The philosophy of law: Does it matter who writes the laws?

[jay gw]

Scenario:

On planet zero, there are 3 groups of citizens. There are the tall and green skinned ones, the short and gray skinned and the red skinned ones with wings.

The red skinned ones make all the laws for the 3 groups.

Is there anything wrong with that?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by jay gw
Scenario:

On planet zero, there are 3 groups of citizens. There are the tall and green skinned ones, the short and gray skinned and the red skinned ones with wings.

The red skinned ones make all the laws for the 3 groups.

Is there anything wrong with that?

Yet another inane question.

Do you have a purpose in asking?

[Jon.]

Originally posted by jay gw
Scenario:

On planet zero, there are 3 groups of citizens. There are the tall and green skinned ones, the short and gray skinned and the red skinned ones with wings.

The red skinned ones make all the laws for the 3 groups.

Is there anything wrong with that?

Far too little information is provided to answer the question.

Do the different groups of citizens have different wants, needs, desires, modes of living, levels of intelligence or education, etc.? What kind of "laws" are we talking about? Is there interaction between the groups and what is the nature of it: hostile, netural, beneficent, mutually supportive, etc.?

If this is meant to be some kind of parable, it is far too weak and far too obtuse.

[TragicMonkey]

Depends on the laws they make. If they make laws requiring all non-winged persons to pay extra taxes, then they are abusing their responsibility. If their laws treat all three groups exactly the same, then there seems no grounds for objection.

[jay gw]

If this is meant to be some kind of parable, it is far too weak and far too obtuse.

It's meant to make you list the criteria for judging laws and lawmakers

Do the different groups of citizens have different wants, needs, desires, modes of living, levels of intelligence or education, etc.? What kind of "laws" are we talking about? Is there interaction between the groups and what is the nature of it: hostile, netural, beneficent, mutually supportive, etc.?

which you did.

How do you describe the nature of a relationship between strangers? You've never met your lawmakers and neither have I. And if you have it was for a moment. Most people in the world have no direct contact with their lawmakers. What is the nature of that?

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by jay gw
How do you describe the nature of a relationship between strangers? You've never met your lawmakers and neither have I. And if you have it was for a moment. Most people in the world have no direct contact with their lawmakers. What is the nature of that? I don't know about you, but I vote for or against lawmakers.

Come to think about it, I never met the president. What is the nature of that?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by jay gw
Scenario:

On planet zero, there are 3 groups of citizens. There are the tall and green skinned ones, the short and gray skinned and the red skinned ones with wings.

The red skinned ones make all the laws for the 3 groups.

Is there anything wrong with that?

Depends on the laws.

[jay gw]

I don't know about you, but I vote for or against lawmakers.


Would the fact you've voted for all red skinned with wings (like the example op) bother you? Why not?

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Depends on the laws they make. If they make laws requiring all non-winged persons to pay extra taxes, then they are abusing their responsibility. If their laws treat all three groups exactly the same, then there seems no grounds for objection.

And if the law discriminates, why does it matter WHO writes the law? A law is right, or it isn't. Doesn't matter who writes it.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by jay gw
Would the fact you've voted for all red skinned with wings (like the example op) bother you? Why not? Your example wasn't mentioning anything about the three groups voting.

The red skinned ones make all the laws for the 3 groups.

[jay gw]

Your example wasn't mentioning anything about the three groups voting.

Would it matter?

Why does it matter if the lawmakers are voted in or inherit the position if the laws aren't unfair to anyone?

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by jay gw
Would it matter?Don't you think it would make a difference if the people from all three groups voted for their lawmakers, compared to one group making all the laws?

Why does it matter if the lawmakers are voted in or inherit the position if the laws aren't unfair to anyone? The statement "the laws aren't unfair to anyone" wasn't mentioned in your opening post.

Would you like to change your statement to

The red skinned ones make all the laws for the 3 groups. The laws aren't unfair to anyone. Is there anything wrong with that???

[Jon.]

Originally posted by jay gw
It's meant to make you list the criteria for judging laws and lawmakers ... which you did.

