“When a hypothesis is deeply accepted it becomes a growth which only a kind of surgery can amputate. Thus, beliefs persist long after their factual bases have been removed, and practices based on beliefs are often carried on even when the beliefs which stimulated them have been forgotten. The practice must follow the belief. It is often considered, particularly by reformers and legislators, that law is a stimulant to action or an inhibitor of action, when actually the reverse is true. Successful law is simply the publication of the practice of the majority of units of a society, and by it the inevitable variable units are either driven to conform or are eliminated. We have had many examples of law trying to be the well-spring of action; our prohibition law showed how completely fallacious that theory is.” - John Steinbeck, The Log From The Sea Of Cortez
The majority of laws in the United States are enacted by politicians who are elected by popular vote. These politicians then proceed as if they retain a mandate from the masses, even though the vast majority of eligible voters don’t think these people merit checking a box.
Politicians then publish their political opinions into what is called “law”. Politicians are completely aware of the fact that no individual has the moral right to force their political opinions on anyone else. Politicians know that individuals cannot logically convey, to anyone else, a moral right to do something that individuals cannot morally do themselves. These politicians know that if their opinions were truly beneficial, it wouldn’t require force or coercion to attain compliance.
Politicians write laws making it illegal for certain classes of people to possess certain weapons. Those politicians also comprehend that it’s legal for anyone to possess any weapon if they are disarming an attacker and stopping violence. How can it be perfectly legal for someone to take possession of a weapon for the purpose of self defense, but at the same exact time it is illegal for them to possess that weapon for the purpose of self defense? The definition of schizophrenia is: a mentality or approach characterized by inconsistent or contradictory elements.
When discrepancies and contradictions of poorly written laws arise, a Judge is called upon to decide what is legal. If a party disagrees they can appeal to a higher authority, who decides what is legal by majority opinion. Even though the dissenting opinion may be more reasonable and sound, that opinion does not become law because it’s not as popular. Going forward, judges stand by the majority rulings and do not disturb the undisturbed.
This is the American legal system: The voluminous political opinions of a dominant minority, a standing army enforcing them, logical fallacies, and an abhorrence for the objective truth.
With the highest incarceration rate in the world, would it be lunacy to perpetuate this system?
"It was always my conviction--or better, my impression--that the legal system was designed to arrive at the truth in matters of human and property relationships. You see, I had forgotten or never considered one thing. Each side wants to win, and that factor warps any original intent to the extent that the objective truth of the matter disappears in emphasis. Now you take the case of this fire…both sides wanted to win, and neither had any interest in, indeed both sides seemed to have a kind of abhorrence for, the truth." - Ed Ricketts, The Log From The Sea Of Cortez