In Shysters be Gone, part III, I proposed that law is composed of a policy goal combined with the strength of an imperative:
Policy + Imperative = Law
P + I = L
If we have a law, and know the policy that inspired it, we should be able to discern the imperative. If we have a law and know the imperative that empowered it, we should be able to discern the policy.
Both of these corollaries are subtractions, also known as differences:
L – I = P
L – P = I
This leads to some interesting suppositions.
1. L – I = P
Law without Imperative is merely Policy.
In other words, Policy is a powerless law. A law that has no ethical or moral imperative is a weak law.
2. L – P = I
Law without Policy is merely Imperative.
Without the rationale and presumed accountability (due to a presumption of legislative process) of policy, law is totalitarian – a show of mindless force.
3. These subtractions are also, as mentioned above, known as difference, and could be expressed as follows:
L – I = P
The difference between law and imperative is policy.
L – P = I
The difference between law and policy is imperative.
Out of curiosity, what happens if we play up the algebra a bit?
P + I = L –> P – L = -I
Policy without law is a negative imperative.
Similarly, I – L = -P
Imperative without law is a negative policy.
I think I’m going to chew on that for a while before I attempt logarithms or derivatives on it.
Loading ...