Why was the rule of law first institutionalized in the West and why has it survived there as nowhere else?
139823
Natural law has existed from the begining of time. All other written law stems from natural law. \n\nAn example of a natural law is: Don't steal, or don't kill. \n\nThe reason these are natural laws is obvious. If you steal or kill you in turn will be stolen from, harmed or killed. So, for self preservation, you abide.\n\nOf course these common sense natural laws were later incorporated into the ten commandments, and all other written law.
659611
The root of limited government goes back before writing. Ancient Greek and Celtic societies used vearious levels of Democracy. Both Celt and Greek distrusted central governments. From conquering Celt and Greek peoples, especially the Greeks Roman's were influenced and at one point adopted limited Democracy themselves as well as practicing limits on government. Ceaser ended this and destoryed the reforms. However the seeds of Greek and Roman writers remained in the far reaches of the empire. When combined with Celtic philosophy it started to develop into what became English common law. \n\nThe English warlords and Feudal leaders had a contencious lot to rule. In general they found it best to just exert influence and allow the people to rule themselves. Robin Hood myth or real hero is an example of the  Celtic/English contempt for authority. Squeeze them too much and revolt is inevitable. This became tradition which became unwritten law which actually gained formal recognition. Even fuedal lords twoard the end were bound by common law when it came to certain aspects of life. Rouge lords were known to break with Common law and there was little authority to directly punnish them but the people were not without means of redress and would often use it against a cruel lord. \n\nEventually as writing spread from the clergy to common Englishman many of the principles of English Common law were transcribed. The nation itself was evolving into a more centralistic state and each decade reesembling more the rest of Europe. Common law persevered however. It also was the foundation from which many English political philosophers such as Thomas Paine used for inspiration. \n\nPaine was unusually influential on Jefferson and Franklin. As such some of Paine's ideas really stand out in the US constitution. Franklin and Jefferson both continued to expand on these ideas while others like Monroe opposed them. Eventually the cival war was born of these conflicting ideas in government. The more rural south distrusted and did not want a strong central government. Neither did the Western states. Support for the war was won by supplicating many diverse interests including industrialists and abolishionists. The end result was for Monroeism to triumpth.  \n\nSo the US constitution at this point is the ultimate design on limited government so far. It though is a creature of thousands of years of tested principles and countless contributions from individuals.
989258
You are comparing a theocratic state and secular states. In United States, push from Christian groups are there to teach Christianity in schools. However, US laws strictly separates the church and the state. Any fedaral funded school or institution cannot teach religion - they can teach it from a cultural aspect but not the religious texts directly. The biggest thing is that the west has gone through dark ages and renaissance where people started empowering themselves. It has not happened in any third world country. Reforms and chages are put on people who are not reformed. That is why culture, religion and state are in a mess.
264555
I agree about our Constitution.  This nation was the first nation in the modern world where it was openly acknowledged that no one possesses perfect foresight, so our body of laws had to be flexible enough to accommodate future Americans and their future issues, but solid enough and based upon firm enough principles that they would not be changed on a whim.  The principles upon which our system was founded were (and are) so cutting edge that they have become a model for many countries where liberty and equality are at issue.  Under the ideals upon which this country was founded, it is easy to see why we are held up as the model against which other countries measure themselves.  However, the ideal and the reality sometimes are just far enough apart to reflect duplicity to those looking for c hinks in our collective armor.  Suffice it to say that ours is the most effective system operating for most intents and purposes, inconsistencies notwithstanding.
432663
Confucius taught that government should rule through rites and rules in tune with the commoner's natural morality. Therefore, one will refrain from breaking a law because it goes against his conscience to do so; the "punishment" preceeds the crime. Therefore, because these laws enforce themselves without effort, the government will not have to resort to force to keep the peace.\n\nChinese legalism is based upon the assumption that personal morality changes and that one can therefore control the commoners and enforce peace only with outside measures. A law, therefore, must be well-publicized and have a concrete reward or punishment coinciding with whether it is followed or not in fact; the punishment follows the crime. Laws would be supreme in this state, even over the ruler, thereby making all human interaction predicatable and hopefully harmonious.
123516
do you mean eastern as in asia and the middle east,and western as in USA and Canada? Well there are quite a few differences,in many eastern countries women are treated like property and sold to the highest bidder,they have no rights of their own,and many are abused by their husbands.Especially countries under heavy islamic rule,in India for example in the poorer sections women are owned by their father,families have to pay heavy dowry fees and many are murdered for dowry,they are pressured to give birth to a son,if they dont there inlaws will reject them.In the west many men use women for their bodies,and just live with them without being married,women have more rights and freedoms in the west but men have lost the respect for feminity,modesty is non-existent.These are the two extremes of the world,there are exceptions there are good men in both the east and the west,but these are the generalizations of the two.
826889
The same as in older human society.  The 10 comandmets were given because the people could not figure out a basic simple idea--Treat others the way you would want to be treated--\nBecause they could not figure this out it was S P E L L E D  out for them. Lew and rules gives a guideline for behavior.\nThe hand shake evolved in the old west a way of saying "HI I DON'T HAVE A GUN"  Laws are meeded to keep each and everyone of us from acting as if we were the only ones that mattered.
