On Law Principles

[benny]

Lawmakers cannot and should not question themselves. The term "the law" signifies the principles upon which society is based, designating a mode of collective conduct based upon a set of prohibitions. However, the rule of the law conceals an inherent unruliness which is precisely the violence by which it established itself as law in the first place.

"At the beginning" of the law, there is a certain "outlaw", a certain real of violence which coincides with the act itself of the establishment of the reign of the law... The illegitimate violence by which law sustains itself must be concealed at any price, because this concealment is the positive condition of the functioning of the law."

The authority of the law stems not from some concept of justice, but because it is the law. Which is to say that the origin of the law can be found in the tautology: "the law is the law". If the law is to function properly, however, we must experience it as just. It is only when the law breaks down, when it becomes a law unto itself, and it reaches the limits of itself, do we glimpse those limits and acknowledge its contingency by reference to the phrase "the law is the law".

http://www.lacan.com/zizekchro1.htm

Edited July 26, 2009 by benny

[jbg]

Lawmakers cannot and should not question themselves. The term "the law" signifies the principles upon which society is based, designating a mode of collective conduct based upon a set of prohibitions. However, the rule of the law conceals an inherent unruliness which is precisely the violence by which it established itself as law in the first place.

"At the beginning" of the law, there is a certain "outlaw", a certain real of violence which coincides with the act itself of the establishment of the reign of the law... The illegitimate violence by which law sustains itself must be concealed at any price, because this concealment is the positive condition of the functioning of the law."

If you're saying that government is a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence I agree. Otherwise this post is tough to follow.

The authority of the law stems not from some concept of justice, but because it is the law. Which is to say that the origin of the law can be found in the tautology: "the law is the law". If the law is to function properly, however, we must experience it as just. It is only when the law breaks down, when it becomes a law unto itself, and it reaches the limits of itself, do we glimpse those limits and acknowledge its contingency by reference to the phrase "the law is the law".

Any substantial group of people requires some organizational principals, to avoid chaos and ultimately slaughter. While people may want to do the right thing leadership is required to channel individual energies in a mutually beneficial and productive direction.

[benny]

Any substantial group of people requires some organizational principals, to avoid chaos and ultimately slaughter. While people may want to do the right thing leadership is required to channel individual energies in a mutually beneficial and productive direction.

"The law is the law" is not an organizational principle since it is a blatantly empty tautology.

[Muddy]

I have been a great believer in the rule of law and our police to act in upholding the law equally. I am now questioning the law. Especially in TO! The strike by outside workers who trampled upon the rights of fellow citizens as police stood back has given me a very suspicious nature . Also the anarchy that was allowed by the Tamil Tigers blocking people from going about their business. To be fair to the average police officer ,his political masters I believe are the ones who allowed the thugs to intimidate average Joe.

What kind of society is going to allow groups of people ,union or otherwise to intimidate fellow citizens who do not belong to a group?

[benny]

Soon after the lawmaker would stop allowing small-scale revolutions, he may get a real revolution.

[FuzzyOnDetails]

Most fail to differentiate between statute and law, legal and lawful, illegal and unlawful. It makes a huge difference that most are ignorant of.

[benny]

What mostly matters for a political philosopher is that when the authority proscribes explicitly something, it engenders the enjoyment that goes with the transgression of what is forbidden.