Why Legislation?

So Bill broke Joe’s leg because he just felt like doing it? Or was it an accident? Were they in a competition fight?

If we have no legislation of assault or contracts, who the **** cares about Joe’s broken leg?

 

How can he if there is no law against it?

No legislature, no laws.

In fact, there would be no laws to allow him to sue in the first place.

 

This sounds like somebody who doesn't understand basic law.

Sorry, but can't help ya.

 

Because the penalty for one specific offense needs to be the same everywhere? What do you think would happen if one leg breaking case gets a community service sentence in one place and a 10 year jail sentence in another? Without laws it's left entirely to individual decisions. Even if there was a universal morality system that could flawlessly assert what is a crime and what isn't, it remains the question on how to deal with the criminals, which is why there are laws and jurisprudence.

By the way, it's interesting to see some libertarians go "stop using the anarchist strawman" while other libertarians go "why do we need laws anyways"?

 

It would be for a court to decide the extent to which Bill harmed Joe and what damages he owes.

 

Courts are to determine if legislation conforms to the constitution, and to apply that legislation in cases before them. (example is sentencing guidelines, via statute)

 

based on what?

 

This is the batshit nuttery that keeps libertarians from ever being a legitimate 3rd party.

 

I think the key point you’re missing is that all the structures and processes of the courts are defined by legislation. If you get rid of all the legislation, you’re getting rid of the courts by definition.

It’s like saying now I have my glass of water, why do I need a glass? The glass defines and shapes the glass of water so if you take the glass away, you no longer have a glass of water, you just have wet feet.

 

If you're referring to me, I said legislation not law.

 

Because courts are not legislators. Courts are arbitrators of legal meaning. Legislation produces the legal content to be arbitrated.

 

Not in civil cases.

 

Are you sure?

 

This is how the common law came into being.

 

Never mind. And don't ask me to write your first intro to con law paper for you...

 

You know that the common law originated entirely from judicial decisions, right? No statutes?

 

Of course the framers reasons were that laws should be promulgated with much thought, deliberation, give and take, checks and balances, and by representatives chosen by the people at large. Laws made by a few people dressed in black who were not representatives of the people was considered as two seconds away from tyrannical monarchy (which it is), though in reality it wasn't even on their radar for any consideration at all.