When President Trump and Elon Musk do something, the immediate response is usually to ask, “is that legal?” While I am not a lawyer, as a philosopher I say that law is made up and depends entirely on the willingness to comply or enforce.
Law is made up in that people create the laws. But there are those who argue that law is not (entirely) made up but has a real foundation, such as ethics or religion. For example, there are natural law and rights theorists, such as John Locke, who argue for an objective moral foundation for the law. Religious thinkers, such as Thomas Aquinas, argue that while human laws are made by humans, they derive all their validity from God’s law.
Even if we consider that one of these theories might be correct, there are two basic problems. The first is determining which, if any, theory is correct. From a practical standpoint, people usually believe their interpretation of their morality or religion is correct. But since everyone cannot be right, belief does not settle the matter. The practical problem is that we do not know which, if any, is correct.
The second problem is that even if the correct interpretation of the correct theory is found, there is still the problem of translating that theory into human laws and this means that people will still need to create the laws. Thanks to ambiguity, vagueness and other complexities of language and meaning, each person will have their own interpretation of these laws. As an example, people have very different concepts of what is reasonable.
A person following the law will have their own interpretation, which can be significantly different from that of a person enforcing the law. If conflict arises, this can involve the courts and thus the interpretations of the judges, lawyers and jury members can all become involved. This all assumes that everyone is acting in good faith, but this is often not the case. So, in addition to what people think the law means, there is also what they want the law to mean in a specific situation. Thus, not only is the initial law made up, but each interpretation is also made up. And a person’s interpretation will vary over time and from situation to situation based on both conscious and unconscious factors such as bias, financial interest or even being hungry. Even if an interpretation is made, its efficacy depends entirely on the willingness of people to comply or enforce it. So, asking whether something is legal is asking for an interpretation of the law, which leads to the question of whose interpretation matters.
Unlike what some call the “laws of nature”, such as the law of gravity, people can decide whether to follow an interpretation of human law. An everyday example is the speed limit. Unlike the speed of light, the legal speed limit depends on people willingly not exceeding it. More serious examples include laws about murder, firing federal employees, and obeying the president of the United States. Obviously enough, a person can always refuse to obey and thus the law is nothing without the willingness of people to comply with an interpretation of a law. As such, a simple “no” negates all the power of the law.
As an obvious objection, you are probably thinking about the fact that the police can kill people, that the President can command people to hurt other people, and that judges can make rulings. But this also depends on the willingness of people to obey an interpretation of the law. As an example, an officer can decide not to give you a ticket or not shoot you. If no one listened to the President, he would need to try to, one assumes, get a gun and threaten people like a lone criminal. A judge’s ruling only works if other people are willing to act on that ruling. As such, a simple “no” negates all the power of the law. While an officer, a judge, or all the Presidents men could hurt you, they cannot make you say “yes” unless you are willing to do so. And they will not hurt you unless they are willing to say “yes” to somebody’s interpretation of the law.
Interestingly, when Trump and Musk do “illegal” things, they are relying on the willingness of other people to comply based on “legal” authority. This seems to be a bit of a paradox in that Trump and Musk are relying on their “legal” authority or “right” to do “illegal” things. They do have a great advantage, since the process seems to be that they can do whatever they want and then a judge might be asked to decide if the “illegal” action was illegal. It is somewhat like being able to demand that a bank give you money and they must give it to you, with the only recourse is that they could ask a judge to ask you to give back the money.
Getting back to the question of whether something is legal, the answer is that it depends on the interpretation of the person who other people are willing to obey. From a practical standpoint, the legal system works initially on people agreeing to go along with it and if this fails, it becomes a matter of the willingness of some people to hurt others until they either agree or are killed. So, anything Trump and Musk does is “legal” until they agree to stop or someone stops them.
Your discourse on a subsequent topic, kindled my embers a bit. I could not comment further there, because, that *site could not be reached*. This one could, so, here I am, again. In your discussion, your piece remarks on CONTENT. All very good. If you may know, I think a lot around CONTEXT…have posited something I call, *contextual reality *. So happens that much of philosophical thought rests upon contextual reality,—has, for a couple of thousand years. Context reality says, roughly, reality, and/or truth, is *whatever the hell *someone says it is, other opinions of other groups, factions, etc., notwithstanding. This idea, belief, theory or dogma stands, regardless.(Irregardless, like UM, is not a word.) People use them anyway. No matter, unless one GROKS context. Fully. One needs to understand Heinlein because, as best I knew, and remember, it came from his book about a stranger in a strange land. Therefore, now, content gets re-imagined, with context being the driver. Zooming back to this post, is that legal? Um, I don’t know. Do you? …Guess it depends. Oh, and law? That is whatever the hell someone says it it, too.
Of course, I agree. If freeing rioters committing criminal damage to others’ property or that of the State, is legal, what else is not in the world of these two?
On a side note, Musk is probably one of the worst losers ever. By chance I happened to read a letter he wrote to Amber Heard (not that I am usually interested in the dumb things celebrities do; more often than not, they seem a lot more troubled than the rest of us), it went something like this:
”……I know you don’t like me much. But I’ll always be there for you, should you need anything. And if you’d tell me you don’t want to see me, that’s ok, I’ll accept that. But I’ll always (love you, whatever).”.
Can you believe that. A BILLIONAIRE, being weaker, small, and more ineffective, than any of us. No wonder Heard didn’t care. Heck, many times I didn’t have two pennies to rub together, and even I have never been that kind of weakling. As someone who knows about martial arts, as I do (probably to a smaller degree than you) I think you’ll identify with what I am saying. I know it was a total non sequitur, but I really wanted to say something about this Musk. He’s mostly just a lucky bod who overrates his intelligence, as it often happens with the likes of him.
what I meant with my connection between martial arts and the rest I wrote, is that I think a man should be self-reliant, he can’t depend on a woman, that’s weak. And nothing wrong with women here. As I wrote, I am not surprised about how an extremely attractive woman like Heard, would never be attracted to someone like Musk (though she might be attracted to his billions, but that would not be exclusive to Heard, I suppose, so I am not singling her out). In a word: I think Musk is a boy with a ton of money. And Trump is not too dissimilar from that, either.
People like that make for very ill-fitting ‘leaders’…..they can’t even lead themselves.
I am both gratified and amused with the question: is that legal? Why satisfaction AND humor, on such a contentious topic as law? Your final remark(s) generated both sentiments. The comment on whether something is legal: it depends on interpretation, is exactly right because law is elastic; loopholes and exceptions abound. Law is, in this sense, imperfect. Interpretations leave wiggle room in cases where harm or injustice lurk and outcomes in judicial process, accordingly, be tempered with some room for forgiveness. On the other hand, wealthy and/or influential people such as Musk and Trump, can and do much as they please. I need not remind anyone of Trump’s transgressions. Nor does Musk come to court, if he does, with “clean hands”.
Therefore, to ask, is that legal? regarding their decisions and acts, is mostly an academic exercise. Question: was it legal for a wealthy person, with massive influence, to be selected for an important(?) government post, obviously created for him? It may be unethical, but, that would not make it illegal and all the parties know this. Again, it *depends*. It depends on what he does; whether any of it is challenged; and how the law interprets that.