"Necessity knows no law." ? I disagree. - Printable Version
+- MarcStevens.net Forum (http://marcstevens.net/board)
+-- Forum: No STATE Projects (/forum-15.html)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (/forum-21.html)
+--- Thread: "Necessity knows no law." ? I disagree. (/thread-1214.html)
"Necessity knows no law." ? I disagree. - Jace: Johanson - 10-16-2009 05:52 PM
I'm not perfectly current on Marc's views on everything, but assuming this one hasn't changed since filming his interview about Adventures in Legal Land, I wanted to offer my view.
First, when I had studied Marc's work for only a little while, I made a connection. He said, and I totally follow him here, that the facts are the important thing. An opinion is based on a certain set of facts. Assault and Battery is a legal opinion based on a certain set of facts. The relationship looks like this:
Facts - Independent
Opinion - Dependent
How and/or when is a need in any way NOT an opinion?
The reason I bring this all up, is that Marc related this maxim as a reason why he doesn't follow the idea of getting back to the Common Law. I don't contend that this could be his only reason, or that I know what the others are, or that there AREN'T good reasons supporting this; however, as illustrated, I feel this is a poor one.
The Law known to the concept of "necessity" could be called "desire." What is desired? What's the object? (This doesn't yet even take into account the worth of the object, but we'll get to that.)
This is the first step in the stage. The next step, which I feel most people fail to consider and appreciate, is. "How does this desire relate/interract/affect all my other desires?"
Forget for a moment the third step of, "How do I achieve what I desire?" The second step is where the distinctions between honorable/dishonorable or good/evil is made in choice. If we examine even for a moment how many different objects we are all in the process of pursuing at any one time, we begin to realize that many cross-affects must exist. If we consider one in particular, to wit, "I desire relationships," we must realize that this is where all the biggest complications exist. Even if one does not hold this desire, not acknowledging that many in the rest of the world do would be counter-productive (though that certainly won't stop everyone).
I don't feel I need to go much further for anyone to see where this exercise goes. The rest is annsilary to the original topic. Necessity knows law of a certainty. Where can it be shown that "necessity" exists outside the universe? Are there not laws of the universe?
Perhaps the most crucial twist in thinking to consider, is that of the idea of necessity being entirely about means, and not worth (another illustration of it's dependent nature). Whatever the object is, if it is not it's own cause and effect (a principle) it is merely another means, even if one thinks it an end. George Orwell mentioned the ideas of power being considerred either as a means or an end. Certainly for the "NWO" it appears to be the end. But then, the end of what? Where's the worth? If one has all-power and doesn't use it, what's it good for?
Happily, Marc, I feel this is the only point of yours with which I disagree (although, since I've found your work relatively recently, there may well be others later).
Re: "Necessity knows no law." ? I disagree. - lastradicaldude - 10-22-2009 10:01 AM
It appears you have misunderstood the perspective from which this maxim of law is recognized. For instance, a man's house is his castle, and his door is not to be trespassed. However, should his roof be on fire and threaten neighboring homes, such exigent circumstances negate his absolute right of privacy and security. The "necessity" caused by the danger to the lives and property of his neighbors gives rise to the neighbors right to intrude into his house for the purpose of putting out the fire and thereby saving life and property. When the "necessity" is past the right of privacy and security returns.
Where a necessity is great enough, it may justify theft, the taking of life, or other act that otherwise would be considered criminal. This is why the maxim points out that the personification of "Necessity" knows or recognizes no law. Depending upon the degree of necessity surrounding a set of particular circumstances, laws which normally serve to protect life and property can be justifiably set aside temporarily.
But to confuse "Necessity" with "desire" is to make a serious mistake. For instance, if you were without oxygen in a sealed room that belonged to another, it could easily be proven that it would be necessary for you to get some air if you are to survive. It would be possible for you to get a very minimum of air through a small hole punctured in the wall and prolong your life. One could say at a minimum that would be a "necessity" and would warrant punching a hole in the property of another, the wall, or maybe knocking out a window.
Should you desire however, to have more air than what is necessary for breathing, in order to satisfy your individual desire to feel the wind blow across your body, you might think it necessary to knock out two of the walls to the room to allow more air to pass. Satisfying this desire would be unjustifiable. seeing that you do not own the property.
