Appendix A
Glossary
The Vocabulary of a Law
Note: This page is under reconstruction
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
A
Affirmative Command: An affirmative command is a command that turns on the flow of conduct. See, also, Negative Command (Go to the top of the page)
Affirmative Conduct: A flow of conduct from a Source to a Recipient in circumstances has the property of polarity. The polarity of a flow of conduct is off or on. Affirmative conduct is conduct whose flow is on. Conduct that is off is negative conduct. There is no difference between affirmative conduct and negative conduct other than its polarity. Affirmative conduct is turned into negative conduct through the use of the word, not. (Go to the top of the page)
Application / Operating System Metaphor: As an individual law is akin to an application (i.e. a computer program), so the Unified Theory of a Law is equivalent to a computer's operating system. (Go to the top of the page)
Autonomy: A Lawmaker can attempt to substitute its opinion for the opinion of a Source of conduct by the issuance of a command and by simulataneously binding a duty to a Source of conduct. In the alternative, a lawmaker can make a Source autonomous. A lawmaker can issue a permission and bind a privilege to a Source. Autonomy exists when the decision about whether or not to engage in a course of conduct belongs to a Source of conduct not to a Lawmaker. See, Deregulation (Go to the top of the page)
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
B
Base of the Triangle of a Law: The base of the Triangle of a Law is the side that is at the bottom and is horizontal. It is to the base from the acme that a lawmaker despises in the process of making a law. It runs from a Source at one corner to the Recipient at the other corner. It represents the factual relationship of A Unified Theory of a Law. There are two legal relationships in a Unified Theory of a Law - 1) between a Lawmaker and a Source and 2) between a Lawmaker and a Recipient - but only one factual relationship - between a Source and a Recipient. The factual relationship consists of a flow of conduct from a Source to a Recipient in circumstances. The Source does the affirmative or negative conduct. The Recipient receives the affirmative or negative conduct (Go to the top of the page)
Benefit:
The benefit and the burden of a law depends on the flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in circumstances. Yet, some perceive that
This is not necessarily factually true. To determine the benefit and a burden of a law, a legal thinker must scrutinize the flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in circumstances. The facts determine who is benefited and who is burdened.
(Go to the top of the page)
Binary: In a Unified Theory of a Law, polarity is binary. Permutation is not; it is tertiary. The flow of conduct is either on or off. Conduct is affirmative when the flow is on. Conduct is negative when the flow is off. There is no difference between positive conduct and negative conduct other than its polarity. (Go to the top of the page)
Binding:
The process of making a law takes place in two stages:
During formation, a lawmaker scrutinizes a flow of conduct from a Source to a Recipient in circumstances and forms any of three opinions about it. During Externalization, a lawmaker ejects the opinion out of her head and delivers it to her citizenry. During Externalization, Issuance and Binding take place. A Lawmaker issues either
and binds the permutation chosen to both participants in a flow of conduct with any of the four tokens.
It is often unwieldy to talk about a law using just
Like a Lawmaker, we too sometimes prefer to focus upon a Source or a Recipient. Hence, tokens, that is
have evolved to facilitate our legal conversation. It has become customary to say that a participant in a flow of conduct has or does not have a token instead of just talking about
itself
The tokens, ‘right’ and ‘duty’ are near synonyms for a command. The token, ‘duty’, is used when talking about a command from the perspective of a Source of conduct and the token ‘right’ is used when talking about a command from the perspective of a Recipient of conduct.
The tokens, ‘no-right’ and ‘privilege’ are near synonyms for a permission. The token, ‘privilege’, is used when talking about a permission from the perspective of a Source of conduct and the token, ‘no-right’, is used when talking about a permission from the perspective of a Recipient of conduct
With respect to any particular flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in circumstances, A Lawmaker can give the Source
These are the three permutations of a law from the perspective of a Source of conduct.
With respect to any particular flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in circumstances, A Lawmaker can give the Recipient
These are the three permutations of a law from the perspective of a Recipient of conduct.
(Go to the top of the page)
John Bosco:
John Bosco is an attorney licensed to practice law in the States of New York and New Jersey and is a partner in Bosco, Bisignano & Mascolo, Esqs. LLP where he helps plaintiffs against whom the scales of justice have been tilted by the negligent infliction of personal injury.
Our society has achieved a modus vivendi by which we co-exist. Plaintiffs have renounced in-kind retaliation - an eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth. In exchange for the forbearance of plaintiffs, society has substituted compensation - the cash equivalent of the eye, tooth or other personal injury - as the means to bring the scales of justice back into balance. The cruelty of in kind retaliation has been purged from our system of justice in favor of a gentler system of compensation.
Bosco goes after defendants on behalf of plaintiffs to make sure that the balance between plaintiffs and defendants is restored. Liability insurance companies do not really care whether the scales of justice are brought back to balance. They want to pay as little as possible. Bosco makes sure liability insurance companies pay the full debt created by the negligent infliction of personal injury. Bosco has tried many cases before juries in various areas of law from Delaware to New York. He is a graduate of Monsignor Farrell H.S. on Staten Island, New York, Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire and Brooklyn Law School.
(Go to the top of the page)
Building Blocks
The physics of legal fission teaches that a law is assembled from buildings blocks and can be dissembled into building blocks as well. A law, like uranium, is fissile. It can be split into two components
They exist independently of each other. Together they constitute a law. The particular words, like ornaments, adorn the general framework of a law. The particular words change; but the general framework stays the same. Like the DNA of a cell, the general framework of a law repeats itself over and over again in every instance of a law. To generate a law's meaning, both its words and its framework cooperate. Anyone who wishes to push meaning into or pull meaning out of a law must be mindful of a law's framework. Any failure to respect the framework of a law generates inscrutable legalese and legal misunderstanding
(Go to the top of the page)
Burden:
The benefit and the burden of a law depends on the flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in circumstances. Yet, some perceive that
This is not necessarily factually true. To determine the benefit and a burden of a law, a legal thinker must scrutinize the flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in circumstances. The facts determine who is benefited and who is burdened.
