Monday, 5 September 2011

Opinions on Philosophy of Law (Maybe a Bit Immature/Uninformed)

I see from the Jurisprudence article on Wikipedia, that people may want some words on Philosophy of Law from me. These are (rather quickly):

1. There should be no holes in a good system of legal practice/legislation system!

2. The laws are absolute and they can't be reasonably dodged. This point is supported by point 1.

3. (if nec.) The laws are complete and describe only objective circumstances (pertaining to HDM and quality of evidence) and most certainly only real life.

4. Legislation is on TOP. The courts are nr. 2 and the Police are nr. 3. There are various security concerns to this. I think the Police need clear rules/procedures as they do their work. I think the Judges only need to set a precedent if the Legislative Assembly (National Parliament) feigns its duties. So I want/hold a theory for a sharp and pro-active Legislative Body and "Judges only to the rescue", acting secondarily so to speak! Good?

Just in case of interest, I find Antonin Scalia's Originalist position compatible with a "Legislationist" position. Thus I pay respect to forming laws "in the spirit of the Book of Laws (fx. Norges Lover)". Or when you sit there writing, that you are "in a spirit of the Law". This should be the beginning bricks for foundation! (Not having read a book, but generally (very) interested for a long time (I'm 35).

You should note my point on Godel (Goedel) in Phil. Notes. I'm hard and I know it. There will be no excuses if the future is properly cared for!!!

The header of it says: Opinions on Gödel's Theorems of Incompleteness and Possibly Tarski and link is (one of them):
What is Written...: Philosophical Notes of Intellectual Music,

Also take note on the meditative state for making laws. Legislation happens at most meditative state, down to the Judges (by the heat of the Trial and direct Justice down further to Police under fire, so to speak! Thus, this comes natural!

You can get good lessons from Court TV (Nancy Grace) and various interviews from your or U.S. American Supreme Court Members by 60 Minutes. General media awareness isn't so bad either...

I must add that Europe can do well with its own Courts reporting (by example of Nancy Grace) and Justice section on CNN U.S. American edition and a Situation Room type of Legal Practice reporting (in media where there is "interest"). I welcome a more aware and active Legal Practice reporting in Europe. Also in the Pan-European sense (to close some holes for these "U.S. Americans" if not the "Colombians"... :-D

I believe it has been Clarence Thomas who has uttered the words on an interview with CBS 60 Minutes that "you _need_ legislation to make verdicts". Consequently, I have the "Legislationist" position from him, but I'm uncertain if it is he who says the words or somebody else because a fair amount of time has passed since then.

When I write "Absolutist", I mean of course that there should be (normativity) little or no room for "interpretation". Burglary is thus burglary and rape, even for the sexist or crazy, is still the rape. The victim can never be the burglar oneself and the victim can't either be the rapist oneself. Some people are blind to this, they fail to make proper distinctions of words or situations or whatever. I also think that today's systems across the world seeks brevity of law as description of law on a rather unfounded basis. Therefore, I can imagine a more complete description to go with the law as it's delivered from the Legislative Assembly. Fx. in case it's needed, a better description can be given as a secondary compilation to the laws by corresponding documents to the collection of laws where these are needed. A law concerning The Protection of Private Information as fx. one's private address can be given a better description until it reaches a level of descriptive completeness, possibly adding 1, 2 or 3 pages. Better now?

Even if we speak of filming for the press, there is still no valid objection to having this filmed by Court's Archiving Services! Thus, Courts would have the pressure to do the job right and appeals could become much more clear. Corruption could also get rooted out much faster and idiot judges would never be allowed. But corruption to the archiving system makes every problem return again! I say, attack! (Because the world really looks retarded!)

So under the "Issues from the Internet", under the header of "What are your philosophical positions?" you can now add on me, Philosophy of Law: Absolutist, Legislationist and Originalist. Just for the update.

Note: last comment has been added a few minutes ago!


