“Why Irrational Persons Never Lose An Argument,” discusses why logic is not effective against legalists. If you have attempted to use logic in an argument yet found it has no impact on those with whom you debate it is either your argument is not logical or the listener is a legalist who, failing logic, resorts to law. Human law and legal rights are the products of failed logicians. A logical argument defends itself by the perfection of its own position. The law is needed only to defend lies and logical fictions.
[anchor.fm]
Law is codified morality with the implied threat of violence for noncompliance.
If the law is immoral, it will seem illogical to a moral person.
A legal argument is always won at the end of a gun.
It's not logical to argue with a legalist.
OK,
Well, respectfully, human law and legal rights in western countries—particularly Britain and the US—are not products of failed logicians. Quite the opposite, especially when you consider the evolution of the common law, or the crafting of the US Constitution. There are certainly bad laws, ill-conceived, vague, and interpreted poorly. But even with the low esteem with which I hold legislators, there is usually a logic to their efforts. Of course, the same cannot be said of totalitarian or authoritarian regimes.
If the law is not logical, that is rooted in logic, and must be deciphered, do you think the legalist set out to form a law with no logical base of was it inadvertent, that is provided in a narrative form because he or she had no idea how to produce the effect he or she wanted without a dictate, ie a totalitarian law?
"there is usually a logic to their efforts"
It's rational to write laws that benefit the companies you have investments in.
It would be irrational to write laws that might damage your portfolio or that of someone you care about.
Thanks