According to Raz, the sources thesis is essential

According to Raz, the sources thesis is essential According to Raz, the sources thesis is essential to the authority of law. Does it follow from his account that authority is at heart a matter of power (as a sceptic would maintain) rather than a rational virtue? Can Raz avoid this conclusion and remain a positivist? It is contended that Raz and his articulation of legal positivism remains intact after careful analysis, if somewhat buffeted by the arguments inherent in the question as posed. To fully appreciate the concept of authority as Raz develops it, one must first consider how Raz has defined the sources thesis and its relationship to the authority of law. The source thesis as developed by Raz is the culmination of his logical progression in the development of a flexible and comprehensive tool to define legal positivism. Raz fashions a three headed thesis comprised of social, moral and semantic components, of which the social thesis is the most important.[1] Raz emphatically states that what the law is and what it is not is a social fact –his corollary proposition is that a rule is only a legal rule if it meets a social condition.[2] Raz proceeded in his analysis to articulate how the social thesis becomes a cornerstone for the justification of law as a social institution, a concept tightly allied by Raz to three elements that determine the true existence of such systems – efficacy, institutional character and the source of law. In this context, Raz elevates the source thesis to one of both complexity and prominence. It is submitted that Raz in his definition of both efficacy and institutional character as separate tests that identify the existence of a legal system, in fact renders them as sub-compartments of his source thesis. Raz is certain that the source thesis, an acknowledgement that all law is fully determined by its social sources, is the most important element of a legal system.[3] He defines his social sources as including any extraneous 'interpretative sources'[4] that may exist in a society. Raz stipulates that a law has a source if its contents and existence can be determined without resort to moral arguments. Raz thus includes both legislation and a wide range of societal facts as defining the law and its authority. The Raz definition of law as an aggregation of community and societal custom, habits, and shared perspectives is a far cry from the seminal Austin concepts of legal positivism, ones centred upon the notion of a irrefutable ‘sovereign power’ that promulgates law as a command that is reciprocally enforced by sanction, all crisply delineated from any moral considerations.[5] In contrast, it is plain that Raz perceives the authority of the law in less stark and more indirect terms than Austin would have accepted. The source thesis as posited by Raz has two functions. The first is its utility in categorising and systemising the interconnected aspects of law (a purpose that all legal positivists from Austin onwards would endorse). The second function is to provide publicly ascertainable standards that are binding upon society.[6] The state power as contemplated by Raz to achieve these legal societal purposes is held in a collective sense by the community; there is no supreme and authoritative sovereign lawgiver in the Raz model. However, it is equally plain that Raz does not attribute ‘rational virtue’ to his concept of authority. By definition, virtue is a moral consideration and therefore one that Raz and positivists generally would not permit to enter the authority equation. On the subject of unvirtuous law, Raz suggested that ‘†¦Even a bad law, as the inevitable official doctrine, should be obeyed for as long as it is in force, while lawful action is taken to try and bring about its amendment or repeal’. It is submitted that this perspective internalizes authority to within the society, consistent with Raz’ thesis that law is fully determined from social sources.[7] Raz considers the question of power in relation to law in another sense that bears upon the present question. Raz has stated in a number of his works that consistent with the source based notion of all law, the authority to create or administer the law must be either legitimate or de facto.[8] The use of the term ‘authority’ has a strong power connotation; legal systems may only claim legitimacy through an implicit or express assertion that the system possesses the power to maintain such authority. The power to adjudicate legal issues and to the ability to maintain regulatory and enforcement systems places the legal system in a position of supremacy within a society, but it is a supremacy derived from societal forces and desires and not a sovereign influence in the Austinian positivist sense. It is submitted that in the Raz interpretation of the institutional character of the law, the legitimate legal system will inevitably reflect the social fact of the society. In this fashion Raz closes a philosophical loop in his conclusion that ‘†¦conformity to moral values or ideals is in no way a condition for anything being a law or legally binding. Hence, the law's conformity to moral values and ideals is not necessary[9]. It is this proposition that cements the Raz position as one within the positivist camp. Bibliography George, Robert P., (ed.) The Autonomy of Law: Essays on Legal Positivism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999) George, Robert P. What Is Law? A Century of Arguments. First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life Apr. 2001:23 Raz, Joseph. Ethics in the Public Domain: Essays in the Morality of Law and Politics (Revised ed.) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995) Raz, Joseph. Practical Reasons and Norms (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979) Raz, Joseph. The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979) Footnotes [1] The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1979), 37; see also Practical Reasons and Norms (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2002), 161, 162 ibid, 40 [2] ibid, 43-46 4 ibid, 47 [3]5 Austin, John. The Province of Jurisprudence Determined (New York: B. Franklin, 1970), 6 Raz, 51 [4] [5]5 Austin, John. The Province of Jurisprudence Determined (New York: B. Franklin, 1970), 6 Raz, 51 7Joseph Raz, Ethics in the Public Domain: Essays in the Morality of Law and Politics, Revised ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995) [6] [7] [8] Ethics, 216 [9] Ethics, 217

