THE MODERN DEVELOPMENT OF LAW HAS BEEN GUIDED LARGELY BY FALSE ECONOMICS
The way law has developed today is heavily influenced by misunderstandings in economics, and both lawyers and economists are somewhat responsible for this situation. Lawyers usually follow legal principles they have learned without fully understanding how these principles fit into society. Economists, especially after important thinkers like David Hume and Adam Smith, often overlook the significance of legal rules in their economic theories. This gap has led to big changes in society without a strong theoretical basis.
In the last hundred years, lawyers have often claimed that economic needs led to changes in the law, arguing that these changes were necessary and unavoidable. Economists feel worried when they see these justifications because they reflect long-standing misconceptions. Legal writings frequently talk about a past era of "laissez-faire" while blaming early capitalism for problems faced by manual laborers, despite evidence showing that free markets have generally improved workers' living standards over time.
Moreover, many modern legal ideas are based on outdated beliefs, such as the incorrect notion that competition is harmful and that planning is needed because of the complexity of today’s world. Teaching young lawyers these flawed ideas has caused them to view government decisions as always wise. This can lead lawyers to repeat past mistakes instead of actively promoting positive change in the legal system.
The principles that guide the law often come from outside legal rules, influenced by society's ideas about what is right. These abstract ideas, which people often do not question, play a big role in shaping actions and decisions. Even well-meaning scholars have unintentionally led to harmful concepts that support oppressive systems.
After the fall of totalitarian regimes, their central ideas still exist in theoretical discussions, which poses a risk for future legal changes to lean toward authoritarianism. This issue is especially clear in Germany, which has contributed significant philosophical concepts that supported totalitarian rule. Thinkers like Carl Schmitt have influenced legal ideas by arguing that law should focus on organization and specific goals rather than protecting individual freedoms, showing a concerning shift away from understanding law as a way to allow freedom of action.
The way law has developed today is heavily influenced by misunderstandings in economics, and both lawyers and economists are somewhat responsible for this situation. Lawyers usually follow legal principles they have learned without fully understanding how these principles fit into society. Economists, especially after important thinkers like David Hume and Adam Smith, often overlook the significance of legal rules in their economic theories. This gap has led to big changes in society without a strong theoretical basis.
In the last hundred years, lawyers have often claimed that economic needs led to changes in the law, arguing that these changes were necessary and unavoidable. Economists feel worried when they see these justifications because they reflect long-standing misconceptions. Legal writings frequently talk about a past era of "laissez-faire" while blaming early capitalism for problems faced by manual laborers, despite evidence showing that free markets have generally improved workers' living standards over time.
Moreover, many modern legal ideas are based on outdated beliefs, such as the incorrect notion that competition is harmful and that planning is needed because of the complexity of today’s world. Teaching young lawyers these flawed ideas has caused them to view government decisions as always wise. This can lead lawyers to repeat past mistakes instead of actively promoting positive change in the legal system.
The principles that guide the law often come from outside legal rules, influenced by society's ideas about what is right. These abstract ideas, which people often do not question, play a big role in shaping actions and decisions. Even well-meaning scholars have unintentionally led to harmful concepts that support oppressive systems.
After the fall of totalitarian regimes, their central ideas still exist in theoretical discussions, which poses a risk for future legal changes to lean toward authoritarianism. This issue is especially clear in Germany, which has contributed significant philosophical concepts that supported totalitarian rule. Thinkers like Carl Schmitt have influenced legal ideas by arguing that law should focus on organization and specific goals rather than protecting individual freedoms, showing a concerning shift away from understanding law as a way to allow freedom of action.