No, actually, I didn't. I listed some of the factors that would have to be considered when deciding whether it would be fair for one group to be making the laws for all the groups.

Lawmakers should be judged by the quality of the laws they make; the quality of laws is a much broader topic and I don't have time to go into it.

[TragicMonkey]

Actually, I've rethunk this. Although the current laws might be fair and impartial and deal equally with all three groups, the other two groups might have cause to fear this wouldn't always be the case. Since they are at the mercy of the red winged people, they might have a legitimate interest as members of the society in having this monopoly on power broken to assure that justice continues. Having equal rights is a good thing, but having equal rights that could be taken away at the whim of others isn't very good. Securing rights means not just getting them, but keeping them.

Of course, this would depend on how their identity politics work. If all three groups are sightless, color might be utterly irrelevant to them and thus not a factor. Or if each type of creature is actually the same animal at different stages in a life cycle, that might be an ageism issue, but not a 'racism' one.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey

Of course, this would depend on how their identity politics work. If all three groups are sightless, color might be utterly irrelevant to them and thus not a factor. Or if each type of creature is actually the same animal at different stages in a life cycle, that might be an ageism issue, but not a 'racism' one.

Or if membership in the group is a matter of choice and/or ability. For example, in the United States, there are two kinds of people -- lawmakers and non-lawmakers. Lawmakers make all the laws (by definition), but there's nothing preventing a non-lawmaker from becoming a lawmaker.

Similarly, in the United States, only literate people make laws; I know of no illiterate who has ever been elected to national office.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by new drkitten
I know of no illiterate who has ever been elected to national office.

Heh, are you sure? :)

[jay gw]

The statement "the laws aren't unfair to anyone" wasn't mentioned in your opening post.

I didn't say the laws were fair or unfair. If they were fair, would it matter that every lawmaker comes from the same group of red skinned winged citizens?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by jay gw
I didn't say the laws were fair or unfair. If they were fair, would it matter that every lawmaker comes from the same group of red skinned winged citizens?

No...provided there were guarantees that the laws would remain fair to the other groups. If the red winged group can at will disenfranchise or oppress the other groups, then that is a legitimate concern.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by jay gw
I didn't say the laws were fair or unfair.That's what I pointed out. But you do realize it makes a difference?

If they were fair, would it matter that every lawmaker comes from the same group of red skinned winged citizens? If the laws were fair to the different groups (and if it was an everlasting guarantee that they would be so) the skin color of those who wrote them (the tall and green skinned ones, maybe) wouldn't matter anyhow, would it?

[Batman Jr.]

I'm suspecting that you are implying that each of the three groups is somewhat clannish in respect to their appearances in that they tend to view others that look like them as being deserving of greater sympathy and that the prospect of helping them would make it worthwhile to exploit the other groups much as we see racial and religious boundaries doing in contemporary society. In the case that one group has a monopoly over lawmaking responsibilities, it is certainly dangerous as without checks and balances, no one can object to any exploitative laws they are prone to make. There is no opportunity for unshackled discourse on that level of societal organization.

Update: I see that you have now expounded on your original post in clarifying that the laws they make are fair. I think, though, you still have to embroider your hypothetical subjects a little more in terms of tensions between them and any kind of favoritism practiced which encourages like to elevate like above the rest of the population. Otherwise, your scenario would reflect more a difference between a blonde-haired white man and a brown-haired one than a politically meaningful contrast.

[jay gw]

you still have to embroider your hypothetical subjects a little more in terms of tensions between them and any kind of favoritism practiced which encourages like to elevate like above the rest of the population.

How do you show favoritism for one group vs. the others in lawmaking is occurring?

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by jay gw
How do you show favoritism for one group vs. the others in lawmaking is occurring? Obviously that would be difficult in your hypothetical since you haven't given us any example of a law they have made. Maybe you should, and then discuss if that example shows favoritism?

How can one group be favorized if, as you have stated, the laws are not unfair to anyone?

However, if only citizens with wings were allowed to own property .... :(

[SwissSkeptic]

Originally posted by jay gw
How do you show favoritism for one group vs. the others in lawmaking is occurring?