(Go to the top of the page)
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
C
Character: A Unified Theory of a Law involves three characters: In addition to the three characters is a pseudo-character known as neither a lawmaker, source or recipient. (Go to the top of the page)
Circumstances: Circumstances are facts that surround a flow of conduct from a Source to a Recipient. They are the context in which conduct flows. (Go to the top of the page)
Command: A command is one of the two flavors of a law. The other is a permission. Unlike ice cream that comes in a variety of flavors, a law comes in only two. A command is either for affirmative or negative conduct. A lawmaker issues a command for affirmative conduct when she wants a Source to do the conduct and wants a Recipient to receive it. A lawmaker issues a command for negative conduct when she does not want a Source to do the conduct and does not want a Recipient to receive it. A command is a sentence in the imperative mood. The helping verb, ‘shall’, is a clue to a command. A command is a law that has weight and has standing. A lawmaker binds a command to a Source with a ‘duty’ and to a Recipient with a ‘right’. . The decision maker with a command is he lawmaker not the Source of conduct. (Go to the top of the page)
Ten Commandments of Understanding: The first Commandment of Understanding is that the finite is easier to understand than the infinite. The infinite flabbergasts the mind blocking it from wrapping itself around the infinite. Therefore, the trick to understanding a seemingly infinite group of ideas is to make it finite. How? Simply number and name them. If you can number and name them, you can understand them. You can more easily understand 4, 10 even 300 rather than an unnumbered and unnamed quantity. If you can number them, you can understand them. The second commandment of understand (Go to the top of the page)
Conduct: Conduct is what leaves a Source and flows to a Recipient. Conduct that arrives at a Recipient is called consequences. Conduct is factual not legal. It is found at the base of the Triangle of a Law. It typically has two ends. It is dynamic not static, that is, it flows. The flow of conduct has two noteworthy properties: 1) direction and 2) polarity. Direction is the property of a flow of conduct that indicates from and to whom conduct flows. The flow of conduct is mono-directional, always from a Source to a Recipient, never in the other direction. Polarity is the property of a flow of conduct that indicates whether or not conduct is on or off. Conduct that is on is affirmative conduct. Conduct that is off is negative conduct. There is no difference between affirmative and negative conduct other than the polarity. (Go to the top of the page)
Consequences: Conduct that arrives at a Recipient is called consequences. (Go to the top of the page)
Context: A flow of conduct from Source to Recipient does not take place in a vacuum but in a context. The context is the circumstances. (Go to the top of the page)
The Core of a Law: Autopsies done with an intellectual scalpel to the bodies of a large number of laws sampled from a variety of legal fields have revealed that each law has a small number of the same legal ideas that can be thought of as the general framework, core or 'genetic code' of a law. These experiments can be repeated in accordance with the scientific method and, hence, can be independently verified. Each of the legal ideas in this 'core' has been counted and named and organized together into a harmonious community called A Unified Theory of a Law. (Go to the top of the page)
Corners of the Triangle of a Law: The Triangle of a Law has three corners. At its corners, the characters of A Unified Theory of a Law appear. A lawmaker occupies the acme of the Triangle of a Law. A Source of conduct occupies one of the corners formed by the convergence of a leg and the base. A Recipient of the consequences of conduct occupies the other corner formed by the convergence of a leg and the base. The occupants of the corners are the participants in the two legal relationships and the one factual relationship of a Unified Theory of a Law. (Go to the top of the page)
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
D
Deregulation: Deregulation happens when a lawmaker issues a permission for either polarity of conduct. In contrast, regulation happens when a lawmaker issues either a command for affirmative conduct or a command for negative conduct. Deregulation gives a Source of conduct autonomy. With Deregulation, the decision maker in whose hands is the decision about whether or not to engage in a course of conduct is the Source. (Go to the top of the page)
Desire:
The process of making a law is all about the desire and absence of desire of a lawmaker about a flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in circumstances. A lawmaker can form any of the following three opinions:
Despise: Despise describes what a lawmaker does from the acme of the Triangle of a Law, A Lawmaker looks down at the the flow of conduct from a Source to a Recipient in circumstances at its base. A Lawmaker cannot form an opinion unless and until the lawmaker despises the conduct. In A Unified Theory of a Law the word has no negative connotation. However, by picturing the Triangle of a Law in you mind with a Lawmaker seated smugly on her throne at its acme, you can conceive how the word acquired its negative connotation. (Go to the top of the page)
Direction: Direction is a property of a flow of conduct. It describes from and to whom conduct flows. The flow of conduct is mono-directional. Conduct always flows from a Source to a Recipient. Conduct never flows from a Recipient to a Source. (Go to the top of the page)
Duty:
A ‘duty’ is one of the four tokens. The other three are a ‘right’, a ‘no-right’ and a ‘privilege’.
A lawmaker binds a command to a Source by giving the Source a ‘duty”. Think of a general pinning a medal on the tunic of a soldier. It is a word reserved for when the focus is upon a Source not a Recipient. It is said that a Source has a duty when a Lawmaker wants a Source to do conduct or when a Lawmaker does not want a Source to do conduct. Within the three permutations of a law, a ‘duty’ fits in as follows: a Source can have
A ‘duty’ is part of a triad of nearly synonymous linguistic vehicles that includes the sentence known as a ‘command’ and the token known as a ‘right’. The subtle difference in meaning being that a ‘duty’ is used to talk about a command from the point of view of a Source and a ‘right’ is used to talk about a command from the point of view of a Recipient. A ‘duty’ indicates that a lawmaker wants to substitute her opinion about whether or not to do conduct for the Source’s. The Source is not allowed to decide for himself. Instead, a lawmaker wants to intrude upon the decision making process of a Source of conduct. Hence, a ‘duty’ has weight, that is, feels heavy to a Source not light.
