On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 05:36:51PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
Also, unlike many in the law business (at least as I see them being interviewed on video and in print), I don't see any "majesty" in the law. What I see instead is a massive deviation from the "kernel" of a largely self-running machine based on core (kernel) principles of "you leave me alone and I'll leave you alone" kinds of Schelling points.
I agree. I've never understood why folks find the law to be "majestic." Some theories: * Some people thrill to the raw application of power. This may explain the popularity of law and order and shows of that genre. It explains why many people move to Washington, to be close to power and eventually hope to become a deputy assistant undersecretary of petty and generally inscrutable affairs. * Law professors have spent too much time reading legal "rights theory" and other assorted oppressed-class nonsense (I have in my possession a law review article written about science fiction worlds, which while entertaining is hardly what I would call an academic pursuit). Using the law to implement your will can be majestic, perhaps. * Still others view politics as an honorable profession, or are simply intrigued by the change to do good in some way. I know a reporter at the New York Times who has consciously dedicated her life to the pursuit of "civil justice." The common law, before Washington created a Napoleonic code of thousands of pages of rules and exceptions and allowances for well-connected lobbyists, may have had a better claim to being majestic. No longer. -Declan