Go to law school

[Anonymous No.17856428]

Or:
Just read this:
Am I right?

Nomos, (Greek: “law,” or “custom”, ) plural Nomoi, in law, the concept of law in ancient Greek philosophy. The problems of political authority and the rights and obligations of citizens were a major concern in the thought of the leading Greek Sophists of the late 5th and early 4th centuries BC. They distinguished between nature (physis) and convention (nomos), putting laws in the latter category. Law generally was thought to be a human invention arrived at by consensus for the purpose of restricting natural freedoms for the sake of expediency and self-interest. This view of law as arbitrary and coercive was not conducive to social stability, however, and thus was amended by Plato and other philosophers, who asserted that nomos was, or at least could be, based upon a process of reasoning whereby immutable standards of moral conduct could be discovered, which could then be expressed in specific laws. The dichotomy between the negative and positive views of law was never actually resolved.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/nomos-Greek-philosophy

[Anonymous No.17856451]

>>17856428
Are you right about what?
Do you want us to explain why this view is retarded or what?

[Anonymous No.17856485]

>>17856451
Yes please explain

[Anonymous No.17856488]

>>17856428
Ok. Should I apply for a Juris Doctor or an LLB? (Australian btw.)

[Anonymous No.17856498]

>>17856488

JD not even a question

[Anonymous No.17856502]

>>17856498
ok brb applying now

[Anonymous No.17856514]

>>17856485
Laws are made up by people. They are written and promulgated by the body in power that has a monopoly on violence in order execute those laws upon the society that wrote them. The entire natural law theory of 'discovering law' simply isn't the case, be it a secular or theological point of view, in either case it wouldn't matter because it isn't a law until it manifests into reality by way of the previously mentioned process of promulgation. Anything outside that scope is an ethical rule or guideline or social construct, not a law.

The question of the duality of law of those that give rights and those that take rights as some sort of unanswerable pursuit of philosophy is horseshit. Rights in any sense are simply an obligation of other people. Normally derived in the idea of property, or action, or intellectual property. All these things in roman civic law countries is from an idea of power relations to objects while in US common law its an idea of a bundle of sticks each representing a 'right' in that property. Both of these definitions of 'rights' within property are simply restrictions of others abilities to do something to that property and not actually one's relation to that object itself, thus the duality doesn't exist. All laws are themselves restrictions upon classes of people, this is part of the reason why its so ironic that the US Supreme court puts such a premium on equal protection claims and overbreadth issues are so laughable. It's all derivative and yet we hang our hats on a system that's entire purpose is to split hairs like the one in OP, and yet they don't ever answer the question because the mysterious nature they claim law has helps them maintain relevance and power.

[Anonymous No.17856542]

>>17856514
Wow
That’s interesting
Thanks

[Anonymous No.17856564]

>>17856542
Was that all you wanted? Anything else you need at the law store while I'm out?

[Anonymous No.17856844]

>>17856488
If you guys can practice with a bachelors (unlike here in Burgerstan) then I'd probably study law for undergrad and something else for a masters.

[Anonymous No.17857103]

>>17856844
>If you guys can practice with a bachelors

Oh my GAWD, do people really?

[Anonymous No.17858620]

>>17856428
tesy