(Go to the top of the page)
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
E
Ends of Conduct: Conduct has two ends. At one end is a Source; at the other end is a Recipient. Because conduct has two ends, there are two main characters in a Court of Law - the plaintiff and the defendant. If conduct had fewer or more than two, the number of characters in a court of law would be other than two. (Go to the top of the page)
Evaluation: Evaluation occurs after the three permutations of a law for a particular flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in circumstances are articulated. Evaluation refers to the process of picking one of the three permutations of a law and the reasons for doing so. Evaluation is beyond the scope of A Unified Theory of a Law. (Go to the top of the page)
Even though Clause: The 'even though clause' is one of the three clauses of a Three Clause Sentence. It holds those circumstances that do not make a difference to the operation of the main clause. The circumstances in an even though clause are irrelevant. (Go to the top of the page)
Externalization:
Externalization is the name of one of the two stages of the process of making a law. The other is called Formation. During externalization, the opinion of a Lawmaker exits the head of a Lawmaker and is communicated to the citizenry. Think of a nut, having been formed, getting out of its shell. During externalization, the opinion of a Lawmaker is issued and bound to the participants in the flow of conduct.
A Lawmaker issues either
A Lawmaker binds the foregoing permutations of a law to the Participants in the flow of conduct with
Extrapolation: Extrapolation takes place when there is a deviation form the doctrine of A Unified Theory of a Law. Extrapolation is usually pathological. Instead of warping the doctrine of A Unified Theory of a Law, a legal thinker ought to figure out how to reinterpret the situation in accordance with and conformance to the doctrine of A Unified Theory of a Law (Go to the top of the page)
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
F
Facts: In A Unified Theory of a Law the facts are always viewed as a flow of conduct from a Source to a Recipient in circumstances. Although the number of facts is infinite, A Unified Theory of a Law arranges them in only one way. (Go to the top of the page)
Factual Relationship: The factual relationship in A Unified Theory of a Law is a flow of conduct from a Source to a Recipient in circumstances. It appears at the base of the Triangle of a Law. There is only one factual relationship but two legal relationships. (Go to the top of the page)
Fidelity: Fidelity is the accuracy with which the model of a law inside our heads - our legal ideology - corresponds to the laws that run around outside our heads in the legal world. A high fidelity model generates a fair and accurate representation of our laws. A low fidelity model generates only a poor approximation. A Unified Theory of a Law increases the fidelity of your model. (Go to the top of the page)
Fission: The physics of legal fission postulate that a law can be split into two components 1) its words and 2) its structure. They exist independently of each other. Together they constitute a law. While many have taken notice of the words of a law, knowledge of the structure of a law is still rare. The words, like ornaments, adorn the structure of a law. The words change; but the structure stays the same. Like the DNA of a cell, the structure of a law repeats itself over and over again in every instance of a law. To generate a law's meaning, both its words and its structure cooperate. Anyone who wishes to push meaning into or pull meaning out of a law must be mindful of a law's structure. Any failure to respect the structure of a law generates inscrutable legalese and legal misunderstanding. (Go to the top of the page)
Flavor of a Law:
A law comes in a finite variety of flavors. Unlike ice cream, a law comes in only three (3) flavors.
The three (3) flavors of a law are
These are the three permutations of a law that can be applied to any single flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in circumstnaces.
(Go to the top of the page)
Flow: Conduct is not static but dynamic. It flows. It flows from a Source to a Recipient in circumstances. The flow can be on or off. When the flow is on, the conduct is affirmative. When the flow is off, the conduct is negative. There is no difference between affirmative conduct and negative conduct other than the polarity. (Go to the top of the page)
Focus: The focus of a lawmaker is upon a Source and upon a Recipient. The focus of a lawmaker shifts between the two participants in a flow of conduct. The shift in focus between a Source and a Recipient is the reason for the existence in the two legal relationships of A Unified Theory of a Law. /span> (Go to the top of the page)
Formation: Formation is the name of one of the two stages in the process of making a law. The other stage is called Externalization. During formation, a lawmaker picks one opinion from the universe of three possible opinions and applies it to a flow of conduct from a Source to a Recipient in circumstances. (Go to the top of the page)
The Framework of a Law: Autopsies done with an intellectual scalpel to the bodies of a large number of laws sampled from a variety of legal fields have revealed that each law has a small number of the same legal ideas that can be thought of as the general framework, core or 'genetic code' of a law. These experiments can be repeated in accordance with the scientific method and, hence, can be independently verified. Each of the legal ideas in this 'core' has been counted and named and organized together into a harmonious community called A Unified Theory of a Law. Think of the framework of a law as an assembly of variables whose meaning is constant and well known. Any values plugged into the variables of a law take on the meaning of the variables. (Go to the top of the page)
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
G
The Genetic Code of a Law: Autopsies done with an intellectual scalpel to the bodies of a large number of laws sampled from a variety of legal fields have revealed that each law has a small number of the same legal ideas that can be thought of as the general framework, core or 'genetic code' of a law. These experiments can be repeated in accordance with the scientific method and, hence, can be independently verified. Each of the legal ideas in this 'core' has been counted and named and organized together into a harmonious community called A Unified Theory of a Law. (Go to the top of the page)
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
H
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
I
Indifference: Indifference is the name of one of the three opinions that a Lawmaker can form about a flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in circumstances. An indifferent lawmaker is a neutral lawmaker. An indifferent lawmaker allows the flow of conduct to be on or off. To the indifferent Lawmaker, affirmative conduct or negative conduct, it makes no difference. (Go to the top of the page)
Intrusion: A Source decides whether or not to engage in conduct. However, a lawmaker can intrude upon the Source’s decision making process in an attempt to either start the flow of conduct or stop the flow of conduct. Or a Lawmaker can abstain from intruding and allow the Source to decide for himself. When a lawmaker intrudes to turn off a flow of conduct, a lawmaker issues a command for negative conduct. To a Source, a command for negative conduct feels heavy. When a lawmaker intrudes to turn on a flow of conduct, a lawmaker issues a command for affirmative conduct. To a Source, a command for affirmative conduct feels heavy. When a lawmaker abstains from intruding, a lawmaker issues a permission for either polarity of conduct. To a Source, a permission feels light. Intrusion is found in the legal relationship between a Lawmaker and a Source. An intrusive lawmaker is a lawmaker who wants to determine whether or not conduct flows. An intrusive lawmaker wants to substitute her choice for the choice of the Source. (Go to the top of the page)
If clause: The 'if clause' is one of the three clauses of a Three Clause Sentence that holds those circumstances that are individually necessary and together sufficient to trigger the main clause. (Go to the top of the page)
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
L
Law:
A Law is the fruit of the externalization of a lawmakers opinion and comes before a legal thinker in the form of any of the nine (9) linguistic vehicles available to a lawmaker to carry her opinion out of her head into the heads of her citizens. The nine (9) linguistic vehicles are
With these nine linguistic devices, a lawmaker expresses her three (3) opinions. In Formation, a Lawmaker despises a flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in circumstances and forms any of three (3) opinions about it. In Externalization, a Lawmaker launches one of the nine (9) linguistic vehicles to carry her opinion out of her head to the citizenry.
