As I have always understood it, from Hammurabi and Solon onwards, the purpose of “Law” was to protect the weak against the strong and the poor against the rich. I wonder what went wrong…
5 thoughts on “Thinking about it #2”
Comments are closed.
As I have always understood it, from Hammurabi and Solon onwards, the purpose of “Law” was to protect the weak against the strong and the poor against the rich. I wonder what went wrong…
Comments are closed.
ThursdayAgain 
… hubris: the same as a sword cannot cut itself, the law cannot act against power, no matter how democratic it appears to be
….And sadly, of course, hubris is always followed by nemesis. Time to man the barricades?
Now you got me wondering. What if the original premis is too narrow. What if law needs a better definition.
The strong do not need protection from the weak, the rich do not need protection from the poor; the “Law” (apparently) exists to redress the balance of power. If it does not do this then it would seem to have no function or have been perverted to simply become another tool of the State to guarantee the social status quo. Would any other definition simply deny the “Law” any separate or real purpose, and what would that mean for every constitution ever devised?
It seems like rights are what need protecting. Strong and rich have them too.