Where a legitimate "necessity " exists the Law can be circumvented. But desire alone will not justify such license.
Today much legislation is prefaced with a Necessity clause, in an attempt to legitimize what otherwise would be a violation of the law. But just saying something is necessary doesn't make it so.
Re: "Necessity knows no law." ? I disagree. - Jace: Johanson - 10-23-2009 04:22 PM
Thanks for the response. I don't necessarily disagree with what you've said, but I don't think you noticed what I was actually talking about. A maxim is supposedly the boiled down wisdom of the ages, but don't just take that as absolute. I was saying that this particular one is an incomplete, and therefor not absolute, statement. And this, I think, is very well evidenced by the fact that you yourself showed example of when the interpretation you gave comes into effect, but that means this is not a law unto itself, therefor it must be subject to some law somewhere, yes? So, I wanted to go through and just show where I think we weren't seeing the same thing.
Quote:It appears you have misunderstood the perspective from which this maxim of law is recognized.
To be clear, I presume you don't take yourself as having absolute knowledge on this, so I'd simply insert the words "to me" after "appears." But the real point, as said, is that as a law, it would need no interpretation. Real laws are there own cause and effect (if you don't necessarily know what I mean by that, consider as an allegorical example how there's "love" the action, which breeds "love" the feeling. It's both a noun and verb.) I accept how it's recognized, I'm going back farther than that.
Quote:The "necessity" caused by
This IS what I was really getting at. Necessity is subject to something else.
Quote:Where a necessity is great enough, it may justify.......
I accept as well, this is the general consensual point of view of necessity, but it doesn't tell me what it is, although it again shows that necessity is subject to scrutiny by some other true law.
Quote:laws which normally serve to.......
I'm gonna appear to be nit-picky, but this is the pivot-point between where we're looking. Statutes, by-laws, orders, regulations, etc..... are NOT laws. Since proving the negative is pretty impossible, we'll just focus on whether any of these create, govern, or direct themselves. I've never seen, heard tell, or otherwise evidence that the "CONstitution" or any other of these has any inherent energy. That's where I'm speaking from, and the reason I am is because of what was said in the video referenced. I'm confident Marc doesn't buy into these things as if they were real, but I didn't see that logic following his argument against the use of the common law. I'm not even advocating that either. Moving on.
Quote:But to confuse "Necessity" with "desire" is to make a serious mistake.
I agree, that's why I didn't. I didn't equate the two, and I used the words "could be called" when I used "desire." A better word escaped me at the time. I'm sure there is one. I wasn't even starting from all the way back. It merely illustrated that there is at least one level of thought behind the idea of "necessity."
Quote:For instance, if you were without oxygen in a sealed room that belonged to another, it could easily be proven that it would be necessary for you to get some air if you are to survive.
Correct, yet not complete and since the preceding sentence was misunderstood, misapplied to the logic. Because, again, I wasn't talking about application, but the nuts and bolts. I agree with this, but I look at the implications made. Starting at need and going backwards, ask if in this scenario the individual WANTED to breath. Even the most suicidal would start fighting for air with their lungs screaming, so let's say yes. However, the subject was survival. The suicidal did not wish to survive. Were it not suicide, as seems to be implied by "sealed room belonging to another," the real question would then shift to "Why was there someone in this other man/woman's sealed room...?" If we simply remove these words, so it says "a sealed room [coma]" then we narrow down closer to the functional parts. To survive, you NEED to breath oxygen. So what's the purpose of surviving?
This is rhetorical to this discussion, since I think I've already shown that necessity is subject and therefor NOT law, and therefor must know law. As for the rest of the paragraph and the next, it's pretty valid, but on a level of assumption more complicated than what I was getting at.
Quote:Where a legitimate "necessity " exists the Law can be circumvented. But desire alone will not justify such license.
Considering what I already stated about what is Law, and what is not, I totally disagree with the former (in the absolute sense of law, only.) However, I agree with the latter, in the general sense. Desire is itself not a law, merely a degree in the chain I was illustrating which stands behind "necessity." I should have used those words instead of "The law which," but of course I'm fallible. When trying to look at things without assumptions, the brain tends to feel like cottage cheese from the exposure.
Anyway, I think that's more clear. Thanks, and please take non of this as an individual attack. All responses help strip away the unclear (or at least most can).