(Go to the top of the page)
Lawmaker:
The Lawmaker is one of the three main characters in A Unified Theory of a Law, the other two being the Source and the Recipient. The Lawmaker despises a flow of conduct from the Source to Recipient in circumstances and forms any of three opinions about it:
A lawmaker externalizes these opinions with the following linguistic vehicles
Forming the opinion and externalizing it are the two stages of the process of making a law. A lawmaker participates in the two legal relationships of A Unified Theory of a Law. A Lawmaker does not participate in the factual relationship.
(Go to the top of the page)
Legalese: Legalese results when a Legal Thinker tries to extract the opinion of a Lawmaker from the head of a Lawmaker with something other than the nine (9) linguistic vehicles of a Unified Theory of a Law. (Go to the top of the page)
Legal Relations:
There are two legal relationships in a Unified Theory of a Law. One legal relationship is between a Lawmaker and a Source of Conduct. Another legal relationship is between a Lawmaker and a Recipient of Conduct. The two relationships are depicted on the Triangle of a Law by its two non-horizontal sides.
The legal relationship between a Lawmaker and a Source of Conduct is characterized by Intrusion and the absence of intrusion. A Lawmaker brings the Source of Conduct into a legal relationship by binding a permutation of a law (that is, either a command or a permission) to a Source with
The legal relationship between a Lawmaker and a Recipient of Conduct is characterized by recognition and the absence of Recognition. A Lawmaker brings the Recipient of Conduct into a legal relationship by binding a law (that is, either a command or a permission) to a Recipient with
(Go to the top of the page)
Legal Thinker: A Legal Thinker is an observer of the process by which a law is made. A legal thinker is not a participant in the process. (Go to the top of the page)
Legs of the Triangle of a Law: The Triangle of a Law has three sides, one of which is its base and two of which are its legs. Its two legs represent the two legal relationships in a Unified Theory of a Law. One legal relationship exists between a Lawmaker and a Source of Conduct. The other legal relationship exists between a Lawmaker and a Recipient of the consequences of conduct. There are two legs because the focus of a Lawmaker shifts between the Source and the Recipient. (Go to the top of the page)
Linguistic Vehicles:
There are nine (9) linguistic vehicles by which a lawmaker externalizes any of her three (3) possible opinions and communicates it to others. They are
Loophole: A loophole is a circumstance that changes one permutation of a law into another. (Go to the top of the page)
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
M
Main Clause: The main clause of a three clause sentence holds the permutation of a law. (Go to the top of the page)
May: May is a helping verb found in a permission. It is a clue to a permission (Go to the top of the page)
Monolithic Fallacy: A legal thinker is in the grip of the monolithic fallacy who cannot disassemble a law into its building blocks. Such a legal thinker is akin to a physicist who, being stuck at the level of the atom, refuses to believe in the existence of sub-atomic particles. (Go to the top of the page)
Mono-directional: Conduct flows in one direction and one direction only: from a Source of conduct to a Recipient of the consequences of conduct. (Go to the top of the page)
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
N
Negative Command: A negative command is a command that turns off the flow of conduct. See, also, Affirmative Command (Go to the top of the page)
Negative Conduct: A flow of conduct from a Source to a Recipient in circumstances has the property of polarity. The polarity of a flow of conduct is binary, that is either off or on. Negative conduct is conduct whose flow is off. Conduct whose flow is on is affirmative conduct. There is no difference between negative conduct and affirmative conduct other than its polarity. Affirmative conduct is turned into negative conduct through the use of the word, ‘not’. (Go to the top of the page)
No-right: A ’no-right’ is one of the four tokens. The other three are a ‘right’, a ‘duty’ and a ‘privilege’. A lawmaker binds a permission to a Recipient with a ‘no-right’. Think of a general pinning a medal on the tunic of a soldier. It is a word reserved for when the focus is upon a Recipient not for a Source. It is said that a Recipient has a no-right when a Lawmaker does not care whether or not a Recipient receives conduct. Within the three permutations of a law, a no-right fits in as follows: a Recipient can have 1) right to receive affirmative conduct, 2) a no-right to receive either affirmative or negative conduct or 3) a right to receive negative conduct. A ‘no-right’ is part of a triad of nearly synonymous linguistic vehicles that includes the sentence known as a ‘permission and the token known as a ‘privilege’. The subtle difference in meaning being that a ‘privilege’ is used to talk about a permission from the point of view of a Source and a ‘no-right’ is used to talk about a permission from the point of view of a Recipient. A ‘no-right’ indicates that a lawmaker does not want to substitute her opinion about whether or not a Recipient shall receive the conduct for the Source’s. The Source is allowed to decide for himself. A ‘no-right’ indicates that a lawmaker does not want to recognize a Recipient’s interest in receiving the conduct. Hence, with a ‘no-right’ a Recipient lacks standing. A Recipient is invisible to a Lawmaker. (Go to the top of the page)
Not: The function of the word, ‘not’ is to reverse the polarity of a flow of conduct from on to off. (Go to the top of the page)
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
O
Occam’s Razor: The doctrine of Occam’s Razor as applied to the permutations of a law holds that if three permutations of a law are sufficient to give our minds a high fidelity model of the lawmaking process then there is no need for any more permutations. (Go to the top of the page)
Opinions of a Lawmaker
A lawmaker forms an opinion about a flow of conduct from a Source to a Recipient in circumstances. The opinions at either end and in the middle of the spectrum of opinions are important. At one end a lawmaker can hold the opinion that she wants the flow of conduct to be turned on. At the opposite end, a lawmaker can hold the opinion that she wants the flow of conduct to be turned off. In the middle, a lawmaker can be indifferent and not care whether the flow of conduct is turned on or turned off. Out of these three opinions arise all of our laws. A lawmaker externalizes her opinions using the following linguistic vehicles:
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
P
The Periodic Table of the Elements of a Law:
The Periodic Table of the Elements of a Law captures in its three rows, two columns and fifteen cells all of permutations of a law. It summarizes the entire process of making a law from formation to externalization.
