Scoundrel on Nostr: I prefer that you write your responses all at once so that your ideas are more ...
I prefer that you write your responses all at once so that your ideas are more cohesive. I hate to respond to something you wrote in your first reply is you figured it out or would phrase it differently by the time of your third reply. Regardless I saw all your responses so you're good.
In your first reply you bring up negative rights such as a right to privacy or a right to freedom of speech, and you suggest that these don't require enforcement at all, let alone tax funded enforcement. So let's take the example of the USA. The USA recognizes its people as having a bunch of different rights, but these aren't regular laws written in bills. Instead, they take the form of constitutional amendments. The constitution acts as the law above laws. People have to follow the law, but laws have to follow the constitution. These rules are enforced, just by the supreme court. Which is funded by taxes.
In your first reply you also bring up the possibility of an organization that doesn't need the people's taxes in order to force rules on them. I have to admit that I hadn't considered that. Our right to influence a government only comes from its dependence on our taxes in the first place. (Think of "no taxation without representation.") When talking about an organization that doesn't need taxes from the population it forces its rules on, an imperial occupation comes to mind. Would that count as the population's government? Would its rules count as "laws?" Is this even an important distinction to make if we aren't in that kind of situation? What do you think?
Finally, I don't think private contracts count as laws.
As for the talk about what constitutes a "rule," I think I phrased my definition in a confusing way. How about this? A rule is when a conditional disposition or plan of action would effect the body, the property, or the opportunity of another actor. Especially if the enforcement actions taken are taken based on what the people affected have already done, and especially when the plan or disposition is communicated to them ahead of time.
In your first reply you bring up negative rights such as a right to privacy or a right to freedom of speech, and you suggest that these don't require enforcement at all, let alone tax funded enforcement. So let's take the example of the USA. The USA recognizes its people as having a bunch of different rights, but these aren't regular laws written in bills. Instead, they take the form of constitutional amendments. The constitution acts as the law above laws. People have to follow the law, but laws have to follow the constitution. These rules are enforced, just by the supreme court. Which is funded by taxes.
In your first reply you also bring up the possibility of an organization that doesn't need the people's taxes in order to force rules on them. I have to admit that I hadn't considered that. Our right to influence a government only comes from its dependence on our taxes in the first place. (Think of "no taxation without representation.") When talking about an organization that doesn't need taxes from the population it forces its rules on, an imperial occupation comes to mind. Would that count as the population's government? Would its rules count as "laws?" Is this even an important distinction to make if we aren't in that kind of situation? What do you think?
Finally, I don't think private contracts count as laws.
As for the talk about what constitutes a "rule," I think I phrased my definition in a confusing way. How about this? A rule is when a conditional disposition or plan of action would effect the body, the property, or the opportunity of another actor. Especially if the enforcement actions taken are taken based on what the people affected have already done, and especially when the plan or disposition is communicated to them ahead of time.