Gun Violence

There are many kind of violence in the world, and the most common and deadly is gun-related violence. Not surprisingly, gun violence is one of the major public concerns in the American society. Interestingly, gun violence is also most common in urban areas and it is in close conjunction with youth activity and gang violence. There are many violent crime related to guns and the presence of guns often would trigger many violent crimes. Since 1865, President Abraham Lincoln, President James Garfield, President William McKinley, and President John F. Kennedy were assassinated, and the gun violence for Americans has become quite common. Moreover, high profile gun violence incidents, such as the assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and more recently, the Columbine High School massacre, the Beltway sniper attacks, and the Virginia Tech massacre have also fueled debate over gun policies. According to the report, prevalence of homicide and violent crime is greatest in urba n areas of the United States. In metropolitan areas, the homicide rate in 2005 was 6. 1 per 100,000 compared with 3. in non-metropolitan counties (fbi. gov). In America, cities with populations greater than 250,000, the mean homicide rate was 12. 1 per 100,000 (fbi. gov), and the rates of gun-related homicides are greater in southern and western states. In America, to get a gun is somewhat easy. It is not expensive and there are many firearms available. According to the report, among juveniles, the minor under the age of 16, 17, or 18, serving in correctional facilities, 86% owned a gun at some time, and 66% acquiring their first gun by age 14 (fbi. ov). Juveniles most often acquire guns from family, friends, drug dealers, and street contacts. In inner city, youth cite â€Å"self-protection from enemies† as the top reason for carrying a gun. Moreover, the mind of youth is immature, and they usually be impetuous and easily given to passions or act on impulse and without due consideration. This is shown in statistics that most violent crimes related to guns were committed by the youths. Even though gun itself is neutral, we cannot deny the potential danger elated with guns. Guns are meant to protect the people, but it often used as a tool to commit violent crimes. Therefore, establishing the laws and the limitations to prevention the youth to touch guns is important. Also, families and schools should educate and guide our youths more carefully. Don’t let our society become more and more dangerous and give our offspring a safe living space by promoting stricter firearm controls and zero tolerance on youth gun possession. Gun Violence Gun Violence Gun violence, in the United States especially, is a growing concern and highly debated topic when the discussion of gun control is brought up. Here are several facts that I found to be troubling, and even disturbing. * The average of guns deaths in the annual is less than 50 in Japan compared to more than 10,000 in the United States. (http://www. heedinggodscall. org/content/pfctoolkit-10) The number of gun related deaths in the United States dwarfs that of Japan annually, perhaps a sign of the overwhelming amount of gang violence in the U.S. * The per capita gun death rate in Louisiana is the highest annually in the United States at 19. 04%. The lowest per capita death rate is help in Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Hawaii at a mere 2. 02%. (http://www. heedinggodscall. org/content/pfctoolkit-10) Per 100,000 people, almost twenty percent of the population would die in a gun related homicide. That number seems incredibly high. * Lifetime U. S. edical costs for gunshot in juries are an estimated $2. 3 billion, with U. S. taxpayers paying $1. 1 billion, almost half of the total. (http://www. heedinggodscall. org/content/pfctoolkit-10) In an effort to keep that number down, it might be smart to put a little more funding into law enforcement to keep guns out of criminal’s hands in the first place. * Guns in a household triple the risk of a family member being killed by a gun. (http://www. ncbi. nlm. nih. ov/pubmed/8371731) I don’t know how I feel about this statistic as the use of a firearm for protection can save a life even though this stat says that the gun in the household makes it immediately more dangerous. * A 1993 study gathered that 2. 45 million crimes are thwarted by guns in the United States every year. (LaPierre, Wayne (1994). Guns, Crime, and Freedom. Regnery Publishing. p. 23. ISBN 0-89526-477-3. ) This is the other side of gun possession seen as a positive. With guns as a protection, regular citizens can protect themselves from potential danger. Gun Violence Gun Violence Gun violence, in the United States especially, is a growing concern and highly debated topic when the discussion of gun control is brought up. Here are several facts that I found to be troubling, and even disturbing. * The average of guns deaths in the annual is less than 50 in Japan compared to more than 10,000 in the United States. (http://www. heedinggodscall. org/content/pfctoolkit-10) The number of gun related deaths in the United States dwarfs that of Japan annually, perhaps a sign of the overwhelming amount of gang violence in the U.S. * The per capita gun death rate in Louisiana is the highest annually in the United States at 19. 04%. The lowest per capita death rate is help in Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Hawaii at a mere 2. 02%. (http://www. heedinggodscall. org/content/pfctoolkit-10) Per 100,000 people, almost twenty percent of the population would die in a gun related homicide. That number seems incredibly high. * Lifetime U. S. edical costs for gunshot in juries are an estimated $2. 3 billion, with U. S. taxpayers paying $1. 1 billion, almost half of the total. (http://www. heedinggodscall. org/content/pfctoolkit-10) In an effort to keep that number down, it might be smart to put a little more funding into law enforcement to keep guns out of criminal’s hands in the first place. * Guns in a household triple the risk of a family member being killed by a gun. (http://www. ncbi. nlm. nih. ov/pubmed/8371731) I don’t know how I feel about this statistic as the use of a firearm for protection can save a life even though this stat says that the gun in the household makes it immediately more dangerous. * A 1993 study gathered that 2. 45 million crimes are thwarted by guns in the United States every year. (LaPierre, Wayne (1994). Guns, Crime, and Freedom. Regnery Publishing. p. 23. ISBN 0-89526-477-3. ) This is the other side of gun possession seen as a positive. With guns as a protection, regular citizens can protect themselves from potential danger.