1122085
If you are referring in general terms, the states have been formed under the power of the few. The masses, progressively got power and requested laws and regulations protecting them. Thus, Human Rights Act have risen around the globe.\nIn the case of the USA, early in the foundation of the USA, they understood the need of forming and supporting This act, in order to secure and guarantee the rights of all the people, just in case some group would get superpowers. Of course, this did not stop some groups to proceed in wrong acts (a day like today is when McCarthyism executed the Rosembergs, an act the later the judicial system admitted its severe mistake!)
1115548
In common law countries, such as the United States, and those with roots in the British commonwealth, judges have a number of powers which do not exist, or are not acknowledged to exist, in civil law legal systems, which collectively make the judiciary a more powerful political force than in civil law countries.\n\nsee more...\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge#Authority_of_Judges
673398
The law is a constitution which regulates the do's and don'ts in a society and the people who are to obey this rules and regulation are to be aware of such laws. Every society has its own laws like the church, States, Country, Tradition etc. These various groups set out laws to guide the conduct of the people to prevent them from going astray. It's some how related to Godly manner in as much as it guides the moral standards of the people.
236643
Both of discipline and stricter laws are needed to be a successful nation. In the country where the greed, dishonest, disloyalty and corruption is no.1 problem has less discipline and the laws. Talking about discipline and laws, the authourity must come first and then the ordinary people.Even the authority is not disciplined very well and does not obey the laws, there is no need for ordinary people to be forced to obey the laws. The header goes straight, the follower goes straight too.
758761
More and more of us have. The death penalty is a archaic institution to say the least and one has a hard time truly arguing in its favor without coming of Barbaric or ignorant. However you must understand that America is always the last of the Western Nations to become "civilized". We were the last to abolish the slave trade and end slavery, one of the few to not offer universal healthcare, or statefunded secondary education. It seems as if the only thing that America spearheaded was the end of monarcrial rule. Europe had pseudo-republics before the revolution, Constitutions and legislative bodies before 1776. \n\nSo we are a young nation and will eventually catch up to Europe but one must give us time as our ego tends to greatly hamper our civility.
208134
There's a good idea behind your question, but you've phrased it in such a way that it's very difficult to understand what you're after. \n\nDo you mean, Did the French and US ideas of democracy replace those of other democracies of the 18th century?\n\nThe short answer to that is that there weren't any democracies extant at the time of the drafting of the US constitution. \n\nOr, do you mean, Have other nascent forms of democracy in the last 200 years been challenged and eclipsed by the strength of principles set forth in the US & French constitutions?\n\nIf so, this is probably impossible to answer, since it's hard to imagine a modern democratic system that doesn't derive to some extent from the US and French systems.\n\nThe ancient Greeks invented democracy, but were absorbed into the Roman empire and it disappeared. \n\nHowever, the French and US systems did not erupt in a vacuum. The Swiss are an important example, and democratic values and processes had, at various times, eroded the absolute rule of monarchs.
1166516
The formation of LAWS, was a way to govern, and oppress some men , while guiding and protecting the rest. There will always be those outside this BOX.\nImagine if you will, one of two societies  without laws. The first made up of equal like minded good people, (crime-less); the other made up of equal like minded criminals, ( lawless). Who would you rather live with. \nUnfortunately in a universe of balance, there is no GOOD, without Evil, and no EVIL without Good. No matter what, someone has to lose!!!
862595
I think it is true that the US was founded on the written word, so we like to have things spelled out clearly.  I don't see how the unwritten "constitution" of the British could serve the same purpose as a written one.   The idea is that we are ruled by laws not aristocrats.\nHowever, another reason Fundamentalism developed more in the US is the fact that so many religious nonconformists had migrated to the US due to intolerance in their homelands.  These already individualistic tendencies had a chance to develop and diversify in the US.  European countries, even Protestant countries, had strong religious traditional influences, while Fundamentalism mostly rejects tradition and relies on the individual's reading of the Bible.  This approach flourished and still flourishes in a country where individualism is valued and the government stays out of religious matters.
611661
A judicial system is mandatory for a society to function well.\n\nIn the past, in times where there wasnt a justice system, people solved their problems with the Eye for an Eye method.This created chaos.\n\nJustice came as a way to establish harmony and peace in peoples lives.\n\nImagine a world without a judicial system, there will be no rules, People could just take your stuff and you wouldnt be able to complain, we would have no rights.\nThere will be fear and chaos.
211443
If you think about politics and law and order in terms of knowledge and information, the various types of government become clearer.\n\nEarly tribes had a chief, and information was not particularly wide spread, as this chief was responsible for solving all of the tribe's problems.  As a group's information increases (both in terms of overall knowledge and the number of different people who possess this knowledge, or the ability to discover new knowledge) the dependency for a single person or small group to lead the country decreases.  The other extreme is a society in which all members are able to assist in progressing the total group.  In between these two we have democraacy, closer to the latter extreme, and imperialism, closer to the first extreme.\n\nTo conclude, imperialism exists because a society is incapable of widespread education, and thus the whole society is dependent on the few people "in the know" to guide them along.  This doesn't mean that the leaders are by any means the smartest in the country but that, with either malicious intent (the choking off of knowledge), or a simple lack of resources to educate the whole of society, they are the only ones in a position to make knowledgable decisions.