I think nostr:nprofile1qqsp4lsvwn3aw7zwh2f6tcl6249xa6cpj2x3yuu6azaysvncdqywxmgpz4mhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejqzenhwden5te0ve5kcar9wghxummnw3ezuamfdejj7mnsw43rzun5d3ckxcfcwgmxzatev9mn2m34dqekcdf5xgexgmf5wde8jdty0fnx2ef5xcunven3v5u8xdn3va6kg6mnxajx5arxwvlkyun0v9jxxctnws7hgun4v5dpfm4n is touching on an important idea I’ve considered before: Culture precedes laws. Or at least, that’s how it ought to be.
Laws should reflect what a culture already accepts as right and true. The written laws of a state matter much less than the cultural fabric of its people.
If mass immigration occurs, and the newcomers don’t share the same cultural values, those laws will inevitably be disregarded because they were never rooted in the newcomers’ sense of right and wrong in the first place.
This is also why many of us no longer respect the political process. Too often, politicians pass laws that clash with cultural norms and beliefs. It creates a massive gap between governance and the people it claims to represent.
The current political establishment wants laws to influence culture, instead of the culture influencing the laws.
This has been tried and failed multiple times..
-Weimar Germany (1919-1933)
-Antebellum American South (1800s-1861)
-Münster Anabaptist Kingdom (1534-1535)
-Roman Republic (1st century BC)
When culture becomes the ultimate authority for law, you get no external check on cultural drift toward injustice, oppression, or self destruction. Culture can embrace terrible things and when law simply follows culture, there’s no mechanism for correction.
That’s an interesting point. In those examples, was the issue a lack of lawful state authority, or was it a deviation from God’s law?
Both. The culture had drifted from God’s law, and when laws just followed that corrupted culture, even strong states enforced injustice. Münster had weak authority too, but the others had functioning governments that simply reflected ungodly cultural values.
