American Law Made Us The Engine Of Prosperity

[PoliticalChic]

American Law vs. European Law

And, no, they’re not the same.

1.While the European Law tradition originates with Rome, and more directly, from the Eastern Roman Empire, that of Justinian in Constantinople, the American version came to us via the English who first settled the continent.



2. European law is known as the Civil Law.

Under Justinian's code the emperor is named nomos empsychos, “law incarnate.” Due to the absence of a jury, and the deference to whomever writes the laws, the Civil Law tradition is friendlier to tyrannical regimes than the legal system found in England and America, the Common Law tradition.
The Inquisition, Renaissance, the Napoleonic Code, and the Holocaust are all, in part, an outgrowth of the lex regia: “The will of the prince has the force of law.”( Quod principi placuit, legis haget vigorem).


Today, European law gives preeminence to legislatures, the institution that drafted the statute prevails.
In Anglo-American Common Law tradition, the institution that interprets and adjudicates the statute has the final word. That would rely heavily on the jury, composed of common folk.



3. The great divide began in English courts in the 12th and 13th centuries. Judges and juries had great leeway to take the testimony of plaintiffs, defendants, and witnesses into account, and make their decisions based on same.

In Europe, it was the laws and statutes that determined the rights of citizens.

Hence, Anglo-American law was made from the bottom up, based on masses of judicial decisions, rather than from the top down by kings, and legislatures.




4. “A body of rules built by slow accretion allows wisdom and knowledge to accumulate. [And] precedents existed for good reason, …introduced a measure of judicial humility into the law….The [Anglo-American] law was discovered gradually, not invented suddenly.”
Bethell, ”The Noblest Triumph,” p. 79


As the Common Law made the system accept, equally, the testimony of every person, it made equality its byword.
This was the legal force behind the exchange economy.



That should be the lesson when we see special rules and rights for our politicians.

 

[DGS49]

One major reason why western companies are reluctant to invest in Muslim countries is that courts can STRIKE DOWN contracts that they deem unfair (to the locals), hence having a contract is no guarantee that it will be complied with or enforced by the local law establishment.

In the U.S., not even the government can take your property without compensating you (except for your GUNS, apparently), which elevated the principle of Private Property to the highest level.

As said above, the predictability of economic transactions, and the rigid enforcement of personal and real property rights are major reasons why the U.S. has economically thrived over the years.

Socialism posits that the Government actually owns everything, and only allows people to use property at its (government's) pleasure. Government owns all income, and merely allows you to keep some of it that it doesn't need.

Does this sound familiar?

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. A subsidiary factor that weighed into the fact that Anglo-American law favored the individual over the establishment was the way judges were paid.



Although English judges held office at the pleasure of the king, and supervised the king’s Court of Common Pleas, there was a competing system known as ‘the manorial courts.’

“The manorial courts were the lowest courts of law in England during the feudal period. They had a civil jurisdiction limited both in subject matter and geography. They dealt with matters over which the lord of the manor had jurisdiction, primarily torts, local contracts and land tenure, and their powers only extended to those who lived within the lands of the manor…” Manorial court - Wikipedia





6. To use the king’s Court of Common Pleas, suitors had to pay a fee, and this fee was used to pay judge’s salaries.

So….these judges “had a financial interest in attracting legal business away from the older manorial courts….[and] and incentive to strive for a more perfect justice.” Bethell, “The Noblest Triumph,” p. 80.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Or that the U.S.A had abundant resources, and avoided 2 World Wars, which propped it's self ahead of Europe in that time frame.

 

[midcan5]

"The power of the lawyer is in the uncertainty of the law." Jeremy Bentham

Keep American law solid and well funded, support Stormy. Clifford (aka Daniels) v. Trump et al.