Favouritism is occurring if the laws are discriminating between the groups, be it directly (e.g. red skinned people with wings are exempted from paying taxes) or indirectly. Indirect discrimination happens when a law regulates a matter for everybody, but in reality a specific group is affected disproportionally.

I didn't vote in the poll because the question is really irrelevant.

[jay gw]

I didn't vote in the poll because the question is really irrelevant.

Meaning it doesn't matter who writes the laws.

[SwissSkeptic]

Originally posted by jay gw
Meaning it doesn't matter who writes the laws.

That's not what I said. I was referring to the question right above the poll:

In making laws, the composition and diversity of the lawmakers is a factor.

It has been pointed out to you that you leave out a lot of information one would need in order to properly answer your poll. (Are the laws discriminating? Is the government elected? By whom? Is there a system of checks and balances? Etcetc.)
Also your wording is awkward: "[something] is a factor in making laws" doesn't really mean anything. The breakfast of the presidents maid can be "a factor in making laws". So what?

Plus there isn't a Planet X option, which makes me a sad panda.

IMHO a more interesting question that seems related to yours would be: When is a law "unjust" and when does one have to follow such a law? This question has an inherent tendency to godwinize itself, though.

[Beerina]

> There are the tall and green skinned ones, the short and gray skinned and the red skinned ones with wings.


Well, without knowing if the green ones are children, or the gray ones are former slaves from Africa, or if all the red ones being elected is just a statistical fluke, you can't judge the situation.

And we won't even get into the sci-fi element where different species, or sub-species can have radically different intelligences (although for every story where that is true, there are a hundred where it turns out it's the local culture's version of White Man's Burden as a trite reflection on Earth.)

[jay gw]

"[something] is a factor in making laws" doesn't really mean anything.

Factor means influence. Does the composition of the lawmaking body and the individual lawmakers, affect the laws they write?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by jay gw
Factor means influence. Does the composition of the lawmaking body and the individual lawmakers, affect the laws they write?

We don't know. Does it?

If you are asking if the composition of the lawmaking body is the universal absolute determining factor in what laws are written and how that influences the governed, the answer is no. We can expect that there will be some effect, but how much, and how much it influences the laws written, are at the mercy of dozens of other variables. That's why everyone is asking you for more information.

Your ideas about politics and government are very naive and terribly simplistic.


ETA: And the worst enemies are the ones that are intelligent, crude, cruel, and corrupt. And with a better sense of personal style than you.

[jay gw]

If you are asking if the composition of the lawmaking body is the universal absolute determining factor in what laws are written and how that influences the governed, the answer is no.

I never asked that.

That's why everyone is asking you for more information.

What information has anyone asked for?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by jay gw
I never asked that.

Then what exactly are you asking? The answer to your subject question, "Does it matter who writes the laws?" is, sometimes.


Originally posted by jay gw
What information has anyone asked for?

Your lack of competence regarding reading comprehension boggles me. Read the thread.

[SwissSkeptic]

Originally posted by jay gw
Factor means influence. Does the composition of the lawmaking body and the individual lawmakers, affect the laws they write?

I'm aware of the meaning of the word "factor", thank you. I gave you an answer to why I think your question is meaningless.

What information has anyone asked for?

Now I'm starting to remember why I've never bothered to reply in your threads. :rolleyes:

[jay gw]

Then what exactly are you asking? The answer to your subject question, "Does it matter who writes the laws?" is, sometimes.

That's what I'm asking. "Sometimes" is a little vague. Why is it sometimes and not all the time? On what occasion does it not matter who the lawmakers are, what the composition of the body is?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by jay gw
That's what I'm asking. "Sometimes" is a little vague. Why is it sometimes and not all the time?

Because there are other factors involved. Many other factors. Oftentimes factors with a much greater influence. This is why the others were trying to get you to be more specific in your hypothetical.

You know, asking for information...

Originally posted by jay gw
On what occasion does it not matter who the lawmakers are, what the composition of the body is?

When it doesn't. As many others have said already, if the laws are fair- according to the perception and opinion of those subject to those laws, then it wouldn't seem to "matter" what the factors were influencing the process.