In this debate I am taking on a member of Political Forum.com on the illegitimacy of statutory law. My argument as stated earlier is that its arbitrary and that the democratic 'tyranny of the majority' is a breach of people's rights, and thus the system ought to be repudiated as a gross breach of personal freedom.
There are a lot of unthinking people around who want civil rights. I agree you don't have them, but precisely because you don't have them, any efforts to attempt to introduce them will result in a false promise. Its like John Howard sabotaging your right to a republic. He chose the questions which sabotaged any prospect of it.
We don't need civil rights; we need disbandment of arbitrary statutory law, and elevation of respect for common law, which predates statutory intervention. The idea that some parliament represents the people is a nonsense. The cold 'heartless' judicial interpretation of legal principles is a far superior defense of our rights. For this reason, I look towards judicial activism for protection, not civil rights, which could only be arbitrary statutory constructs, and therefore dubiously enacted. Are you expecting rights to be enacted by the agent which abuses them? Think again.
Response by Royd Bogan: "Common law isn't able to function by itself in a complex society".
Statutory law is necessary. Really? Would you care to prove that point. I would suggest it depends on how you want it to function. If you want it to expropriate funds from people...yes, true enough, it does not allow that.
Its why we have it....to expropriate. We went from the tyranny of kings, to the tyranny of 'lords' (minority), to the tyranny of the majority. Next is the tyranny of the climate facade. Then we would have gone full circle, back to the tyranny of the 'lord' dictator. Why? Because principles were not considered practical.
Response by Royd Bogan: "Have a look at the statutes of any parliament in Australia. See what they regulate or deal with, eg telecommunications. Now tell me statutory law isn't needed".
Response by MegadethFan: "Statutory law is needed in all cases".
That is an unsubstantiated assertion....falls flat don't you think?
Response by Royd Bogan: "No it doesn't. My example of telecommunications law shows that statutory law is necessary in a more complex society".
Nonsense. If we need a parliament to achieve a sensible telecommunications framework, what capacity do they as a parliament have which you and a group of mates, or even an anarchy does not? Force? Are you saying good policy just needs the coercive state to achieve a 'logical' outcome.
We have assemblies (parliaments or Congress) not because we could not otherwise reach a decision, but because people don't think we have time, or the capacity to deal with opposition, regardless of whether it is reasonable or flawed.
You would be surprised how simple and how harmonious society can be if people live according to principles, with a respect for logic/objectivity. I know because I've been among such people. But all that is repudiated by 'practical' people like yourself who want action before thought. Ask yourself why there is little serious debate in parliament. Its because its results do not matter. Its easier to pay off people than convince them....as they don't think like their counter parties.
------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon
