Introduction

For as long as humans have existed there have been questions of right and wrong, morality, justice and rules governing individual and collective action. These questions become more complicated when we seek to ensure these norms, rules and laws are not broken by punishing today's transgressors to dissuade future transgressions.

 

The Physics of Law seeks to explain these issues following a method that is based in physics and logic. This will not be a history lesson exploring the Code of Hammurabi, the Ten Commandments, Greek Ethics, Roman Law, Common Law, Case Law etc. Rather, it will take an approach that transcends time and historical precedent to describe laws that are a logical consequence of our human existence, regardless of how you believe that came about.

These fundamental laws are the basis for human conduct from which then spring more specific and localized rules of conduct, both of which are followed and enforced by a state.

​

Physical Humane Laws

 

The list of what I call Physical Humane Laws is below. They are in an order of interdependence such that there is a starting point with succeeding Physical Humane Laws being dependent on previous ones. One could quibble with the order and completeness of the list. I encourage readers to contact me and grow the list, augment the list or change the order. It is the apex of conceit to say this is "final and complete."

​

1. Autonomy Over One’s Mind and Body

2. Action Axiom and Maximizing Principle

3. Logic of Choice

4. Subjectivity

5. Income

6. Property Rights

7. The State

8. Ignorance of the Future

9. Freedom

10. Contracting

​

When I write “laws,” it has to do with the circumstances I speculate we all face. Laws are common to all and are found in every situation. In short, laws are abstract- they apply to an unknown number of people in an unknown number of situations. These are laws that were not created by human design nor codified by a vote or decree. These laws are part of our existence and can be explained by physics and logic.

​

As briefly noted above, many of these laws are related and dependent upon the preceding laws. For instance, without subjectivity and ignorance of the future we could not explain freedom without resorting to transcendent or metaphysical imperatives, e.g. "God given rights" or "man's innate longing to be free."

 

Again, I am going to call these Physical Humane Laws. We need to clarify at the outset that these are not spontaneous orders- societal orders that are the result of human action, but not human design. Spontaneous orders, like language and money, are everywhere there is humanity.

​

Laws apply to everyone equally. If they did not, they cannot be called a law. No one can escape the law of gravity, it applies to everyone because it is a law. It doesn't matter your race, nationality or form of government you happen to be living under. Obviously, if you are living in a country that is controlled by an authoritarian regime that does not acknowledge and protect freedom, it violates the Physical Humane Laws. These governments create rules using coercive power inconsistently with the physics of our common existence. As such, I speculate, are unsustainable forms of government that will eventually succumb to competing societies that are more consistent with Physical Humane Laws.

​

I will define each of these Physical Humane Laws using logic and physics. Care will be taken to use value-free terms. In other words, terms that are subjective will be avoided when possible. This is not to say that I cannot have opinions of what should be. On the contrary, I certainly do. But to be consistent with my methodology, I cannot impose my values on others as it would be inconsistent with the Physical Humane Laws of subjectivity and freedom.

​

Avoidance of Value-laden Terms

​

Here is a short list of subjective terms and examples that are often used in legal and political discourse. Again, I will strive to avoid using these and similar terms in my treatise.

​

• Right (qualitative)- "We must do the right thing!"

• Wrong (qualitative)- "It is wrong to smoke marijuana."

• Happiness- "Happiness is the highest individual pursuit."

• Truth- "It is absolutely true that vanilla is the best ice cream flavor."

• Best- "It is best that everyone wears a bicycle helmet."

• Good (qualitative)- " It is good to save 10% of your annual income."

• Bad (qualitative)- "It is bad if you spend more than you earn."

• Positive/Negative (qualitative)- "There is a net positive benefit if you follow directions."

• Beneficial/detrimental- see positive/negative

• Virtuous- "Being nice and courteous is virtuous."

• Altruistic- "Giving to charity is altruistic."

• Fair- "It is fair for government to mandate free health care for all persons."

• Progress (collectively)- "Society is making progress through government central planning"

• Economic Justice- "Only after there is no poverty, no starvation, no rich and no poor, will there be economic justice."

​

Let us string together some of these terms to demonstrate how they, although emotive and descriptive, lowers precision in communicating ideas. "Society will be better off by government mandating that only the public sector be able to provide medical services. This is due to eliminating the greedy for-profit entities such as doctors, drug manufacturers, and insurance companies. It will be fairer to those less fortunate who cannot provide for themselves in a capitalist society." One can certainly disagree with that statement and claim it is false. But to do so would mean being able to interpret it with logical precision. Because there are so many subjective variables, unknowable causations, and assumptions about the future, it is indeed nonsense.

​

Visualize how many politicians around the world use this same type of language to impose their values on society.

 

Defining Concepts Negatively

​

We will arrive at many of our conclusions following a 'negative approach'. Let's demonstrate this negative approach by defining why there is freedom. We will not even try to define this concept positively by dictatiing one has the freedom to say what you want, do what you want and when you want. Obviously, there are limitations when it comes to these matters. You cannot go down the street firing a gun at people. There are also limitations of physics, I want to fly like a bird, but thats not gonna happen. In addition, others may claim to want the identical thing. This path is fraught with peril.

 

Let's approach freedom negatively. Here is an example of defining our freedom following a negative approach. You cannot violate another's property. This does not (positively) tell you what you can do, but rather it (negatively) limits the scope of action. You cannot assault another's property or person. Governments would not even have to positively acknowledge the available scope of action by saying, "you can do whatever you want except assault another's person or property" as it is already implied.

