Please tolerate me here ! I just am new to nostr and i replied to myself!
This should be the 3rd note you should read. the first two are posted in this thread. Pardon me.
I write and think! After i post i think a bit more and an idea come again so i write again this note is one such instance.
- You said rule is an action an actor performs. Does that mean rules are made by said actors? It shouldn't should it?
I prefer that you write your responses all at once so that your ideas are more cohesive. I hate to respond to something you wrote in your first reply is you figured it out or would phrase it differently by the time of your third reply. Regardless I saw all your responses so you're good.
In your first reply you bring up negative rights such as a right to privacy or a right to freedom of speech, and you suggest that these don't require enforcement at all, let alone tax funded enforcement. So let's take the example of the USA. The USA recognizes its people as having a bunch of different rights, but these aren't regular laws written in bills. Instead, they take the form of constitutional amendments. The constitution acts as the law above laws. People have to follow the law, but laws have to follow the constitution. These rules are enforced, just by the supreme court. Which is funded by taxes.
In your first reply you also bring up the possibility of an organization that doesn't need the people's taxes in order to force rules on them. I have to admit that I hadn't considered that. Our right to influence a government only comes from its dependence on our taxes in the first place. (Think of "no taxation without representation.") When talking about an organization that doesn't need taxes from the population it forces its rules on, an imperial occupation comes to mind. Would that count as the population's government? Would its rules count as "laws?" Is this even an important distinction to make if we aren't in that kind of situation? What do you think?
Finally, I don't think private contracts count as laws.
As for the talk about what constitutes a "rule," I think I phrased my definition in a confusing way. How about this? A rule is when a conditional disposition or plan of action would effect the body, the property, or the opportunity of another actor. Especially if the enforcement actions taken are taken based on what the people affected have already done, and especially when the plan or disposition is communicated to them ahead of time.
Okay, I understand the reply situation. A lesson here is do not use two clients for same purpose.
Regarding, the need of government to run from taxes, i meant technically it does not require taxes to run. They can just print money. But i suppose inflation is also a tax.
The main point is enforcment requirement for your definition of law. Constitution is enforced by courts but is law only the thing that is written in constitution and enforced as such, if freedom of speech is not given as a right would it cease to exist. Yes, minor things needs to be written but what about some rights that exceed in major ways like right to life, equality and pursuit of happiness. This brings up a point that does rights exist independently from a state or it is merely a manifestation of state.
The enforcement necessity of the definition makes me think, a law cannot be not a law if it is unenforceable, like copyright law on the internet is not really enforceable think torrent swarms, that does not mean it is ceases to be a law.
You said courts run on taxes true. A tribal or indeginous people have their own 'laws' it exists even today in certain parts, for eg. More share of meat is given to a person who lands the killing blow. Would you call this not a law? Perhaps only a necessary arrangement? The elders decide the punishment if a party fails to follow the law, elders do not require money to run. That is also atleast for me a valid law as it shares the same principle as a government's rule, don't pay taxes go to jail.
This segways us to the latter points."Our right to influence is only because we pay taxes". I think it's not the case, our right to influence the government comes from the fact that certain powers are surrenderd by us and handed over to the government. That also includes taxes but there are far greater power the population surrendered, like complying with laws or not to bear arms and invade a neighbouring country.
You asked is imperial country's populous government or not. The reason I included the tibal example above is to expand more here. It indeed is populous government not in the same way a democracy is but it is. If people move out of a nation state, the state ceases to exist. The tribe requires the population to be a tribe. So it does matter to discuss the imperial or dictator regimes because they exist, the definition of law cannot discriminate based on what kind of governmental structure a state has, the law is just oil in the engine, it should not matter which kind of engine it is, oil should be oil no matter what it runs.
Private contacts are not laws? Why? If you say so whole part of legal structure is challenged.
A contract has the same binding force as a law made by the government, don't stop at a red light pay money. Don't honour the contact, well pay money. Why is private contract different than a law? It does bind you in the same way as a law does can even restrict your valuable rights like criminal law does, should we treat such thing any different than law?
I cannot fully understand your position on the definition of a rule. Here is mine, rules are set of things one ought to do or not to do in a particular context of situation. Should it be more complicated than that? It does not matter what a rule is now I suppose but I want to hear what you say.
I can see the idea that a tribe might count as a government with laws, even though they don't have taxes or use force to extort the taxes from eachother. However, ordinary families have rules too, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who believes that families are states and "take off your shoes before walking in the house" is a law. Similarly, I don't think a contract between two private individuals can be considered a law or considered legally binding unless there's a chance one of them could take the other to civil court. You say "don't honor the contract? Pay money", but how would that be enforced without the state?
If a law on the books would never be enforced, then I don't consider it a law in reality. There are some laws like piracy laws which can be difficult or impossible to enforce, but I wouldn't say that those aren't laws. Rather, I would say that the piracy is happening outside of the state's jourisdiction.
On the topic of rights, I do believe rights are independent of the state. Even in China they have freedom of speech. The state can never decide for you what you meant by your words, especially if you aren't talking directly too them. When you say "Whinnie the Pooh", absolutely nothing can stop you from meaning "Xi Jinping" inside of your head and the head of your intended listener. All they can do is try to punish and exploit anyone who is nice enough to speak in a slightly more straightforward way so that the state to take action against them.
And it goes the other way around too. Even if an organization or government "surrenders" something to us, it doesn't mean that we suddenly have the right to it, especially if we aren't providing anything in return. Suppose an army shows up in another country one day, displaces the previous government, and quickly suppresses any opposition. Then, they start digging up the ground to mine a natural resource far further down then we could have effected.
If they start giving orders to the people living there, would those count as laws? More importantly, if they start imposing artificial rules on themselves, would those constitute rights? Suppose they promised not to demolish and dig underneath daycares. So what? What right would the people have to complain even if they did? Is there any choice the population made that actually helped the foreign power? So what if the people build something and it get's demolished? What right do they have to complain? It's not the foreign powe's fault they decided to build on top of those resources. If anything, the people would be oppressing themselves and violating their own "rights" by building in such stupid places.
The idea of a government that doesn't need its people even for taxes is one that absolutely terrifies me. The people's final line of defense against their government is supposed to be mutually assured destruction. The government can't take money from the people if the people never earn any money. The government can't take people's labor, or the products of their labor if they never work. The scariest thing about civil war to a government is the fact that the people fighting don't have anything better to do. They would rather die and therefore do nothing forever than contribute the slightest bit more towards the state. Without that threat, the government loses the final thing that ties its actions to the will of the people, and the people lose their right to representation.
I probably haven't responded to everything you said, so please repeat anything you still want me to respond to.
