Fundamental Laws Thu, 18 Jul 2024 Opinion ================ The code of Hammurabi is one of the oldest and most well preserved legal texts and at some point supposedly governed the ancient Babylonians. The laws of the code are inscribed onto basalt, and while the Babylonians may have had further laws to supplement these, it is safe to say that 282 inscribed ones were considered most fundamental, requiring the need for inscription. Looking at what the ancient Babylonians considered to e fundamental gives us insight into changing attitudes regarding what ought to be legislated. The code for instance contains laws regarding the giving of testimony in court, laws regarding marriage, divorce, and adultery, as well as assault, robbery, and destruction of property. These topics are still regarded as rather fundamental in modern society. However, the code also contains laws regarding wages and prices for goods and services. This sounds more peculiar to the modern reader. Certainly, most legal scholars are not in favour of entirely unregulated markets, though doubtless few would be in favour of a constitutional amendment putting a fixed price on the rent of freight vessels as the ancient Babylonians had. We find similarly overly specific laws in the books of law of the Torah. Here, we are told what animals to eat, how to prepare them, what cuts are suitable for sacrifice, how the sacrificial altar should be constructed, and which transgressions require which sacrifices. These are interwoven with laws which we consider fundamental to this day, such as those regarding marriage, property, and crime. It seems then that attitudes regarding legislation change with time. Certainly no modern western state would legislate in minute detail how one should worship or make amends to God. Yet we have kept many of the laws regarding marriage, property, and crime. Are these laws truly fundamental? Or are they just as arbitrary as the price and consumption of food? Marriage -------- ``Minimizing Marriage'' is a book by Elizabeth Blake where she explores the various dimensions which marriage occupies. Marriage can simultaneously be a romantic commitment, a legal contract, a driver of moral legitimacy, and a religious act. The question remains whether marriage *should* occupy all of these dimensions, or whether certain ones are arbitrary. Blake writes extensively on decoupling romance and ethical/legal legitimacy. I similarly would like to ask the question whether states should be in the marriage business at all. Several European countries do not recognize marriage between two people of the same sex. In some of these countries, such couples can enter into a civil union, which is the same in all but name legally speaking. Acceding to some however, civil unions lack the moral legitimizing force associated with marriage. Even outside of same-sex unions, I know of religious people who speak of ``common-law marriage'' as opposed to ``christian marriage'', where only the later is legal in the eyes of God. Food, Drink, and other consumables ---------------------------------- Many modern states regulate what substances citizens are and are not allowed to put in their bodies. No alcohol or tobacco before 16/18/21/ever, no marijuana, LSD, MDMA, etc. You are allowed to eat contaminated or expired food, but you are not allowed to sell it. Certain foods are out-right deemed to dangerous by certain counties, such as unwashed eggs and raw milk in the United States. Others are deemed immoral: human flesh, foie grass, veal, etc, and are legislated against accordingly. To some this seems sensible, other such as Joel Salatin (author of ``everything I want to do is illegal''), argue that ``the right to eat what you want'' should be a constitutional guarantee on-par with the right to free-speech. Many of my friends and associates who do not write books but do consume, sell, or produce illicit substances, are of the opinion that, if everyone involved in the procurement process consents, then the government should ``stay out of it''. Private property ---------------- Private property is named such because it is yours. It opposes public property which is owned by the state, or similar entities. If you are not on your own private property, you have to follow the rules of its rightful owner. Yet you are not entirely free to choose what you do with your property either. The most obvious example is zoning regulations. These laws dictate which pieces of property are to be used for agriculture, commerce, or residential purposes. You may be the sole rightful owner of a piece of land, but that does not mean you may build a house on it. Even if you are allowed to do so however, the house must conform to certain standards set by the government. While these laws (and indeed all the ones mentioned in this post) are clearly designed to keep to populace safe, they also restrict our freedoms. So I ask once again, should the lawmakers be in the business of deciding what spaces you are allowed to live in? ---------------------------------------------------------------- I could keep going but I think my point has been made. There are various areas of legislation which at some point in the past were deemed sensible and important enough to be included in major legal texts. Today, there are various areas of legislation which seem sensible, but where an argument can be made that the lawmakers should have nothing to say about them. Attitudes surrounding these topics will change, and thinking about your stances on these topics is important if you wish to anticipate said change. What you consider fundamental today, may be unlegislated tomorrow. Likewise, freedoms which we currently enjoy in un(der)regulated areas may disappear some day soon, when governments decide that, yes; this too is our business.