Quote:
Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum  Charitably, I don't think you are really thinking about what I'm saying, and you are conflating a number of things that are conceptually distinct. For example, if discretionary power of punishment is part-and-parcel of a law-system of penalty enforcement, and to what degree of latitude, if any? Do you, as parent, have the right to imprison your kid for 10 years, for stealing a cookie? Or do you HAVE TO give him on single lash on the bottom with a wet noodle? Or have you been granted a window of discretion in how to deal with the child? That's all part of your scope, and your children are trained to know that range. Or they are trained to know you as arbitrary and unpredictable. |
I don't think my children's knowledge of my character or a king's people's knowledge of his character is any basis for whether a law is valid or not (!?), I would say that a person in authority is free to use their authority without explaining their reasoning. They can state a law and their word is law (unless overruled by a higher authority). I don't believe that Laws are only valid if the law contains, as you said,
all provision for enforcement and penalties. I gave the example of the third commandment which I believe is a valid law as it is written. It doesn't need
all provision and penalties to be, as you said, "contained" in it (Perhaps I simply misunderstand what you mean by contained). So I gave the example of Moses who knew the specific law, but didn't know how to enforce it.
I am sorry if I was not good at explaining what I was trying to say, I should have realized this when you said you didn't understand what I was asking. My wife tells me I'm not always the clear in explaining what I am trying to say. Perhaps I should have asked a question instead:
Do you believe that the word of an authority is law even if that word did not contain "all provision of enforcement, and penalty for violation"?