Legalism . . . When There Is No Victim, Is There Any Crime?
Posted by freedomforall 2 days, 6 hours ago to Government
Excerpt:
"if harm done cannot be substantiated, then how can it be said a crime has been committed?
This a question that underlies the old – now forgotten – legal tradition.
That was before the rise of legalism, which is similar to rigid adherence to the strictures of the Old Testament or the Talmud. They encompass the idea that “the law” is “the law” and must be obeyed and enforced because it is “the law.” Not because it even makes sense. Just because it is. This is the kind of law that currently governs the United States and indeed, the entire Western world. It is a warren of case law, each new case giving something new for legalist to parse over, endlessly.
The Bill of Rights is very much in the common law tradition. Its ten amendments are written in clear English and do not require endless, parsing by a kind of rabbinical class of lawyers and judges. Consider the language of the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Any person of normal intelligence can easily comprehend this law. It is one long sentence, without any opacity. “Congress shall make no law respecting the an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Does it require Talmudic parsing? If it does, then so does “no trespassing.”
Only a Legalist would argue that needs parsing.
Contrast the language of the First Amendment with some of that found in the Constitution – which George Mason, who is credited with authoring/insisting on the Bill of Rights – considered suspiciously Legalistic precisely because of such language as “general welfare” and “necessary” and “proper.” He presciently foresaw that such language would inevitably lead to Legalism, a system of endless and characteristically arbitrary rules endlessly parsed by a rabbinical class of lawyers and judges, who get to decide (among other things) what is meant by “necessary” and “proper” and also what the “general welfare” is. Since it is not possible to fix a definite meaning on such terms, the meaning of such terms is regularly revisited and altered – according to the inscrutable, arbitrary interpretations of these secular rabbis."
"if harm done cannot be substantiated, then how can it be said a crime has been committed?
This a question that underlies the old – now forgotten – legal tradition.
That was before the rise of legalism, which is similar to rigid adherence to the strictures of the Old Testament or the Talmud. They encompass the idea that “the law” is “the law” and must be obeyed and enforced because it is “the law.” Not because it even makes sense. Just because it is. This is the kind of law that currently governs the United States and indeed, the entire Western world. It is a warren of case law, each new case giving something new for legalist to parse over, endlessly.
The Bill of Rights is very much in the common law tradition. Its ten amendments are written in clear English and do not require endless, parsing by a kind of rabbinical class of lawyers and judges. Consider the language of the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Any person of normal intelligence can easily comprehend this law. It is one long sentence, without any opacity. “Congress shall make no law respecting the an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Does it require Talmudic parsing? If it does, then so does “no trespassing.”
Only a Legalist would argue that needs parsing.
Contrast the language of the First Amendment with some of that found in the Constitution – which George Mason, who is credited with authoring/insisting on the Bill of Rights – considered suspiciously Legalistic precisely because of such language as “general welfare” and “necessary” and “proper.” He presciently foresaw that such language would inevitably lead to Legalism, a system of endless and characteristically arbitrary rules endlessly parsed by a rabbinical class of lawyers and judges, who get to decide (among other things) what is meant by “necessary” and “proper” and also what the “general welfare” is. Since it is not possible to fix a definite meaning on such terms, the meaning of such terms is regularly revisited and altered – according to the inscrutable, arbitrary interpretations of these secular rabbis."
Also, a sarcastic joke I heard long ago regarding the NY legislature: "Two bills are presented that address the same issue. Which one passes? Answer: The one that generates the most revenue for lawyers and politicians."
This is very old in U.S. history—Jefferson, in the DOI, wrote “…and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. …”
Humans adjust to the realities forced upon them. Which is why America hasn’t had a second Revolution and, probably, never will.