​

What about freedom? Positive and negative definitions of freedom abound. "Everyone must be free" is a positive statement declaring what should be. No doubt that many agree with such an enlightened statement, but this way of thinking is quite dangerous and follows the school of legal positivism.

​

The Role of Legislation

 

After these Physical Humane Laws, there are rules that may be adopted as there are grey areas when it comes to living together. Some call these "man-made rules", or "legislation" and they can vary by peoples and nations. Some examples include:

​

• Age of majority, rules regarding minors

• Externalities or "third-party effects," such as pollution

• Law enforcement, punishment, courts, adjudication

• Paying for government, i.e. taxation

• Levels of government, national, state, county and local

• Public goods (roads, utilities, military, fire protection, infectious disease prevention, etc.)

• Waterways and oceans

• Licensing, certification, patents

• National Defense

​

These subsequent rules or legislation must be consistent with the Physical Humane Laws. This is called the rule of law. If any legislation or rules apply to a certain class of person differently, it is not consistent with this rule of law.

​

Explaining the Physical Humane Laws

​

We will now discuss each of the Physical Humane Laws above and explain why they are indeed laws applying to an unknown number of people in an unknown number of situations.

​

The first is autonomy over mind and body. We are individuals with separate minds and bodies. So far, to my knowledge, no one is able to directly control another's mind or body. Every individual has sovereignty over their thoughts, feelings, values and can exercise them through their bodies.

 

The second is the action axiom and maximizing principle. This was of course made famous by Ludwig Von Mises. Humans act. The simple act of even refuting the action axiom is itself an action. Further, we act in the rational (or irrational) expectation of being 'better off'. This is called the maximizing principle. Otherwise we would not act. Even suicide can be explained by the maximizing principle.

​

The third is the logic of choice. We are faced with choice and the ability to discriminate between competing alternatives. Even if being coerced under the penalty of death to act or think a certain way, we can still defy the coercive order using the autonomy over our mind and body and believe it to be maximizing our state of being.

 

The fourth is subjectivity. Subjectivity simply means that the value of a good, service, idea or course of action is determined by the peceiving subject (individual.) Each individual may value things differently based on their particular knowledge of time and place in light of their previously received sensations (memory.) Thank you F.A. Hayek for explaining subjectivity through physiology in The Sensory Order.

 

The fifth is income. Income is the generic term for sustenance. In its most basic form, income is food and water. We must have income in order to live.

​

The sixth is property rights. Instead of property, you could substitute matter. In order to claim income or access property for one's exclusive use to live, one can either earn the income, borrow the income, or steal the income. Each of these methods for gaining income for exclusive use requires property rights. Even "communal ownership" requires property rights.

 

The seventh is state authority. Any rights to self-ownership or property rights must be enforced by a single entity which we shall call the state. In order that such rights are enforced equally, there can only be one state. It follows that mulitple and different enforcement agencies must necessarily mean unequal enforcement.

 

The eighth law is ignorance of the future. We cannot make assumptions about what the future will or will not look like to craft legislation, or man-made rules.

​

The ninth is freedom. Due to subjectivity and ignorance of the future, one cannot know how another should act and therefore must be free to pursue their own maximizing principle.

​​

The tenth is contracting. We can only make decisions and act today to affect the future. Since man is a social creature that involves good faith cooperation in committing time and property with the risk of loss, there must be contracting backed by the enforcement by the state to prevent violating contracts.

​

Societal "Success" & Voting with your Feet

​

Following the history and norms of each society, a culture evolves and therefore matters of legislation can vary from society to society. Of course, over time, those acts of legislation will have an impact on the success of each society. Those societies that adopt legislation making them more successful will grow and expand, while those that adopt less successful rules will stagnate and decay. Individuals can then vote with their feet by leaving their society for another they perceive to be better. I do not define success or what is "better," the free market does it with central direction by the state.

​

A Purpose-free Methodology

​

These Physical Humane Laws do not have a purpose because they are not designed to achieve a certain outcome, e.g. equal distribution of wealth, no poverty, concentration of wealth, pure capitalism, utopia, or the "greatest good for the greatest number of people." They simply are consistent with the physical nature in which we find ourselves. These Physical Humane Laws however can be viewed as the means to achieve our individual ends. This brings us to commutative justice versus distributive justice.

​

Society cannot have a goal. Nor can the end state of society be known. "Progress" towards an end goal can thus never be achieved or known. However, people in government and politicians attempt to guide society through rules that do not follow the Physical Humane Laws.

​

Following the Physical Humane laws there is an organized chaos to how society operates. Individuals are operating under these laws and are free to follow their selfish interests as there will not be any central planning to the outcome of our actions. This is called commutative justice and is akin to ensuring equal enforcement of the rules of the game. This is in opposition to distributive justice, which seeks to determine the winners and losers of the game with unequal rules and legislation and unequal enforcement of legislation.

​

Are These Physical Humane Laws "Just?"

​​

Similar to freedom, justice is a moral concept that cannot be defined positively, only negatively. Further, only actions can be deemed just or unjust. Objects cannot be just or unjust. Legislation, a directive for continual action and processes, that violates the Physical Humane Laws can be deemed unjust.

​