  1. On the (U. S.) American Constitution - The Ninth Amendment
    The text of it, by Wikipedia:
    The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    A possible interpretation by myself:
    How the laws are numbered/organised shall not be construed in such a way that people are denied or disparaged the protection of law, because they, secondarily, the people (or their representing lawyers, of old), fail to identify them, impliedly, of these laws that are, of course, represented by we, the people! Thus the protection by law is absolute!

    Just for the joy of it! Cheers!

  2. The Federalist Society, by, is also discussing Constitutionalism. I'm coming back to this point... Have a (continued) nice week!

  3. Perhaps it should say: numbered/organised/"coded" (by practice or not)

  4. I insist on mathematical union between Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law as much as Philosophy of Mathematics and Mathematical Philosophy! You may add Physics Philosophy and Philosophy of Physics to this as well!

  5. The Explicit Consequence of Crime vs. Privacy
    This relates to the Science of Jurisdiction/Law and Philosophy of Law.
    As soon as the letter of the Laws is broken, the rights for absolute privacy fall away by definition and the perpetrator(s) fall(s) into the category of possible persecution (by law enforcement, first and foremost)!

    Note: However, as a crime (letter of the Laws...) has taken place, everyone has either the duty or possibility to file a report to the Police about their "suspicions"/sightings/what they've witnessed!
    Note2: I'm inspired by Nancy Grace and we may share some "context" here.

  6. Remember still, though, that Law Enforecement HAS to obtain evidence in a legal manner, that is, after reports have been filed... or after a sting operation we managed to... You know where this is going! Cheers!

  7. Judges, especially of the lower courts may be doing mistakes too. Therefore, the trust put in them by their colleagues higher up may be deeply misplaced. As the judges of the lower courts are seen as more or less error-free, expecting the system to accommodate for mistakes, that is, to correct them (by the appeal system), the whole system gets corrupted. This may be the cumulative effects we live with today! Not only the courts are a problem, but the Police, special interests Laws by lobbying groups, by companies or else and so on! This makes it definite that there is room for a lot of improvement, by system and so on.

  8. Regarding my work on the commentary/legal interpretation on the 9th amendment on Blogspot, you know this work is difficult to accomplish and that I'm a sharp man, please support me a little... :-) by YouTube video or something else... :-)

  9. A hard list of modern notions to (every) Philosophy of Law, I introduce to you:

    1. I've made a novel move in terms of describing the real and hard criminal nature of "monkey business", in conjunction with mSomatism!

    2. I've suggested a national assembly approved official commentary that is to support the courts and reduce the amounts of precedents, so also as to diminish their mistaken authority throughout the World, even if they have served us to some good extent in the past! Germany is explicitly on the move in this respect.

    3. I've described the definitive relations between the national assembly, the courts, and the police forces, so as to make the lines of duty more clear and to reduce any illusion of "self-made-policies" in that auto-generated sense. This is really /the/ policies killer, withholding the far more serious "police instructions", fx.!

    4. I've made Objective Ethics including the crucial 4 methods of lie-detection to be used, potentially, at the same time, inside the police "interrogation room"/"questioning room". These are, of course, (f)MRI, "a swim hat of sensors", voice-stress analyzer, mimicry, including eye-dialation, and polygraph-testing, the reaction of body to nervousness in exuding sweat, essentially.

    5. I have, together with others, suggested to film all cases in the courts so as to heavily reduce poor judge performance in the long run and to definitely place the possibilities for democratic control well within the proper hands of democratic care-takers! So that the court-archives will take on the most definite character and leave no doubt how the case has run. Some set-ups may even contain one or more of these 4 methods above.

    This should speak well for me in demolishing any legal Hilbert's program! (Hilbert for insiders.)


