After the Shyster: The Mathematical Postscript

February 29th, 2008 Posted in Legal Explorations

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.