Is violence really the ultimate law from which all laws are derived?
152786
No. But it is the force by which laws can be upheld.
86001
H.L.A. Hart’s The Concept of Law (1961) is an analysis of the relation between law, coercion, and morality, and is an attempt to clarify the question of whether all laws may be properly conceptualized as coercive orders or as moral commands. Hart argues that there is no logically necessary connection between law and coercion or between law and morality. He explains that to classify all laws as coercive orders or as moral commands is to oversimplify the relation between law, coercion, and morality. He also explains that to conceptualize all laws as coercive orders or as moral commands is to impose a misleading appearance of uniformity on different kinds of laws and on different kinds of social functions which laws may perform. He argues that to describe all laws as coercive orders is to mischaracterize the purpose and function of some laws and is to misunderstand their content, mode of origin, and range of application.\n\nHart explains that laws are rules which may forbid individuals to perform various kinds of actions, or which may impose various obligations on individuals, or which may require individuals to undergo punishment for injuring other individuals, or which may specify how contracts are to be arranged, or which may specify how official documents are to be created, or which may specify how legislatures are to be assembled, or which may specify how courts are to function, or which may determine how new laws are to be enacted, or which may determine how old laws are to be changed. Laws may exert coercive power over individuals by imposing penalties on those individuals who do not comply with various kinds of duties or obligations. However, not all laws may be regarded as coercive orders, because some laws may confer powers or privileges on individuals without imposing duties or obligations on them.\n\nHart criticizes the concept of law which is formulated by John Austin in The Province of Jurisprudence Determined (1832) and which proposes that all laws are commands of a legally unlimited sovereign. Austin contends that all laws are coercive orders which impose duties or obligations on individuals. Hart explains, however, that laws may differ from the commands of a sovereign, in that they may apply to those individuals who enact them and not merely to other individuals. Laws may also differ from coercive orders in that they may not necessarily impose duties or obligations but may instead confer powers or privileges.\n\nHart describes laws which impose duties or obligations on individuals as 'primary rules of obligation.' In order for a system of primary rules to function effectively, secondary rules may be necessary in order to provide an authoritative statement of all the primary rules. Secondary rules may also be necessary in order to allow legislators to make changes in the primary rules if the primary rules are found to be defective or inadequate. Secondary rules may also be necessary in order to enable courts to resolve disputes over the interpretation and application of the primary rules. The secondary rules of a legal system may thus include 'rules of recognition,' 'rules of change,' and 'rules of adjudication.'\n\nIn order for the primary rules of a legal system to function effectively, the rules must be sufficiently clear and intelligible to be understood by those individuals to whom they apply. If the primary rules are not sufficiently clear or intelligible, then there may be uncertainty about the obligations which have been imposed on individuals. Vagueness or ambiguity in the secondary rules of a legal system may also cause uncertainty as to whether powers have been conferred on individuals in accordance with statutory requirements or may cause uncertainty as to whether legislators have the authority to change laws. Vagueness or ambiguity in the secondary rules of a legal system may also cause uncertainty as to whether courts have jurisdiction over disputes concerning the in
513181
First off, there is no such thing as a "natural law."  There are only natural events that always seem to happen when certain conditions are present.  The word "law" implies that the event must occur.  It would be better to ask: what is a mathematical expression of a "natural phenomenon?"  \n\nA list of many such expressions can be found at the link below.  Take your pick.
989738
I think true free speech is limitless, but if you say something false that incriminates or otherwise harms others, the fact that you harmed someone would be a violation of law.
1116597
We began this chapter's investigation of distributive justice in order to consider the claim that a state more extensive than the minimal state could be Justified on the grounds that it was necessary, or the most appropriate instrument, to achieve distributive justice. According to the entitlement conception of justice in holdings that we have presented, there is no argument based upon the first two principles of distributive justice, the principles of acquisition and of transfer, for such a more extensive state. If the set of holdings is properly generated, there is no argument for a more extensive state based upon distributive justice. (Nor, we have claimed, will the Lockean proviso actually provide occasion for a more extensive state.) If, however, these principles are violated, the principle of rectification comes into play. Perhaps it is best to view some patterned principles of distributive justice as rough rules of thumb meant to approximate the general results of applying the principle of rectification of injustice. For example, lacking much historical information, and assuming (i) that victims of injustice generally do worse than they otherwise would and (2) that those from the least well-off group in the society have the highest probabilities of being the (descendants of) victims of the most serious injustice who are owed compensation by those who benefited from the injustices (assumed to be those better off, though sometimes the perpetrators will be others in the worst-off group), then a rough rule of thumb for rectifying injustices might seem to be the following: organize society so as to maximize the position of whatever group ends up least well-off in the society. This particular example may well be implausible, but an important question for each society will be the following: given its particular history, what operable rule of thumb best approximates the results of a detailed application in that society of the principle of rectification? These issues are very complex and are best left to a full treatment of the principle of rectification. In the absence of such a treatment applied to a particular society, one cannot use the analysis and theory presented here to condemn any particular scheme of transfer payments, unless it is clear that no considerations of rectification of injustice could apply to justify it. Although to introduce socialism as the punishment for our sins would be to go too far, past injustices might be so great as to make necessary in the short run a more extensive state in order to rectify them.