"Moreover, if we give the matter a moment's thought, we can see that the 20th century morality tale of 'socialism vs. freedom' or 'communism vs. capitalism' is misleading. Capitalism is not a political system; it is a form of economic life, compatible in practice with right wing dictatorships (Chile under Pinochet), left-wing dictatorships (contemporary China), social-democratic monarchies (Sweden), and plutocratic republics (the United States), whether capitalist economies thrive best under conditions of freedom is perhaps more of an open question than we like to think." Tony Judt 'Ill fares the Land'

"The collapse of the Bush presidency, in other words, is not just due to Bush's incompetence (although his administration has been incompetent beyond belief). Nor is it a response to the president's principled lack of intellectual curiosity and pitbull refusal to admit mistakes (although those character flaws are certainly real enough). And the orgy of bribery and special-interest dispensation in Congress is not the result of Tom DeLay's ruthlessness, as impressive a bully as he was. This conservative presidency and Congress imploded, not despite their conservatism, but because of it." "Why Conservatives Can't Govern" by Alan Wolfe

"Conservatism is the theoretical voice of this animus against the agency of the subordinate classes. It provides the most consistent and profound argument as to why the lower orders should not be allowed to exercise their independent will, why they should not be allowed to govern themselves or the polity. Submission is their first duty, agency, the prerogative of the elite." Corey Robin 'The Reactionary Mind'

 

[alang1216]

Socialism posits that the Government actually owns everything, and only allows people to use property at its (government's) pleasure. Government owns all income, and merely allows you to keep some of it that it doesn't need.

Does this sound familiar?

So what is the difference between socialism and communism?

 

[alang1216]

6. To use the king’s Court of Common Pleas, suitors had to pay a fee, and this fee was used to pay judge’s salaries.

So….these judges “had a financial interest in attracting legal business away from the older manorial courts….[and] and incentive to strive for a more perfect justice.” Bethell, “The Noblest Triumph,” p. 80.

This sounds like a great system for forum shopping:

Forum shopping is a colloquial term for the practice of litigants having their legal case heard in the court thought most likely to provide a favorable judgment. Some jurisdictions have, for example, become known as "plaintiff-friendly" and so have attracted litigation even when there is little or no connection between the legal issues and the jurisdiction in which they are to be litigated.​

 

[PoliticalChic]

"The power of the lawyer is in the uncertainty of the law." Jeremy Bentham

Keep American law solid and well funded, support Stormy. Clifford (aka Daniels) v. Trump et al.

"Moreover, if we give the matter a moment's thought, we can see that the 20th century morality tale of 'socialism vs. freedom' or 'communism vs. capitalism' is misleading. Capitalism is not a political system; it is a form of economic life, compatible in practice with right wing dictatorships (Chile under Pinochet), left-wing dictatorships (contemporary China), social-democratic monarchies (Sweden), and plutocratic republics (the United States), whether capitalist economies thrive best under conditions of freedom is perhaps more of an open question than we like to think." Tony Judt 'Ill fares the Land'

"The collapse of the Bush presidency, in other words, is not just due to Bush's incompetence (although his administration has been incompetent beyond belief). Nor is it a response to the president's principled lack of intellectual curiosity and pitbull refusal to admit mistakes (although those character flaws are certainly real enough). And the orgy of bribery and special-interest dispensation in Congress is not the result of Tom DeLay's ruthlessness, as impressive a bully as he was. This conservative presidency and Congress imploded, not despite their conservatism, but because of it." "Why Conservatives Can't Govern" by Alan Wolfe

"Conservatism is the theoretical voice of this animus against the agency of the subordinate classes. It provides the most consistent and profound argument as to why the lower orders should not be allowed to exercise their independent will, why they should not be allowed to govern themselves or the polity. Submission is their first duty, agency, the prerogative of the elite." Corey Robin 'The Reactionary Mind'

You should stick to terms you understand, and can define.

But....I'm here to help.

Conservatism is based on the following:
Individualism
Free Markets
Limited constitutional government.


Why are you Liberals, Socialists, Fascist, Communists, Progressives. Nazis and Communists opposed to all three?????

 

[PoliticalChic]

Socialism posits that the Government actually owns everything, and only allows people to use property at its (government's) pleasure. Government owns all income, and merely allows you to keep some of it that it doesn't need.

Does this sound familiar?

So what is the difference between socialism and communism?

"So what is the difference between socialism and communism?"

1. Hardly anything.


2. In an article on socialism in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Prof. G. D. H. Cole, a leading theoretician and historian of the British Labor Party, declares: The distinction between socialism as distinguished by various Labor and Socialist parties of Europe and the New World, and communism, as represented by the Russians and minority parties in other countries is one of tactics-and-strategy rather than one of objective.

