This is a no true Scotsman fallacy. There's no reason that roads and airwaves need to be managed by violence.
"The law" is subject to incredible debate and scrutiny - this is the reason, for example, for constitutional courts. It is also the basis for revolution.
What if more than one entity claims to be the legitimate government? Then what is 'the law'?
Merely reading the federal register is not sufficient to inform someone about the particulars of the law.
Please - read the essay and see if you are find "the law" to be a matter of fact.
Not debated, but only after the fact when challenged. Laws are passed by popular consent, even when they contradict previous laws and they tend to stand for far longer than they should because taking down bad law takes years. You're discussing an ideal "law", I'm discussing actual law. Take gay marriage, illegal for how long... despite always violating the constitution; it just took that long for the courts to acknowledge the discrimination that was going on.
And no, I'm not going to read a few thousands words because you're unable to make your point yourself.
My point is fact, and stands: law doesn't require reason to exist. Yes, eventually, after many decades, reason may find its way into the law, but that doesn't dispute my claim.
This is ridiculous. Not every matter of conversation - especially one so enormous as "what is the nature of law?" can be answered in an HN thread.
There's nothing wrong with reading a few thousand words of a crucial essay to educate yourself. That's what you need to do to be able to think clearly about big topics.
Reading the law will only just get you started. It makes sense to read The Federalist Papers, The Communist Manifesto, The Republic, and many other cornerstones of thinking about this instead of demanding that someone distill thousands of years of thought into a HN comment.
> My point is fact, and stands:
It isn't and doesn't. I asked you a simple question in my last comment that you haven't answered that, for your purposes, may well "make my point": What about a situation in which two different entities both claim to be the legitimate government? Or a society in which large numbers of people regard a government as illegitimate? Or who regard particular laws as beyond a purview which they recognize for government?
What then is "the law?" How many different places to you need to look to find this one law?
This isn't a big topic, I stated a fact, I'm sorry you're unable to cope with that.
> Not every matter of conversation - especially one so enormous as "what is the nature of law?" can be answered in an HN thread.
Fortunate then that we are not discussing the nature of law.
> It isn't and doesn't.
Yes it is and yes it does.
> What about a situation in which two different entities both claim to be the legitimate government? Or a society in which large numbers of people regard a government as illegitimate? Or who regard particular laws as beyond a purview which they recognize for government?
None of those questions are relevant to the point I made and serve only as an attempt to move the goal post because you're unwilling or unable to restrict yourself to the point I'm making; I reject this attempt.
There is no discussion to be had here, I stated facts, not opinions to be debated; it is a fact that laws need not be logical to be passed, you're being a child to deny that; we're done. Whatever your higher point about law is, I don't care.
The question is whether the statement "Legal is the default state for devices that don't use public roads, public airwaves, etc" is a form a No True Scotsman. You are saying that the answer is "no," because this concept of "legal" is something that you attribute directly to the statutory authority of government alone.
The goal posts haven't moved. My hypothetical describes perfectly the state of the internet today: a bunch of governments claiming authority various realms, and worldwide confusion about what 'the law' is or how it is defined and decided.
You won't be taken seriously by saying, "I have decided that a huge open question in political science is just a simple matter of declarative fact that I need not consider." I mean... do you not realize how ridiculous you sound?
If this 'simple fact' that 'the law' is so easily defined and understood as a 'popularity contest' is self-evident enough to warrant this kind of 'case closed' mentality, then why have the greatest minds in the field been wrestling with it since ancient Greece?
If you refuse to consider the question, then of course you get to make up the answer.
So go ahead. The answer can be "yes," "no," or "unknown" depending on your mood, and you'll always be correct.
Your laziness vis a vis reading the seminal works of law has not only the consequence of making you seem stubborn and misinformed for the purposes of this discussion, but also unfit to be an effective citizen generally.
If you can't bring yourself to participate in even elementary academic discussion, why even visit this site? Just to raise your blood pressure?
> There's no reason that roads and airwaves need to be managed by violence.
I said the law doesn't require reason; that's a fact, it does not, unreasonable laws happen all the time. So you don't even have the question right, it's no wonder you can't stop blabbering on about unrelated ideas. This was never about the nature of law, you simply fail to realize that.
That breaks the HN guidelines, as you know. Please comment civilly and substantively, or not at all, even when someone else is being a jerk.
You can't post uncivil attacks like this here, even when someone else is being a jerk. Please don't do it again.