login about faq

This is basically a question about whether civil law or common law systems are better. The way I see it, in civil law you can set rational codes, but putting that power in the hands of a few seems like a terrible idea; common law is more decentralized, but individual judges can set precedents that are not just (like we sometimes see today). Seems like both systems are prone to failure and manipulation.

asked Dec 30 '12 at 02:00

TheBucket's gravatar image

TheBucket
64329

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/law,_objective_and_non-objective.html

Law should be objective. This means, among other things, that it should be written in clear language which is readily accessible to the public, before the act being judged takes place.

This does not dictate the number of people who decide what laws to write, nor how those people are elected, nor the manner by which proper law is decided (a question often posed as one of natural law vs. positive law).

(Dec 30 '12 at 07:24) anthony anthony's gravatar image

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here

By RSS:

Answers

Answers and Comments

Share This Page:

Tags:

×88
×39
×5

Asked: Dec 30 '12 at 02:00

Seen: 3,306 times

Last updated: Dec 30 '12 at 07:42