Communism is indeed only socialism pursued by revolutionary means and making its revolutionary method a canon of faith...."

In The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels stated that communist ends can be attained "only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions."


Get it now, comrade?

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. To use the king’s Court of Common Pleas, suitors had to pay a fee, and this fee was used to pay judge’s salaries.

So….these judges “had a financial interest in attracting legal business away from the older manorial courts….[and] and incentive to strive for a more perfect justice.” Bethell, “The Noblest Triumph,” p. 80.

This sounds like a great system for forum shopping:

Forum shopping is a colloquial term for the practice of litigants having their legal case heard in the court thought most likely to provide a favorable judgment. Some jurisdictions have, for example, become known as "plaintiff-friendly" and so have attracted litigation even when there is little or no connection between the legal issues and the jurisdiction in which they are to be litigated.​

I'll put you down as favoring The Civil Law, over Anglo-American Common Law.


Under Justinians’ code the emperor is named nomos empsychos, “law incarnate.” Due to the absence of a jury, and the deference to whomever writes the laws, the Civil Law tradition is friendlier to tyrannical regimes than the legal system found in England and America, the Common Law tradition.
The Inquisition, Renaissance, the Napoleonic Code, and the Holocaust are all, in part, an outgrowth of the lex regia: “The will of the prince has the force of law.”( Quod principi placuit, legis haget vigorem).


Today, European law gives preeminence to legislatures, the institution that drafted the statute prevails.
In Anglo-American Common Law tradition, the institution that interprets and adjudicates the statute has the final word. That would rely heavily on the jury, composed of common folk.




M'kay?

 

[alang1216]

"So what is the difference between socialism and communism?"

1. Hardly anything.


2. In an article on socialism in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Prof. G. D. H. Cole, a leading theoretician and historian of the British Labor Party, declares: The distinction between socialism as distinguished by various Labor and Socialist parties of Europe and the New World, and communism, as represented by the Russians and minority parties in other countries is one of tactics-and-strategy rather than one of objective.

Communism is indeed only socialism pursued by revolutionary means and making its revolutionary method a canon of faith...."

In The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels stated that communist ends can be attained "only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions."

Get it now, comrade?

Cole actually did see a difference between socialism and communism.

He wrote:

"I became a Socialist because, as soon as the case for a society of equals, set free from the twin evils of riches and poverty, mastership and subjection, was put to me, I knew that to be the only kind of society that could be consistent with human decency and fellowship and that in no other society could I have the right to be content."[8]​

Neither a Marxist nor a Social Democrat, Cole envisioned a Socialism of decentralised association and active, participatory democracy, whose basic units would be sited at the workplace and in the community rather than in any central apparatus of the State.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. As the Anglo-American legal system is ‘bottom up,’ meaning that jury and court decisions became the Common Law….as opposed to laws dictated by kings and legislatures being applied below, there were times in England when the common law created friction with Parliament.

“General legislation was tough of as a formal restatement of earlier judicial findings. As late as the seventeenth century, it could still be questioned in England whether the Parliament could pass laws inconsistent with the common law.”
Bethell, Op. Cit.


Sir Edward Coke wrote, in 1610, “It appears in our books, that in many cases the common law will control Acts of Parliament, and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void. …when an act of Parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will control it, and adjudge such act to be void.”



When reading this history of the evolution of the legal system, note that totalitarian big government is a giant step back in freedom and liberty. That includes Nazism, Communism, Liberalism, Progressivism, Socialism and Fascism, where the elites both....

a. impose laws that they agree to, sans imput from the citizen upon whom they are imposed
and
b. excuse themselves from those very laws (e.g., ObamaCare).


"You have to pass the bill to find out what's in it."
The model of European Civil Law.

 

[alang1216]

I'll put you down as favoring The Civil Law, over Anglo-American Common Law.

M'kay?

You would be in error. I just don't like mixing capitalism and our judicial system. Justice shouldn't only go to the rich, regardless of what OJ says.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'll put you down as favoring The Civil Law, over Anglo-American Common Law.

M'kay?