Definition and Examples of Reduced Adverb(ial) Clauses

Slavery During The Ancient Era - 1528 Words

Marris Clark History 201 – Section 17 Slavery in the Ancient Era Slavery has been a custom for almost as long as humans have dominated the land on Earth. Even since before history was documented, slavery has been assumed to exist. Slavery, in our current culture, is widely frowned upon and seen as morally wrong, but that has not always been the case. In ancient times, slavery served an array of purposes that helped benefit their way of life. Aside from the fact that humans were enslaving other humans whom were just as equal as themselves, slavery proved to be an efficient system in the ancient era because it helped develop social classes, stimulate the economy, and was a key source of labor around the farm and community. When slavery†¦show more content†¦In the ancient days, this was something very important. Being strong and rich might have showed that you had power, that you could defend what was yours, and make room to attain more of what you wanted. Being weak and poor, might have displayed poor work ethic to those around because you could not provide. Determining who was upper and lower class, even though long ago, had to start from somewhere. A time when certain individuals or groups had something new and unique that was something that others strived to attain, or considered holy. When something is treasured or is wanted by others, that gives the holder of this possession, whether it be beauty, luxuries, or new things never seen before, the power. Individuals did not always come to power just because they possessed something that everyone wanted, some were not born into high class, royalty, or power, some took it by force. Therefore separating the weak from the strong, and the strongest rising to power. When people began overpowering other individuals, because that is just a humanistic nature, that is when the determination of classes came about, and people were classified as slaves, because they did not fit into society anywhere else. Slavery helped determine social classes because it was considered the lowest of the low, and people definitely treated slaves as so. They served an array of purposes, and were helpful in many different areas in the community in which they were located. It all