Curious - as it comes up multiple times as an assumption through out the article - how does different traditions in various lands play in parts of an Empire, if we want to try to assert that the same common law would try to be applicable to all parts of the State? Tradition, being the foundation of law, should have a minimum of different expressions of the same common law - should it not? Or would those with different traditions/cultures have a different common law altogether?
For instance, traditions of New York City are very different than those of rural Louisiana, how does that affect the common law within the Empire of the United States? The same question could be said of the various Empires of History - What does India have in common with Britain? France did the same to Haiti and it's Colonies. I believe Spain did as well during the Bourbons.
I'm genuinely curious how common law ties peoples together, or when forced can become a wedge that drives peoples to rebellious actions, as it seems to have historically done.
Thanks for sharing this, this is not only well written, and while I disagree with its inherent central premise, its also, at its core, refreshingly honest and its something can that be in good faith brought to a *real* debate venue.
I’ll share here one major objection, that I hope would be fairly debated: variability in law often corresponds to broader variability across society; in commerce, technical fields like engineering and science, etc.. This heterogeneity and diversity generates innovation and also enables high degrees of adaptability. A universal constant in law, particularly one driven by universal standardization, runs the risk of installing a rigidity that can inhibit creativity, innovation, and the evolution of new ideas.
A very good article.
Curious - as it comes up multiple times as an assumption through out the article - how does different traditions in various lands play in parts of an Empire, if we want to try to assert that the same common law would try to be applicable to all parts of the State? Tradition, being the foundation of law, should have a minimum of different expressions of the same common law - should it not? Or would those with different traditions/cultures have a different common law altogether?
For instance, traditions of New York City are very different than those of rural Louisiana, how does that affect the common law within the Empire of the United States? The same question could be said of the various Empires of History - What does India have in common with Britain? France did the same to Haiti and it's Colonies. I believe Spain did as well during the Bourbons.
I'm genuinely curious how common law ties peoples together, or when forced can become a wedge that drives peoples to rebellious actions, as it seems to have historically done.
Thanks for sharing this, this is not only well written, and while I disagree with its inherent central premise, its also, at its core, refreshingly honest and its something can that be in good faith brought to a *real* debate venue.
I’ll share here one major objection, that I hope would be fairly debated: variability in law often corresponds to broader variability across society; in commerce, technical fields like engineering and science, etc.. This heterogeneity and diversity generates innovation and also enables high degrees of adaptability. A universal constant in law, particularly one driven by universal standardization, runs the risk of installing a rigidity that can inhibit creativity, innovation, and the evolution of new ideas.