Understood. The post war trial did convict nazis. The idea was that an unjust/ immoral law is not a law hence if it's legal to kill someone it doesn't absolve one just because it was legal. I am forgetting things maybe, but the argument was something similar like that. It did raise a question into what being a law is. Someone can clarify if they know the particulars of the trials.

That is quite an amout of money!

They lost the access don't they? Or is it a choice? It would be funny if they lose the seeds. Haha

During Nazi Germany, a wife, allegedly involved in an affair, reported her husband to authorities for criticizing Hitler, motivated by personal spite. Her actions, legal and even encouraged under Nazi law, led to his punishment. After the regime's fall, she was prosecuted under post-war justice. Her defense: "It was legal at the time."

Should individuals be punished for actions that were legal under an unjust regime?

How should societies address actions taken under the laws of an unjust regime?

What are your thoughts and opinions folks!

#asknostr #law #discussion

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.

Doc you look like a dude that could get things done. I love ring on the pinky.

Then I shall begin.....

Exatly like that. ❤️ Welcome

Beautiful.

See ya captain.

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?

A law is a description of any action an actor might perform or not perform..... I get the vibe that your def of rules looks like its describing law and rights.

Rules are written(the part you wrote as "generally communicated ahead of time")set of things one ought to do and ought not to do. This is perhaps a little simplied version of your definition.

These set of rules if enforced by taxes and theft is law? also what do you mean by its enforcement depends on action of people affeced?

What happnes if this there comes a rule that says yawning is against the law! its enforcement can be done the same way you described by using theft. Would such be a law?

Aight lets get to the law first.

The definition hinges on idea of a rule so i asked what you meant by it.

Lets see then. If law is enforcement of rule, what about things that does not require enforcement per say. The rule that says you have freedom of speech or privacy. Those does not require enforcement and definetely not enforcement based on theft as you say.

Also who enforces these so called law? If taxes are involved so i infer you mean the government . The goverment theoritically does not require taxes for its operation. If lets say by enforcing rule they exist i.e they enforce their own existence it does not have to be by taxes and theft.

Also 2 private individuals can also be binded by law when enforcement is totally on them not on taxes and theft. Contracts the enforcement of which is on your pokcket and your legitimately earned wealth. Are those not law?

I am just trying to poke holes on your definition.

But, The question I posted was not for description of law as is. It can be described as a lot of thing the question could be worded better like. "What does it mean for a law to be a law" or something like that.

Ps I will read the rules part now and respond to it.

That is what a long time of colonialism will do. Poor souls believe white people to be literal gods, no one will miss the change to dm a god.

If that is the case than the question arises, what is a rule.

I have never seen law being defined in such a as you did. Bravo.

Looks like an exparte order for civil suit. If you did not recieve notice of summons its a serious lapse of legal principle.

First i would verify the judgement. How did you come to find about the fine? Couldn't the same channel be used for summons? Also notice of summons are served 2 times more or less in my jurisdiction at least.

See legal portal or go ask the Court for the copy.

After that seek a small time run of the mill attorney, they shall be better suited to give you advise.

And you can be held liable for defamation over the internet. The order/judgement will tell you the reasons why, so first verify the judgement first.

This is not a legal Advise. Please talk to a attorney.

If its a majority thing than why not remove people from the equation all together. At the end of the day government is by the people. And just say what government does is justice.

I understand your point tho.

It is a tangent to the original discussion but I want to know your position on the property rights. The necessary part of locke perhaps is is God gives man property on his own i dont mean he meant a literal god but natural rights gave man property on his body. He mixes his labour on a land grows fruit, fruit is his. If i understand locke am i correct till here?

Now what happens if I toil the water daily from up the hill and pour it into an ocean? Do i own the ocean?

Its just a inquiry please do no think otherwise. I did read locke's two treatise (only cp5 "on property") and saw the above critic i could not defend it. Thus i want to know. I was too caught up in understanding the definition of property other inquiries skipped me.

My man quotes locke's chapter 5 was it? like its nothing.

My nostr client glitching out!!

Was just fasinated by you two's arguement. I wanted to ask you one question. When they asked "So in your "civilized society" the government only does just things? " You said 90% and perhaps this note also refers to that 90%.

The question would be what is 'just'? So how would you define justice?

I just want your view on this, it would be womderful to knownwhat you think on justice.

Rights does not come from the government. Why would it? The opposite is true it is people that give rights to the government. Again it is also true that we gave the rights to the government to give/take away rights from us.

Also one can say that rights come from a constitution in modern constitutional democracy. I would still disagree and say the constitution has its valididy only because people subscribe.

I just chimed it. It was worth reading both of you. ❤️

I have no idea what you said. Maybe some good words. ❤️ The feelings are mutual?