Law does not have to be an "end", and I am not arguing that it is one. My argument is that law is a necessary component to the development of every single facet of human civilization, including medicine. That makes it more important and more valuable, in the long run. And as far as “people not expecting to die,” it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the American colonists who revolted knew and expected casualties would occur. This alone lends support to the idea that they were willing to risk their lives for an ideal, and that is exactly what they did. I can provide you with many other examples where individuals have made much clearer conscious decisions in sacrificing their lives for higher causes than the example of the American Revolution. You originally stated that “health always supersedes legal security.” Not only is this in odds with my American Revolution example, it is in odds with numerous events in history that testify to the contrary. Another example could be the Civil War in the United States: the North could have abandoned its pursuit of reunification with the South, but it chose to engage in a bloody war that claimed more than half a million American lives, and for what? To have its own conception of what the law should be become the dominant doctrine of the land.Ragged wrote:I agree with the whole "a just legal environment makes for a better and a more productive society." - thats obvious and hard to argue. But what I am trying to say is that law is only a means to an end not an end in itself. Sure, people do rise up against the government in order to defend their rights, but most those people don't expect to die. The ones that do consiously sacrifice themselves for justice, rare to begin with, were probably compelled to do so by the dire conditions they found themselves in. Those people win alot of praise and respect from the public for laying down their most precious pocessing for the good of the public.MysticalWheel wrote:I never said that you said that law was unnecessary- where did you come up with that? To state that law provides no intrinsic value to human society is, for a lack of a better word, plain wrong. Law provides the most intrinsic value to human society, more than any other discipline. It does this by enforcing a standard of interaction that allows for the development of things like medicine, agriculture, and entertainment. Furthermore, law is fundamental because it provides a means for securing our “primary wants,” as you state. Without the law, such wants would be orders of magnitude more difficult to acquire, and the transaction costs for securing them would eventually force the development of law anyways. Hence, law is both a necessary and a sufficient condition for the development and existence of human society; to state otherwise is to evince a puerile and/or purely ignorant grasp of what the law is.Ragged wrote:MysticalWheel wrote:
Wrong. Law is of fundamental necessity to human society; without it, conventional medicine and agricultural control would likely not be able to develop anywhere near the levels of proficiency they enjoy today. Furthermore, medicine is no less a human construct than law is, so that differentiation seems to rest on a preconceived, albeit false, notion.
In sum, medicine and agriculture necessitate some type of law in order to develop, not the other way around. Law> Medicine.
MW
Edit: Here's a quick way to see what I'm getting at: take away law from society and what do you get? Anarchic friction, disorder, lack of standards, lack of security, and hence, a stifling of progress and development. Take away medicine from society and what do you get? At worst, the Black Death, but does society die out? NO, it remains, unlike what happens if law is removed.
I never said law was unneccesary. Given our human nature, we need law to function as a society. But we do not derive any intrisic benefit from law as we do from medicine, agriculture and even entertainment. Our primary wants include want for life, nutrition, freedom from diseases, having a family, being entertained, etc. We only use human contstructs like law and financial markets in order to achieve those things. Having a just society makes obtaining a good life easier, but its neither neccessery nor sufficient for it.
On the other hand medicine deals with the most important part of our life - our health and life and health and lives of our loved ones. Medicine has already improved the quality of life greatly and is probably going to improve it more in the future. If there was no medicine our quality of life would plummet to the medieval levels. Alot of us would not make it past childbirth etc, death rates of all diseases would skyrocket etc. In fact, having such a great quality of life allowed by the modern medicine is what allows us to direct our attention to aspects of our lives other than survival. Only when people are in good health will they start worrying about justice - not the other way around.
Obviously we all depend on one another - that's the great thing about the division of labour. But saying that LAW>Medicine is a very bold statement and sounds kinda immature.
As far as your paragraph on medicine, please reference my statement regarding the American Revolution in my previous post. For your convenience, I will post it again here. Example: Think about the American Revolution: did the colonists have to revolt and risk their lives for independence? They knew full well that war with Britain could very well result in death, yet they still pursued the ideals expressed in the Dec. of Independence. There are things that are more important than just preserving life because without such things (e.g., liberty), life would not necessarily be worth living. To state that "health always supersedes legal security" is a statement that either completely misunderstands (or simply does not understand) the American Revolution, or betrays an accurate understanding.
Lastly, medicine has improved quality of life because it has had the opportunity to flourish, an opportunity that would not have existed without the security that law provides. Your argument is fatally flawed because you fail to understand the necessity of law in regards to medicine. The absence of law prevents the development of medicine that ensures “good health.” Only when a minimum level of security and order are established does medicine begin to flourish and become effective.
