The Main Reason of Law - Essay Example

The End of Law The End of Law A key distinction between a nation, which enjoys the advantages of limited governance, personal freedom, individual liberty, as well as economic opportunity, and one, which suffers under the yoke of dictatorship, is that the first remains strict to the rule of law and the second observes the rule of whim. John Locke, the cerebral font from which America’s founding fathers drank long and deep claimed, “The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom.”1 Individuals who consider themselves supporters of the common man or otherwise citizen offer their assistance to programs and individuals, who limit freedom and relegate a majority of the people to the role of forfeits in the conundrum factor of central planning. Such voters with low information, as well as the bright eyed fellow-travelers either just wake up for elections to go vote for the political parties that their parents used to voted for, or they deem them as demagogues who promise them the American version of Utopia.2 The people who only got to vote as for the parties that their parents once voted for can simply be considered as taking commercial breaks between reality shows, whereas the people who think America will be turned into Utopia honestly consider that some of the programs advertised by the politics will create heaven on earth, plus there will be a cell phone on every hand, a pc on every desk and everything will be ok with the world. Keeping in line with the above statement by Locke, this paper will discuss whether this statement is actually true and how well politicians obey this percept today. The development of militant nihilism, in the U.S., is reminding freedom lovers that freedoms lacks where there is no operational law. Not only is there no liberty without restraint, but people acquire freedom only when they become aware of and obey the law. However, unfortunately enough, the law has come to imply the dictates and decrees of the government or state: tax laws, traffic laws: labor laws: antitrust laws: civil rights laws, school laws, as well as the orders of tens of thousands of agencies contracted to interpret and implement these actions.3 The law also implies the enforcers: the agencies along with the procedures of implementing these laws from the police to the courts to the penal bodies. However, not every government fiats and implementations groups are vital to preserve peace, as well as widen freedom. In reality, the citizens of each and every country can widen their freedom through repealing a number of their laws on their constitution and through decreasing the number of people now attempting to implement these restraints. This is because politicians do not obey Locke’s claim that “the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.”4 Regimes impose these hurdles on liberty so as, allegedly, to check abuses of liberty. Also, as the citizens, who are also the victims, become used to their shackles, they are prone to tremble at the ills, which they suppose may ensure if they regain their freedom. This means that it is difficult for citizens to reconcile their longing for freedom with their knowledge that liberty is so frequently abused. Thus, people are forced to grant lip service to freedom and say that they actually have faith in free enterprise, but they truthfully yearn for more freedom for everyone.5 Nevertheless, most citizens put up with blatant political infringements of freedom and then command still more regulations to cope with evils that these infringements create. People should be aware that freedom in any event is always misused, in the end, by someone. No one, meaning politicians, has the full knowledge vital to do what is right, either in personal or in relations with other individuals at all times. No one has the infinite self-control or wisdom crucial to stay away from misusing the new opportunities that a progressive society is repeatedly opening for its members. Teachers, nurses and doctors, as well as bankers, politicians, artists and salesmen, often make you of whatever freedom they have. Therefore, from this fact, the thoughtless concludes that people are unfit for liberty.6 They visualize human progress, in terms of increasing use of government power in order to restrict liberty wherever or whenever anyone mistreats it. In addition, they normally seek to eliminate it where abuses are moderately few since it is politically simpler to put hurdles on a few than many. However, it is from these actions of only a few people whom their fellows regard as dangerous or foolish, that citizens, sometimes, reap the greatest benefit. "Liberty" to perform just what someone else claims should be done is not liberty, but slavery.7 Plus, a society of free citizens who discern and opt to do just what is good and wise is a utopian dream. What, then, is "The Law" that raises freedom as compared to the governmental laws that are so often retard and limit it? How do people discover "The Law" of a liberal society, and how do they implement it without erecting a liberty crushing Government, or State? In philosophy, a law is a sequence, or uniform order, of events. In human conduct, on the other hand, it is a pattern of behavior, commonly repeated, and thus predictable.8 These laws, or regularities, of human action might be psychological, moral, economic, or juristic, and maybe political and aesthetic. However, the laws of human action differ from the laws of lifeless nature as humans vary from inanimate