mutual defense. There are numerous ways states have been conceived of across time, and we do ourselves a disservice.