(Go to the top of the page)
Participate: A Lawmaker, a Source and a Recipient take part in the three relationships of A Unified Theory of a Law. A Lawmaker participates in the two legal relations. A Source participates in the factual relationships and one of the two legal relationships. A Recipient participates in the factual relationships and one of the two legal relationships. In other words, the three main Characters of a Unified Theory of a Law participate in its relationships.
Permission: A permission is one of the two flavors of a law. The other is a command. Unlike ice cream that comes in a variety of flavors, a law comes in only two. A permission is for both affirmative and negative conduct. A lawmaker issues a permission for either polarity of conduct when she does not care whether or not the Source does the conduct and does not care whether or not the Recipient receives the conduct. A permission is a sentence in the permissive mood. The helping verb, ‘may’, is a clue to a permission. A permission is a law that lacks weight and lacks standing. A lawmaker binds a permission to a Source with a ‘privilege’ and to a Recipient with a ‘no-right’. The decision maker with a permission is the source of conduct not the lawmaker.
Permutations of a Law: Any particular law can come in three (3) permutations. Why? Because the three (3) permutations of a law reflect the three (3) opinions that a Lawmaker can form about a flow of conduct from a Source to a Recipient in circumstances. With regard to the same flow of conduct from a Source to a Recipient in circumstances, a lawmaker can issue 1) a command for affirmative conduct 2) a permission for either polarity of conduct or 3) a command for negative conduct. Warning: Do not confuse the three (3) permutations of a law with the two (2) polarities of conduct.
Polarity: Conduct is not static but dynamic, that is, it flows. Polarity is a characteristic of a flow of conduct that indicates whether the flow is on or off. Hence, the polarity of conduct is binary -- either on or off. When the polarity of a flow of conduct is on, the conduct is affirmative. When the polarity of a flow of conduct is off, the conduct is affirmative. There is no difference between affirmative conduct and negative conduct other than its polarity.
Privilege: A ‘privilege’ is a token used by a lawmaker to fine tune the issuance of a permission by binding it to a Source of conduct. The other three tokens are a ‘duty’, a ‘right’ and a ‘no-right’. A ‘privilege’ is a word reserved for when the focus is upon the Source not the Recipient. A ‘privilege’, a ‘permission’ and a ‘no-right’ are the triad of linguistic devices - one sentence and two tokens - that a lawmaker uses to externalize the opinion that she does not care whether or not a source does the conduct and does not care whether or not a Recipient receives the conduct. The three are nearly synonymous. A ‘privilege’ indicates that a lawmaker does not want to substitute her opinion about whether or not to do conduct for the Source’s. Instead, the Source is allowed to decide for himself. The issuance of a ‘privilege’ indicates that a lawmaker does not intrude upon the decision making process of a Source of conduct. Hence, a ‘privilege’ feels light to a Source not heavy.
Process of Making a Law: Our laws do not come into being full fledged having been delivered as the stork delivers babies. Prior to the birth of a law is a process.It has existed below the murky surface of the intellect of a lawmaker. There, cloaked in mystery, the process has heretofore enjoyed immunity from scrutiny and discourse. A Unified Theory of a Law exposes the process, makes it visible and finally brings it under our control. The process consists of a Lawmaker forming any of three opinions about a flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in circumstances and them externalizing the opinion. The process of making a law, therefore, has two stages: 1) formation and 2) externalization. (Go to the top of the page)
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
R
Recipient: A Recipient is one of the two participants in a flow of conduct. The other participant is a Source. The destination of a flow of conduct is a Recipient. Conduct flows to a Recipient from a Source in circumstances. A Recipient participates in the factual relationship and one of the two legal relationships of a Unified Theory of a Law.
Recognition: What intrusion is to a Source of conduct, Recognition is to the Recipient. A lawmaker can recognize a Recipient’s interest in receiving a flow of conduct or not recognize it. Thus, a Recipient is either visible or invisible to a Lawmaker, that is, has standing or lacks it.
Regulation: Regulation happens when a lawmaker issues a command for either affirmative conduct or a command for negative conduct. In contrast, deregulation happens when a lawmaker issues a permission for either polarity of conduct.
Relationships: In A Unified Theory of a Law are three relationships. That is why the geometric shape of the Triangle is perfect for representing them. One of the relationships is factual and two are legal. The factual relationship is between the Source and the Recipient. The mantra of the factual relationship is that it is a flow of conduct from the Source to the Recipient in circumstances. One legal relationship is between the Lawmaker and the Source. The second legal relationship is between the Lawmaker and the Recipient.
Right: A ‘right’ is one of the four tokens. The other three are a ‘duty’, a ‘no-right’ and a ‘privilege’.
A lawmaker binds a command to a Recipient by giving the Recipient a ‘right’. Think of a general pinning a medal on the tunic of a soldier. It is a word reserved for when the focus is upon a Recipient not a Source. It is said that a Recipient has a right when a Lawmaker wants a Recipient to receive conduct or when a Lawmaker does not want a Recipient to receive conduct. Within the three permutations of a law, a ‘right’ fits in as follows: a Recipient can have 1) right to receive affirmative conduct, 2) a no-right to receive either affirmative or negative conduct or 3) a right to receive negative conduct. A ‘right’ is part of a triad of nearly synonymous linguistic vehicles that includes the sentence known as a ‘command’ and the token known as a ‘duty’. The subtle difference in meaning being that a ‘duty’ is used to talk about a command from the point of view of a Source and a ‘right’ is used to talk about a command from the point of view of a Recipient. A ‘right’ indicates that a lawmaker wants to substitute her opinion about whether or not a Recipient shall receive conduct for the Source’s. The Source is not allowed to decide for himself. Instead, a lawmaker wants to recognize a Recipient’s interest in receiving the conduct. Hence, with a ‘right’ a Recipient has standing. A Recipient is visible to a Lawmaker.
