what type of law is the most worthy while to understand?

[ManyNamesManyTitlesParticipant 24]

hello as the title says in respect to law what type of law is the best to understand to help bring what could be understood as justice for all? or in short what is the root of all law? the very very very foundation of all law in the history of law? i am striving to understand law and to know what type of law is worth my time to help people. on the one hand i am intrested in free speech and human rights i am interested in reshaping law if necessary to bring about change.  what type of law and dont get me started on law school or any of that just simple tell me what i could use in the event for example if i got a masters in law.  some might comment and think whats the point i want to be able to protect my self and bring justice to the lives of as many people as i an on this planet called earth. any one who may know what diretion i need to head in thank you and have a nice day. ps dont btich to me about my grammer.

[RusskyParticipant 13503]

BRIFFAULT’S LAW:

The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.

proud carrier of the 'why?' chromosome

[RedHeadedStrangerParticipant 204]

Google/Wiki the non-aggression principle.  I’ll sum it up; but won’t do it justice.  One shouldn’t INITIATE the use of force against another person.  Force includes: assault, fraud, and threats.  This means, that you shouldn’t beat someone’s ass, you shouldn’t cheat or steal, and you shouldn’t threaten to beat their ass, cheat, or steal from them.  This is the basis of english common law and maritime law.

Of course, if someone initiates force against you by fighting, cheating, stealing, or threatening you; go ahead and kick the s~~~ out of them, then take back what they stole from you, and threaten to beat their ass again if they ever again try that s~~~ on  you.

Like I said there is more to it, and there are some famous exceptions.  For example, if you are in a life or death situation, and the only way for you to survive is to steal, then it is not immoral to steal (survival is the purpose of morality, so it trumps morality) — but only if you take full responsibility and admit to your action and (if at all possible) make reparations plus damages to the person from whom you stole.  In such a case, your initial action would be considered an amoral action, not an immoral action.

Also, sometimes a situation is so f~~~ed up that you have no choice but to ‘violate’ the non-aggression principle.  Where there is no free choice, there is no morality.  So if someone is going to kill you unless you club an old man to death, you are not violating the non-aggression principle by complying.  This sounds odd at first, but remember, where there is no free will, there is no culpability.  The blood is on the hands of the f~~~tard that put you in the situation, you simply did what you had to do.  Again, your action would be considered amoral, not immoral.

There are volumes more to say on this topic, and I have probably fuct it up horribly.  So please wiki it.

 

 

[Author]

Posts