"GOD. Society is so full of fucking rules and regulations these days. If I wanna get a new car I have to fill in a form. If I wanna go on holiday I have to get insurance. If I wanna build into my own garden I have to get bloody permission! I bet the cavemen did not have to go through these ridiculous processes every time they wanted to do something. Take me back 10,000 years when a spade was a spade, life was fast and simple and the rulebook had yet to be invented."
"Well actually, there were rules in the olden days too. Granted, they were not codified in documents in the way that our own laws are, but they existed nonetheless. The fact that they were not written down did not make them any less real. You knew which animals you could hunt and which you should stay away from. You knew that fire could keep you warm, cook your meat and help scare animals away. They were laws found in nature. They were still laws.
Over time written systems of law came to exist. The growth of agriculture and the need to store grain helped give birth to an early system of bookkeeping to determine what grain belonged to who. Already we see the emergence of proprietorial rights - you may use your grain, not the grain of someone else. The cult of ownership has been established.
As the the classical era rolled on, states became larger and more powerful. Centralised government and uniform law became a key component in uniting otherwise disparate territories. The rule of law, beyond ethnicity, race, language, culture... the rule of law became the defining feature of government. Once you were outside the law, you were outside the protection of the King. If you broke the law, you were no longer entitled to the same protection as other citizens. Already we see a classic penal system emerging.
Nor did law simply focus on matters of state. When Moses read out his Ten Commandments, alongside the more 'obvious' instructions not to kill or steal, there were also more conspicuously moralistic orders, such as respecting your parents and not committing adultery. Thus even then we see law impinging on the affairs of its citizens, as if law had the right and responsibility to assume such a role.
In the Early Modern period with the rise of national bureaucracies across Europe, regulation became a matter of routine. Official standards were set for, for instance, the quality of produce sold in pubs and tavern. Sanctions existed so that vendors would lose their licence if found to offend. The intensity with which such laws were enforced varied from generation to generation, but the apparatus was there. And this notion of the state being a regulating body survives to this day.
But all these laws ultimately deal with real-life things, as do today's laws. What may seem like an artificial and officious law to you probably makes sense once you gain a more in-depth understanding of how systems work. You stop thinking of what is 'fair' and start focusing on what is 'practical'. You view life and the law for what it is: an organic system of interactions in which the supremacy of any idea or individual comes not from any ingrained right or privilege, but simply as the sum of their actions and reactions. And another thing - your suggestion that we live in highly regulated times. In reality, humans are more free now then they have ever been. Perhaps the past may appear more 'free', but bear in mind that there is a difference between mental freedom and material freedom. You wouldn't feel so free, I imagine, if you constantly had to worry about the next harvest or the band of mercenaries coming over the hill. The government may keep an eye on your life activities but it does not direct them. Success still comes to those who work hardest and, perhaps, to those who have some good luck along the way. But the government is only interested in the aggregate of these successes, not on the individual. Not on you. The government doesn't tell you how to worship, what to think, where you live, who you marry. You are, in fact, an extremely free man. But you have chosen to think of the freedoms you do not have rather than the many that you do, as this better suits your gripe."
"Well actually, there were rules in the olden days too. Granted, they were not codified in documents in the way that our own laws are, but they existed nonetheless. The fact that they were not written down did not make them any less real. You knew which animals you could hunt and which you should stay away from. You knew that fire could keep you warm, cook your meat and help scare animals away. They were laws found in nature. They were still laws.
Over time written systems of law came to exist. The growth of agriculture and the need to store grain helped give birth to an early system of bookkeeping to determine what grain belonged to who. Already we see the emergence of proprietorial rights - you may use your grain, not the grain of someone else. The cult of ownership has been established.
As the the classical era rolled on, states became larger and more powerful. Centralised government and uniform law became a key component in uniting otherwise disparate territories. The rule of law, beyond ethnicity, race, language, culture... the rule of law became the defining feature of government. Once you were outside the law, you were outside the protection of the King. If you broke the law, you were no longer entitled to the same protection as other citizens. Already we see a classic penal system emerging.
Nor did law simply focus on matters of state. When Moses read out his Ten Commandments, alongside the more 'obvious' instructions not to kill or steal, there were also more conspicuously moralistic orders, such as respecting your parents and not committing adultery. Thus even then we see law impinging on the affairs of its citizens, as if law had the right and responsibility to assume such a role.
In the Early Modern period with the rise of national bureaucracies across Europe, regulation became a matter of routine. Official standards were set for, for instance, the quality of produce sold in pubs and tavern. Sanctions existed so that vendors would lose their licence if found to offend. The intensity with which such laws were enforced varied from generation to generation, but the apparatus was there. And this notion of the state being a regulating body survives to this day.
But all these laws ultimately deal with real-life things, as do today's laws. What may seem like an artificial and officious law to you probably makes sense once you gain a more in-depth understanding of how systems work. You stop thinking of what is 'fair' and start focusing on what is 'practical'. You view life and the law for what it is: an organic system of interactions in which the supremacy of any idea or individual comes not from any ingrained right or privilege, but simply as the sum of their actions and reactions. And another thing - your suggestion that we live in highly regulated times. In reality, humans are more free now then they have ever been. Perhaps the past may appear more 'free', but bear in mind that there is a difference between mental freedom and material freedom. You wouldn't feel so free, I imagine, if you constantly had to worry about the next harvest or the band of mercenaries coming over the hill. The government may keep an eye on your life activities but it does not direct them. Success still comes to those who work hardest and, perhaps, to those who have some good luck along the way. But the government is only interested in the aggregate of these successes, not on the individual. Not on you. The government doesn't tell you how to worship, what to think, where you live, who you marry. You are, in fact, an extremely free man. But you have chosen to think of the freedoms you do not have rather than the many that you do, as this better suits your gripe."
"Ok Ok fine, you've made your point. I'll build my conservatory on the other side of the house."