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
S
The Scientific Method: Autopsies done with an intellectual scalpel to the bodies of a large number of laws sampled from a variety of legal fields have revealed that each law has a small number of the same legal ideas that can be thought of as the general framework, core or 'genetic code' of a law. These experiments can be repeated in accordance with the scientific method and, hence, can be independently verified. Each of the legal ideas in this 'core' has been counted and named and organized together into a harmonious community called A Unified Theory of a Law. (Go to the top of the page)
Stages of the Process of Making a Law:
The process of making a law takes place in two stages:
During formation a lawmaker picks one of three possible opinions to apply to a flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in circumstances. During externalization a lawmaker gets the opinion out of her head and into the possession of her citizens.
(Go to the top of the page)
Sui Generis Fallacy: The Sui Generis Fallacy is the mistaken belief that each law is unique. Each law is not unique. Any law takes the form of one of the permutations of a Law. Every law shares the same framework of variables whose meaning is pre-defined and well understood. (Go to the top of the page)
Shall: Shall is a helping verb found in a command. It is a clue to a commandSentence: A command and a permission are the two sentences that a Lawmaker uses as a vehicle to convey her opinion to her citizens together with the four tokens.
Source: A Source is one of the two participants in a flow of conduct. The other participant is a Recipient. The source of a flow of conduct is a Source. Conduct flows from a Source to a Recipient in circumstances. A source participates in the factual relationship and one of the two legal relationships of a Unified Theory of a Law.
Standing: Standing is a metaphor. It is a metaphor that is pertinent to the legal relationship between a Lawmaker and a Recipient. The metaphor pertinent to the legal relationship between a Lawmaker and a Source is weight. Standing is visual; weight is tactile. Standing has to do with the visibility of a Recipient. A Recipient is either visible or invisible to a Lawmaker. An invisible Recipient is a Recipient to whom a lawmaker has awarded a no-right. A visible Recipient is a Recipient to whom a lawmaker has awarded a right. A Recipient with a right has standing. A Recipient with a no-right lacks standing. Standing is a way to talk about the process of making a law elliptically. When the focus is on a Recipient it is less obscure if we talk about 1) a right to receive affirmative conduct 2) a no-right to receive either polarity of conduct or 3) a right to receive negative conduct. These are the three permutations of a law available to a lawmaker when the focus is upon a recipient.
Subject of a Law: The subject of a law is conduct. In other words, a law deals with conduct that flows from a source to recipient in circumstances.
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
T
Three Clause Sentence:
The sentence best suited to hold a law is the three clause sentence. It consists of
The even though clause holds any unnecessary circumstances. The if clause holds all of the necessary and sufficient circumstances. The Main clause holds any of the six linguistic vehicles:
Two Sides of the Same Coin If a command and a permission were coins, what would be on each of their sides? On one side of a command would be a duty and on the other side would be a right. On one side of a permission would be a privilege and on the other side would be a no-right.
Token: A token is any of four (4) linguistic devices by which a lawmaker binds a law to a source and to a recipient. The four (4) tokens are 1) duty 2) privilege 3) right and 4) no-right.Token holder: A token holder is a Source that has been given a duty or a privilege or a Recipient who has been given a right or no-right.
Trap of Legality: The trap that catches many legal thinkers involves the distinction between conduct that is legal and conduct that is permissible. Conduct is legal in two ways; but conduct is illegal in only one. Conduct is legal if it is done or not done in accordance with a permission or in accordance with a command. Conduct is illegal if it is done or not done contrary to a command. It is legal for a motorist to drive through a green light. However, it is legal because it is mandatory not because it is permissible. (See, Test Your Legal Literacy by Answering One Question by John Bosco). In a command and in a permission a lawmaker has no objection to at least one polarity of conduct. This is the common characteristic that confuses many legal thinkers. Any particular flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in circumstances cannot be both permissible and mandatory at the same time. The way to avoid falling into this trap is to keep in mind that
- the process of making a law is about who decides whether to turn the flow of conduct on or off: the lawmaker (i.e. regulation by the issuance of commands) or the source (deregulation by the issuance of permissions). The same flow of conduct cannot be both mandatory and permissible. Permissibility ipso facto means both polarities of conduct are unobjectionable. Unless both polarities are unobjectionable, there is no choice. Mandatory means one polarity of conduct is unobjectionable and the other is objectionable.
- a lawmaker holds any of three opinions about the same flow of conduct
- likes it and wants the source to do it and wants the recipient to receive it, i.e. wants to turn on the flow of conduct. This is externalized by a command for affirmative conduct.
- indifferent to it and doesn’t care whether the source does it or the recipient receives it i.e. does not care whether the flow of conduct is on or off. This is externalized by a permission for either polarity of conduct.
- dislikes it and doesn’t want the source to do it and doesn’t want the recipient to receive it i.e. wants to turn off the flow of conduct. This is externalized by a command for negative conduct.
These opinions are mutually exclusive. A lawmaker can hold only one at a time.
This trap, therefore, is set when we divorce a law from the opinion of the lawmaker who issued it - when formation is divorces from externalization.
Triangle of a Law:
The Triangle of a Law is a mnemonic that helps us visualize the stage upon which the process of making a law takes place. Its three (3) sides represents the three relationships of A Unified Theory of a Law, two of which are legal and one of which is factual. At its acme is the lawmaker who despises a flow of conduct from the Source to the Recipient in circumstances at the base of the Triangle below. The base of the Triangle represents the factual relationship of A Unified Theory of a Law. The two legs of the Triangle represent the two legal relationships. One legal relationship is between the Lawmaker and the Source of Conduct. The other legal relationship is between the Lawmaker and the Recipient of the consequences of conduct.
