Which comes first Laws or Lawyers
-
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.
-
@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.
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.
You are going in circles saying the same wrong things. There is no need to understand a law to make it. And understanding a law has nothing to do with being a lawyer.
Don't keep repeating these unless you defend them. It's established that both of these two statements that you make are foundationally wrong.
-
Ok so lets look at this from a balance's (a scale) point of view.
We can even use Ghengis Khan in this example.
A balance has two sides to each, the goal of which is to balance out, correct? Or to find out the tipping point.
GK clearly created laws (do you dispute this?)
He also murdered thousands, and raped just as many (do you also dispute this?)
While creating the laws, he wrote them for his benefit, to tip the scales in his favor. He doesn't need to fully understand the repercussions of the laws he writing besides "these serve me" and "I have people who will enforce what I say".
That is a very basic understanding of balance.
He united modern china by force (murder etc), and creating rules to serve himself and those around him. He used force to ensure people listened to those laws.
He clearly wasn't a lawyer until he began creating laws to serve him self. He eventually went on to create laws of Eye for an Eye (I believe this was him) which made certain things illegal when he was firmly in power.
And people enforced those too.
Eventually he went on to create the modern lawyer in that, he couldn't remember everything, so he said, write this down, and commit it to memory.
Not to argue it, until other people were allowed to learn it, and then arguments came to arise about the law that existed.
But people like GK were clearly the first "lawyers" to create the law to impose on others, because they had the ability to enforce it onto others.
Laws were written by people to rule over others, but people smart enough to literally create laws out of nothing.
-
This is a reflection on how my mind functions (?). I read the topic title, and then started this singing in my head:
"Laws and lawyers sitting in a tree
W-r-i-t-i-n-g
First comes laws, then comes lawyers, then comes litigations and lawsuits."
They rhythm breaks down there at the end... -
@Kelly said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
This is a reflection on how my mind functions (?). I read the topic title, and then started this singing in my head:
"Laws and lawyers sitting in a tree
W-r-i-t-i-n-g
First comes laws, then comes lawyers, then comes litigations and lawsuits."
They rhythm breaks down there at the end...To write you have to understand what writing is.
To trade you have to understand trade.
Trade is an exchange of items.
To find that balance, you have to be able to see a literal or fictitious scale and say, yep that is "equal" or to my benefit or theirs.
Whoever is calling "it" balanced and then writing that down as law, is a lawyer.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
@Kelly said in Which comes first Laws or Lawyers:
This is a reflection on how my mind functions (?). I read the topic title, and then started this singing in my head:
"Laws and lawyers sitting in a tree
W-r-i-t-i-n-g
First comes laws, then comes lawyers, then comes litigations and lawsuits."
They rhythm breaks down there at the end...To write you have to understand what writing is.
To trade you have to understand trade.
Trade is an exchange of items.
To find that balance, you have to be able to see a literal or fictitious scale and say, yep that is "equal" or to my benefit or theirs.
Whoever is calling "it" balanced and then writing that down as law, is a lawyer.
My comment should in no way be construed as a serious contribution to this thread, but rather as the semi-delirious connections established by a sleep deprived brain.
-
We have to step back.... we are in the weeds and we need to look at what the discussion is actually about.
At the end of the day, it turns out that the question is actually "what is a lawyer?"
I saw that the definition of a lawyer is "Someone who reads and advises on the law that currently exists."
@DustinB3403 defines a lawyer as "People who make laws and study laws conceptually."
This fundamental difference in "what is a lawyer" totally changes the outcome and is why we keep going in circles.
This, not which comes first, is the actual discussion. As it is the difference in definition that both are using to define which comes first.
-
I would say that the accepted "rise of lawyers" from Wikipedia, being thousands of years after the rise of laws, proves that lawyers must read law, not write them. That and every definition of lawyer I've seen supports this that lawyer read THE law, they don't make laws.
