Raw on Nostr: Okay, I understand the reply situation. A lesson here is do not use two clients for ...
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.
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.