  10. On Copyrights and APIs (from some time ago),
    I better make a comment on a verdict some time ago on copyrights and APIs.
    First of all, I think there is a general note on novelty. A copyright is bought and sold on appeal, on attractiveness, on effort.
    Secondly, there are formal requirements that demand that you have made it, you are the maker/creator of a particular copyright (other circumstances may obtain under reasonable agreement between some parties).
    Thirdly, let the market test whether a person has been invited to make,


    has something to show for or not. Either way, any person bringing something "to the market", has an undeniable right to say that this given person actually has accomplished this, no matter how small. A smaller consideration is whether this is an inside invitation from fx. Google to this person to make this come true, i.e., is this some kind of "fixed"/"hypothetical" problem? "Have they invited problems to the table?"

    Conclusion must be that copyright is still, generally, impossible to question and that the copyright-creators need to show for the work they've completed and want to bring to the market. The buyers or users need to wait for (proper) availability.

    I'm still the holder of "The Human Being of Law" and I have a name for it too, by "The Nobel List". Url for Nobel List: .

  11. A slight note on US story of surveillance by BBC: . That the World outside USA should fiercely/openly report US demands for intel outside own legal domain and that we should demand that the US servers are to be protected for "outside-US citizens" as well as US citizens in having the same (business) rights as US citizens on *US soil*, that invokes/includes a long-standing tradition. USA has no evident rights to claim full invasion of privacy against foreigners on US soil! This destroys some military ill-founded conceptions with them!

    Secondly, the "after-Echelon" efforts by Microsoft and others should be demanded to gain a new transparent status such that the business standards are well kept again outside sinister-idiot-(military)-scheming for "greed" and "power", by (former) Financial Radicalism. Good?

  12. It should be d*mn stupid to suggest that I don't know the difference between de jure legal person/human being of law, i.e., the companies, like Coca-Cola, with the company registry numbers to go, in Norway given by . On the contrary, with insights to go, I am establishing The Human Being of Law for everybody, that is, I establish the legal guarantee (in theory, stiffening the duties for lawyers and others considerably) for seeing through human beings as individuals and this is *novel* in legal theory (the dumb-f*ck¤#"%&%¤&"#¤%"¤#¤&"¤#&"&s), that of course, is subdued by my adversaries here and there on planet Earth, so plainly withholding the points by lying/"pro-active ignorance"! Good?
    The plain de jure human being of law, like the Coca-Cola company (Norw. comp. registry, ): well, well, it relates to this, .
    The Human Being of Law (that I'm writing about), leading up to the burning of "tons" of precedents in USA: .

    (Issuing this comes from the Norwegian legal separation of "physical person" (NO: fysisk person), how an ordinary person is addressed in the Norwegian legal system. On the other hand, companies are addressed as "legal person" or "legal human being" and I happen to think that there's some convention for this "here or there" in Europe, perhaps also in USA, despite my lack of legal nomenclature.)

    The Norwegian terms: .
    Juridisk person er en juridisk betegnelse på et rettssubjekt som ikke er en fysi...

    2: .
    Fysisk person er en juridisk betegnelse på et anskuelig menneske som er underlag...

    Term: person
    n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages unless there is a statute authorizing the award of punitive damages.
    See also: corporation party - from .

    Url: .
    The Brønnøysund Register Centre - Brønnøysundregistrene
    Through the European Business Register you can access information about business...

  13. Addition to The Human Being of Law

    Given my position by mSomatism, I see no other choice than to commit all citizens to have a pistol/revolver for personal security so that human nature can continue to progress (faster/more steadily) in order to be better human beings, i.e., the biggest challenge in the World today is to make human kind a better human kind and it will probably also take more death penalties in order to happen.

    There is no need for pause for when to make these politics to have effect, that is, please, get it into life as soon as possible.

    Conclusion, emphasis: as the weapons enter, so goes the death penalty in too, Worldwide, "because the advocates for the abolition of the death penalty have LIED!"

    Most importantly: this text approves "weapons to all citizens" for the next 50 years most certainly, and minimally, under The Human Being of Law, that I hold as name, because I have created it, it belongs to my name as my contribution to the World (of intellectuality).