(Go to the top of the page)
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
W
Weight:
Weight is a metaphor. It is a metaphor that is pertinent to the legal relationship between a Lawmaker and a Source. The metaphor pertinent to the legal relationship between a Lawmaker and a Recipient is standing. Weight is tactile; standing is visual. Weight has to do with the heaviness of a Law. A Law either has weight or does not have weight. A law is either heavy or light. A heavy law is a command and a duty. A light law is a permission and a privilege. When a lawmaker issues a command and awards a Source a duty, a Source feels the weight of a Lawmaker. When a lawmaker issues a permission and awards a Source a privilege, a Source does not feel the weight of a Lawmaker. Weight is a way to talk about the process of making a law elliptically. When the focus is on a Source it is less obscure if we talk about
These are the three permutations of a law available to a lawmaker when the focus is upon a Source.
(Go to the top of the page)
Weight Token Holder:
The tokens of weight are
These are the three permutations of a law available to a lawmaker when the focus is upon a Source. The Source is a weight token holder.
(Go to the top of the page)
Words of a Law: The words of a law cooperate with the framework of a law to generate a law’s meaning. The words of a law, like ornaments, adorn and decorate the framework of a law. The words change; the framework stays the same. The framework of a law comes in only three (3) permutations. The words of a law comes in an infinite variety (Go to the top of the page)
THE PARTS OF A LAW: Take a variety of laws from any legal field, line them up on an autopsy table, roll up your sleeves, cut them open with your intellectual scalpel, and eye ball their anatomy. Your eyes will see the same handful of legal thoughts in each of them. In other words, hidden beneath the words of each law is a 'core' or 'genetic code'. The words of a law change from law to law; yet, a handful of legal thoughts stays the same. Take one thought from this handful and it is the equivalent of a part of a law. Assemble the parts together and, voilà, they form the structure of a law. The structure of a law cooperates with the words of a law to generate a law's meaning. To see how the parts of law organize themselves into a harmonious community of interrelated legal ideas, Click Here.
THE PERIODIC TABLE OF THE ELEMENTS OF A LAW®: The Periodic Table of the Elements of a Law® sets forth in the figure of a Triangle and in a table of three rows and seven columns all of the elements of a law. Its first and third rows deal with a command. Its middle row deals with a permission. Knowing what occupies one location in the Periodic Table indicates what exists at its other locations.
PERMISSION: A permission is one of the flavors of a law. There are only two. The other is a command. The existence of a permission indicates a lawmaker is indifferent to both the positive and the negative versions of the conduct and utterly lacks any desire with regard to either. To flow or not to flow, the lawmaker does not care. A permission is in the permissive mood. The helping verb, "may", is a clue to a permission. Both weight and standing are absent with a permission. A lawmaker binds a permission to a weight token holder with a privilege and to a standing token holder with a no-right.
PERMUTATIONS OF A LAW: A law can assume any of three permutations:
- a Row A Permutation: a command for positive not negative conduct (See Row A of the Periodic Table of a Law®),
- a Row B Permutation: a permission for either positive or negative conduct (See Row B Periodic Table of a Law®), or
- a Row C Permutation: a command for negative not positive conduct (See Row C Periodic Table of a Law®).
These are the three permutations of a law with respect to any particular flow of conduct from source to recipient in circumstances. There is not a fourth permutation. There are only three.
PERSPECTIVE OF A LAWMAKER: A lawmaker's perspective can be basic or advanced. A lawmaker who views a flow of conduct from source to recipient in circumstances monolithically is said to have a basic perspective. A lawmaker who differentiates a flow of conduct from source to recipient in circumstances is said to have an advanced perspective. When a lawmaker differentiates a flow of conduct from source to recipient in circumstances, a lawmaker seperates
POLARITY: Polarity is that property of flow of conduct that indicates whether the flow is on or off. There are two polarities. When on, a flow of conduct is said to be positive or have a positive polarity. When off, a flow of conduct is said to be negative or have a negative polarity. Positive conduct is the same as negative conduct except that positive conduct is flowing and negative conduct is not.
PRIVILEGE: There are four legal tokens, two of which pertain to weight and two of which pertain to standing. The four are used depending on whether weight and standing are present or absent. The word 'privilege' simply means that weight is absent. A lawmaker withholds a lawmaker's weight from a source of conduct ( weight token holder) thereby allowing either polarity of conduct. A privilege indicates that a lawmaker has bound a permission to a weight token holder instead of a command.
RECIPIENT: A recipient is the destination of a flow of conduct. Conduct flows to a recipient. A recipient is graphically depicted in a corner of THE TRIANGLE OF LAW®. The conduct that reaches a recipient is called consequences.
RELATIONSHIP: There are four significant relationships that exist linking a lawmaker, source and recipient. Three of the relationships are legal; one is factual. Between a source and a recipient is the factual relationship. It involves a flow of conduct from source to recipient in circumstances. The three legal relationships correspond to the three components of a lawmaker's decision about which permutation of a law to apply to the particular flow of conduct from source to recipient in circumstances. Although the factual focus is always upon a flow of conduct from source to recipient in circumstances, the legal focus shifts and can appear on a source, on a recipient or on the lawmaker. Hence, there is a legal relationship between a lawmaker and a source. It involves binding a law to a source with weight. The relationship can be called weight for short. There is a legal relationship between a lawmaker and a recipient. It involves binding a law to a recipient with standing. The relationship can be called standing for short. There is a legal realtionship between a lawmaker and a flow of conduct from source to recipient in circumstances. It involves the lawmaker's forming an opinion, desiring a polarity and expressing a law. The relationship can be called issuing a law for short.
RIGHT: There are four legal tokens, two of which pertain to weight and two of which pertain to standing. The four are used depending on whether weight and standing are present or absent. The word 'right' simply means that standing is present. A lawmaker bestows standing to a recipient of conduct ( standing token holder) thereby recognizing his or her interest in a flow of conduct from source to recipient in circumstances. A right indicates that a lawmaker has bound a command to a standing token holder instead of a permission.