You would be in error. I just don't like mixing capitalism and our judicial system. Justice shouldn't only go to the rich, regardless of what OJ says.

"I just don't like mixing capitalism and our judicial system,"

And this is exactly what a dunce would say.

As the Common Law made the system accept equally, the testimony of every person, it made equality its byword.
This was the legal force behind the exchange economy.





Our judicial system is the very reason why capitalism can succeed, and do what no other economic system could accomplish.

"Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.” But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes."
From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.
Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006

 

[alang1216]

When reading this history of the evolution of the legal system, note that totalitarian big government is a giant step back in freedom and liberty. That includes Nazism, Communism, Liberalism, Progressivism, Socialism and Fascism, where the elites both....

Can you provide any examples of Liberal or Progressive totalitarian governments?

(Considering how the tax law was passed you might add the Trump and the GOP to your list of freedom abusers.)

 

[alang1216]

I'll put you down as favoring The Civil Law, over Anglo-American Common Law.

M'kay?

You would be in error. I just don't like mixing capitalism and our judicial system. Justice shouldn't only go to the rich, regardless of what OJ says.

"I just don't like mixing capitalism and our judicial system,"

And this is exactly what a dunce would say.

As the Common Law made the system accept equally, the testimony of every person, it made equality its byword.
This was the legal force behind the exchange economy.





Our judicial system is the very reason why capitalism can succeed, and do what no other economic system could accomplish.

"Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.” But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes."
From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.
Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006

Not for the first time, you've missed my point completely. I have no beef with capitalism but I don't want our judicial system to engage in it. Or do you think judges should sell favorable decisions to the highest bidder?

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. The single most important feature of the law that made England, and then America, the engines of prosperity, is equality before the law. A strong argument can be made that this concept emerged from the Judeo-Christian influence, the Bible.


David Mamet writes, in “The Secret Knowledge,”….

“Justice means choice. The choice must be by recourse and devotion to laws made impartially, without respect to individuals, and applied impartially.

This is the great contribution of our Judeo-Christian foundation to Western civilization. The principles of justice are laid down in the Torah and the Gospels, and implemented through human actions memorialized in judicial codes.
The written laws and rules are codifications of the unwritten ones worked out over millennia as the result of human interactions and experience.

The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible t that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as “That which is hateful to you, don not do to your neighbor.”


Almost a paradox....the collective experience of society is the most important element to document the importance of equality of individuals.


Although it is true that Europe was also subject to the guidance of the Bible, its iteration, the Civil Law, favored the elite, the aristocracy, and, so, is less amenable to the individual than is the Common Law.




And, related to the significance of the Bible, the American Revolution was based on the Bible, religion, and morality, while the French Revolution was an attempt to remove religion and the Bible and impose science and reason as guides.

Which venue became a slaughterhouse?

 

[alang1216]

Which venue became a slaughterhouse?

The American Revolution left the question of slavery undecided so it can be said 10x more people died founding the US vs the French Republic.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Which venue became a slaughterhouse?

The American Revolution left the question of slavery undecided so it can be said 10x more people died founding the US vs the French Republic.

"...it can be said 10x more people died founding the US vs the French Republic."

No it can't.

One of the most advanced, sophisticated nations of the 18th century kills 600,000 citizens- many of it’s most valuable citizens, plus some 145,000 flee the country....
Schom, “Napoleon Bonaparte,” p. 253.

Add the Napoleonic wars that followed.



You, imagining that the American Revolution was fought over the issue of slavery, is why you are considered a dunce.

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. The idea of equality before the law is far more prominent in Anglo-American Common Law, than in European Civil Law.


That view made England, and, ultimately, America, what historian Henry Hallam called “the long and uninterruptedly increasing prosperity of England as the most beautiful phaenomenon in the history of mankind.”

The concept behind this ‘phaenomenon’ was the idea that every individual had to obey the law. Not only was the law superior to the king…but he must obey it.



In Thoreau’s On the duty of Civil Disobedience, he states: “ There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all of its own power and authority are derived.




A successful nation is built individualism, not the collectivism of the herd.

The Founders of America knew how to do that. They planned a nation built on these there pillars: individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
They could do this because English settlers brought with them, The Common Law, and not the law of Europe, The Civil Law.