matter. People differ from lifeless objects in that people’s actions are purposive due to their actions. These actions lay deep in their internal motive forces vital to sustain life, instead of direct response to exterior physical forces.9 This renders their actions variable, as well as less predictable since the internal structures forces differ from one person to another. This personal variation is much greater for the higher and more complex organisms; and it is greatest for people of every age, race and condition. More considerably, people differ from every other living being only by being self-responsible. This means that they teach themselves to be self-directing. Their behaviour result from choice instead of instinct; and because people opt to pursue a never ending range of self-determined purposes, anyone can stray from the behaviour sequence that the praxeologist, Locke, sets forth as regular mode of action, or "law". Therefore, the jurist, having the same view as Locke, discovers that the laws, or regularities, with which he deals are norms — normative rules, expectations, standards, "oughts" or probabilities, — instead of the habitual sequences that chemists or physicists might find out and refer to "laws." Therefore, understood most broadly, "the law" in human proceedings implies the system of norms for human behaviour.10 An expert in this field (a jurist or lawyer) might concern himself simply with the standards and rules prevailing in society to which his customers or other groups belong. In human relations, the law consists of every custom, rule, as well as standard, which influences the decisions of judges and juries.11 It comprises of not only written ordinances and statutes, prior court rulings and rules of procedure in courts, but also prejudices and pressures that might persuade a judge’s determination of the law or a jury’s vote in a specific case. More closely, law philosophers illustrate it as that whole complex body of rules, judicial rulings, and usages that stipulate the actions of people towards others and which are implemented by sanctions.12 In these efforts to plan and control whole economies or of big segments of these economies, people who control those economies have to choose their outcomes; that is why politicians, most of the times, fail to obey Locke’s percept.13 This is because one outcome might advance their political plans and others might not. Apparently, since you have to keep up with the plan, whatever hinders its achievement is less pleasing compared to what ensure its objective. Thus, the planners have to encourage one thing, as well as discourage another. This comes down to restricting choices and selecting winners and losers. For instance, the law bans the use of coal because it slows the advancement towards a zero carbon footprint, as well as aids to the global warming, which is repeated and ended more than 10 years, but politicians still encourage the use banning of coal.14 Thus, they encourage the production and use of coal against the law. This selecting of winners and losers in relation to a prearranged plan by unelected people of the nomenclature limits the freedom of citizens to work and flourish as they will whereas satisfying others who make unfortunate investments and some who even go broke leaving the citizens to clean up the mess, which works conflicting of the rule of law.15 To be fair, laws have to cater to everyone. When a country is dictated by the rule of law, their regime does not deny people their rights or opportunities. Whenever a regime commences out on the route to Utopia, it is important that it micromanages their economy, meaning dealing with it in small bits, making particular rulings relating to the real needs of individuals relating to the plan.16 Politicians have to slow some down, as well as speed others up if they want people to reach their desired location at the preferred time. When a law stops being generally applied and rather arbitrarily opts between what some can perform and what another might not do, and these decisions are diverse, then the regulations are no longer developing a fair playing field, but simply crating a maze. As Aristotle educated people that the only stable country is the one where every citizen is equal before the law, we must also be free from the bondage of our politicians and they should allow us the time to enjoy our liberty.17 In conclusion, they law is there to protect everyone not only politicians from developing and ripping the most out of their lives. Today, politicians might think that the best way to rule is suppress the law and not obey its rule, but by doing this they are only hindering the progress of their citizens. If they truly desire to see the progress of their people, then they should see that their liberty is ensured and that they also obey the rule of law. Bibliography Mack, Eric., "Locke, John (1632–1704)". In Hamowy, Ronald. The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism, Thousand Oaks, CA, SAGE, 2008. Robinson, Dave, Introducing Political Philosophy, New York, Icon Books, 2003. Strauss, Leo. Natural Right and History, Argues from a non-Marxist point of view for a deep affinity between Hobbes and Locke, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1953. Waldron, Jeremy., God, Locke and Equality: Christian Foundations in Lockes Political Thought, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 2002. Zuckert, Michael, Launching Liberalism: On Lockean Political Philosophy, Lawrence, KS, University Press of Kansas, 2012. Read More