100380
The universe has been shown to be decaying.  It is going from an orderly state to a disorderly state.  This is called entropy.\n\nThere is no known natural force or law in the universe that reverses this.  On a small scale, we can see that our intelligence reverses disorder temporarily.\n\nTherefore, on a universal scale, there must be an intelligence (obviously an intelligence far beyond ours) with the power to set the universe in order to start with.  These are two of the attributes of God.\n\nSo, yes, order in the universe is a proof of God.\n\n-------------------------\n\nTo address some flaws in a previous answer's argument:\n\nThe "Laws of nature" are just another way of saying "the rules of order."  And like any procedure, someone makes the rules.  Like a basketball game, there could be any set of rules, but the ones that are used are what distinguish it from being a hockey game.  And these rules were decided upon by intelligent beings.\n\nAlso, it is not true that all things must lead to infinite regression.  Infinite regression is only one possibility; the other is infinite existence -- in other words, God.
644213
Human laws have flaws and Divine law is accurate in other words the divine law is calle Law of actions. Ignorance of this law is no excuse. know something about this law of Karma. \nThe Law of Karma(Actions)\nThe Law of  Karma is equally unequivocal in the spiritual dimension. It states that ‘for every action on the spiritual plane there is an equal and opposite reaction’. This means that if happiness is given, happiness will be experienced in return and if sorrow is given, sorrow will be experienced in equal measure. In other words, whatever emotion I cause another to experience must ultimately become my own experience.
1174115
If you mean "where do laws come from", the answer is philosophy. Most of our laws (the ones that make sense, anyway), are derived from great philosophers.  The greeks gave us trial by jury.  "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" was given to us partly by John Locke (originally "life, liberty, and property).  Take a look at deontological ethics, and you'll find some familiar concepts.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology
448662
A law makes no specification about whether others are present, and so the law has been "broken." I like to use a sociologist's point of view, so I would say that a law is just a very formal norm; as such, since you are not really acting in society, I would say that the law really has no bearing. You could argue that learned behavior should generalize to when you are alone, but this does not have to be the case.
1079089
So the one(s) kicking and screaming are consenting in your mind?  Others, like the law, might just disagree with your interpretation.  Maybe better keep it as a fantasy...
561448
There are no views. There are facts, falsehoods, and hypotheses. Violence is a means, not an end; violence and non-violence both have their places. Most violent crimes are the result of dominant temperament. Dominance is a wrongfully self-righteous emotion. Modern media has increasingly advocated dominant and dominant-territorial aggression (e.g. television shows 'cheaters', 'elimidate', daytime talk shows that deal with interpersonal conflicts, and fiction shows that deal with interpersonal conflicts), but, as psychologists have discovered via experiment, aggressive media excacerbates aggression in people that are aggressive to begin with, but does not cause aggression primarily, as aggression is mostly genetic. People of dominant-territorial character are getting more common because they are not dealt with via decisive countermeasures, such as execution, sterilization, and substantial punishments, so as a result, they make lots of babies and increase the number of aggressive offspring... who in turn are encouraged by the aggressive media. We do not kill, sterilize, or substantially punish aggressive people, especially children, because we feel a pleasurable sense of blind permissiveness toward them, and for the same reason we blindly deny the importance of the genes. We choose not to censor the dominant and dominant-territorial aggression in the media because of our own internal aggressive joy. Violent crime has increased because we chose to increase it rather than give up our wrongful pleasures.
225614
Unfortunatly NO.\nThere is in some countries, One LAW for the rich, and one for the poor.\nEven in progressivly modern countries, the LAW do'es not always seem to work.
870545
the supreme law of the land. it explains rights, government etc.
1009951
There isn't really any such thing as "human rights laws" per se. There is the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which many countries have signed, but is non-binding. That's as close as you could really get.
822348
According to relgious law...
903287
I am not sure what your question is. Assuming that you are asking about what factors contribute to nonviolence, the answer lies in history.\n\nHistorical and religious figures (Jesus, Buddha, Mahavira, Gandhi, King) have realized that violence breeds violence. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.\n\nIt is this disenchantment and futility of violence as a means of problem solving that has contributed to the realization that nonviolence is better.\n\ncc
20386
Yes it the basic and supreme law ever made in science. i holds to anything not only science. u cannot imagine a situation where u can disprove it.\nso naturally its a great law ever made.