Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander
(SNIP)
Convincing society in general of the legitimacy of some position is the province of skills like Politics, Propaganda, Public Speaking and Writing. Arguments can be based on appeals to points of Law, Philosophy or Theology, but whether they sway the populace has little or nothing to do with whether they are technically correct according to the arcane rules of the academic discipline.
|
I'll agree with this point of view. Appeals to law, and the principles that lie at the foundations of a particular body of law, are frequently used to justify coups and revolutions, but that mostly takes place
after the fact.
Law isn't used to justify rapid (and frequently violent) political change in the planning and execution stages. However, alteration of the structure of the legal system, as well as a redefinition of the philosophical assumptions that underpin that structure, are frequent consequences of such rapid and irregular political change.
The fact is, most people don't know much about either the philosophical foundations of law, or the processes by which legal structures function. Moreover, most people don't want to know, either, and some of those who learn enough to understand that Law has as many flaws and shortcomings as any other human creation, frequently lose all trust for it.
It's tough to use law -- which people don't understand, don't like and don't trust -- to convince them of anything. Appeals to emotions, beliefs or (sometimes) to reason and principles, work much more effectively.
I'll also note that, whIle most people accept that a decision settles a legal issue, a significant number of the people remain unconvinced of the fairness of any particular decision.