Therefore, Law IS > Medicine. A failure to realize this is a demonstration of ignorance and callowness.
MW
Biological need of life is always paramount. When a person gets hit by a car he first goes to a doctor, and only after he/she is in stable health goes to a lawyer. Even the courts recognize this - crimes committed under duress of starvation or direct threat to life are treated much more liniently because lawmakers understand that respect for law is nothng compared to love of ones life.
People break the law to save their life. Not so much the other way around.
Let me give you another example: Lets say there is a company that makes cars. Besides the engeneers and workers, the company also has accountants and lawyers on staff. Certainly the accountants and the lawyers are all necessery to the functioning of the company, but in the end of the day they are only performing supporting functions, peripheral to the central purpose of the company - making cars.
I feel like we are arguing two different points. You are saying that presence of law makes medicine more productive and I don't disagree. All I can say is that presence of medicine makes law more productice too. We could also say that janitors make law and medicine more productive, by keeping the building where doctors and lawyers work clean. We all depend on each other - thats how a society works.
My point is that doctors deal with a more important aspect of our lives than lawyers do.
Ultimately, your counterargument regarding individuals “not expecting to die” is a deflection: it fails to neutralize my original point that health does not ALWAYS trump legal security. In doing so, your original statement of “health concerns trumping legal security” is defeated.
Biological need of life is not always paramount. At this point, you seem to have started repeating your central thesis through paraphrase. I’ve already cited several examples where individuals knowingly risked their lives to secure ideals that are not directly (or indirectly) “biological.” Also, you seem to contradict yourself here: you state that biological life needs are always paramount, yet you admit in your opening paragraph that individuals sometimes do consciously sacrifice themselves. This is yet another fatal problem in your argument.
You continue by providing an example of a hypothetical individual who gets hit by a motor vehicle, who then chooses to visit a physician first, and then an attorney. This is another deflection that does not address the heart of my argument. My thesis states that for medicine to develop and flourish to any consistent efficacy, law is necessary to establish security and standards of interaction. If either a hermit, living alone in a lawless state, or a citizen of a country living under law become injured, it is reasonable to expect that they will tend to their injuries so that they are able to survive. But the reason your example is a deflection is because in the circumstance of the person who is hit by the motor vehicle, there is nothing else greater at stake asides from his injuries. For the American Revolutionary, who has been shot 5 times on the battlefield and yet continues to load his musket against the advancing enemy, bleeding profusely, there is something greater at stake. Does he, like the present-day person in your example who gets hit by the motor vehicle, say “Wait!” to the advancing British so that he can go visit the doctor? No, he does not. He fights on, dying, sacrificing his life, knowingly, just for the chance to be able to win something greater than just being alive, something greater than just a pulse. That is what the law grants: the power to be secure, to be free, and to live without fear of imminent death or loss. Your motor-vehicle-accident example does not answer my argument, and thus, it fails as a counter.
Your last example is that of a car company. In reading it, I am now certain that you simply cannot comprehend the logical fallacy behind your polemic. My original thesis, once more, stated that law allows for things such as medicine, agriculture, and any of the other sciences to develop. It allows for every facet of human society the opportunity to arise and to mature. Once these disciplines have developed, they begin to function as sub sections of human civilization, developing their own conventions and rules, their own methods of calculation and function. Hence, it is perfectly reasonable to state, as you have, that the engineers are more important, overall, to the car company than its accountants or marketers. But in stating this, you are essentially parroting my argument back to me, without realizing it. To complete the analogy, consider the following: imagine that society is the car company. Law is its engineers. Without law, society dies. Without engineers, the car company dies. In effect, your argument is in support of my position, but because you do not realize your fallacy, you have presented it in opposition.
To reiterate, I am saying that law is necessary for medicine to develop, and not the other way around. Your counterarguments, thus far, have been either failed attempts at deflection or contradictory expressions. Doctors may deal with “more important things” in the immediate present of a person’s physical well-being, but in the long run, law is more critical and more fundamental to human society. Without law, medicine cannot develop.
In conclusion, I believe you may have some basic bias or perceptive skew that is preventing you from realizing the logic of my argument. I say this in light of the examples you’ve provided because they show a pattern of thought that is trapped in a single-dimensional line of reasoning: you’re considering only the present context but you fail to understand what provided for the present context, and what continues to provide for it. It is law, and without it, no medicine, no agriculture, and certainly no Hollywood would have developed into lasting and effective institutions/disciplines.
On a side note, are you seriously arguing that medicine is more important than law on a forum that is dedicated, in a manner of speaking, to the legal profession? Not only are you wrong, but what nerve!
MW
. 