SCEPTER OF JUSTICE: The scepter of justice is wielded by a lawmaker at the top of THE TRIANGLE OF LAW®. At one end of the scepter is an eye representing standing and at the other is a hand representing weight. By opening the eye, a lawmaker confers standing. By closing it, a lawmaker withholds standing. By closing the hand into a fist, a lawmaker confers weight. By opening the fist, a lawmaker withholds weight. The scepter of justice is pointed at a particular citizen to show whether he has or lacks weight or standing.
SHALL: Shall is a helping verb . It is the clue that indicates a command and reveals that the issuer of the command is using the imperative mood.
SOURCE: A source is the origin of a flow of conduct. Conduct flows from a source. A source is graphically depicted in a corner of THE TRIANGLE OF LAW®. Note that a source is not a source of a law. A lawmaker is the source of a law. A source is a source of conduct.
STANDING Standing is one of the tools of a lawmaker. There are two, the other being weight. Standing describes whether or not a lawmaker recognizes a standing token holder's interest or title to a flow of conduct from a source to a recipient in circumstances. A command has standing and bestows a right. A permission is without standing and creates a no-right. The word, 'right', merely indicates that standing is present; the word 'no-right' merely indicates that standing is absent. Metaphorically, standing is not felt like weight. It is more visual dealing with a lawmaker's recognition or non-recognition of a standing token holder.
STANDING TOKEN HOLDER A standing token holder is a person - usually a recipient - who holds either a right or a no-right.
STRUCTURED VS. UNSTRUCTURED THINKING: Our thinking can be structured or unstructured. Unstructured thinking does not mean that the thoughts have no structure but only that the structure has yet to be discovered. Structured thinking is more easily understood that unstructured thinking. Why? Once we master the structure we use it to understand other thoughts that assume a form that is similar to the structure.
STRUCTURE OF A LAW: The structure of a law is a collection of the 'core' legal ideas that are present in every specimen of a law. It consists of an array of constant - variable - value triplets. What is in the array and what is left out define the structure of a law. The words of a law, like decorations, adorn the structure of a law. The words of a law change; the structure stays the same. The structure of a law together with the words of a law cooperate together to generate a law’s meaning. Because the structure of a law tends to be immutable, we can become intimately familiar with it. This familiarity with the structure of a law makes the understanding of our laws instantaneous and transportable.
SUBJECT OF A LAW: The subject of law is a flow of conduct from source to recipient in the circumstances. A lawmaker sets the legal status of a citizen with regard to a flow of conduct from source to recipient in circumstances by binding one of the four legal tokens - duty, privilege, right or no-right - to the citizen.
T
THREE CLAUSE SENTENCE: A Three Clause Sentence is most suited for expressing a law. Its main clause is adapted to receive the command or permission; its 'if clause' is adapted to receive any necessary and all the sufficient conditions; its 'even though clause' holds those circumstances that do not matter.
THREE TO ONE: The ratio between things legal and things factual is three to one. There is one factual relationship: a flow of conduct from source to recipient in circumstances. Three legal waves wash upon the factual shore. The first legal relationship is between a lawmaker and a flow of conduct from source to recipient in circumstances in its entirety, i.e. monolithically without differentiating, i.e., paying any special attention to the source and recipient. This is the most basic of a lawmaker's three viewpoints and it is here that the lawmaker issues a command for positive conduct, a permission for either positive or negative conduct or a command for negative conduct. At the advanced legal level we see two more relationships in which a lawmaker differentiates out of the flow of conduct from source to recipient in circumstances the source and recipient. Simultaneously with the issuance of the law, a lawmaker engages in a process we have called binding. A lawmaker binds the law to a weight token holder by distributing either a 'duty' or a 'privilege'. A lawmaker binds the law to a standing token holder by distributing either a 'right' or 'no-right'. Hence, the three things legal done to the one thing factual, i.e. to a flow of conduct from source to recipient in circumstances are
- the issuance of a law,
- the binding of weight and
- the binding of standing
TOKEN: A token or a legal token is one of four 'things' that a lawmaker binds to a citizen to indicate the citizen's legal status with respect to a flow of conduct from source to recipient in circumstnaces. The tokens are a right, a no-right, a duty or a privilege. They are derived from the presence or absence of weight and standing. A lawmaker binds a 'duty' or a 'privilege' to a weight token holder. The 'duty' binds a command to the weight token holder and the 'privilege' binds a permission. A lawmaker binds a 'right' or 'no-right' to a standing token holder. The 'right' binds a command to a standing token holder and the 'no-right' binds a permission.
TOKEN HOLDER: A token holder is a person who holds one of the four legal tokens: The capacity to hold a token is what makes a factual character into a legal character. A token holder is the legal soul of a source, recipient and someone other than a source or a recipient. Typically, a source is a weight token holder and a recipient is a standing token holder. Extrapolation, however, can take place.
TOOLS OF A LAWMAKER: The tools of a lawmaker are weight and standing. A lawmaker wields weight and standing in the process of making a law. A lawmaker uses weight and standing to bind a command and a permission to a weight token holder and a standing token holder
TRIANGLE: A Triangle is a simple, three sided, geometric shape whose sides are connected together at angles. It graphically depicts the three significant relationships involved in 'A Unified Theory of a Law'. Two of the three relationships are legal and one is factual. One relationship is between a lawmaker and a source. This relationship involves weight. It is a legal relationship. One relationship is between a lawmaker and a recipient. This relationship involves standing. It is a legal relationship. One relationship is between a source and a recipient. This relationship involves a flow of conduct from source to recipient in circumstances. It is a factual relationship
TRIANGLE OF LAW: THE TRIANGLE OF LAW® is a doctrine composed of a limited number of ideas that answer the fundamental question,'What is a law?'. At its base is the flow of conduct from source to recipient in circumstances. At its top is the lawmaker who distributes weight and standing by handing out their legal tokens. It is a unified theory of a law.
