Transition from the facts to the law
According to
A Unified Theory of a Law , with regard to any conduct flowing from a Source to a Recipient through circumstances, there are three permutations of a law that a Lawmaker can apply to it. Not six; not four; just three.
Let us apply each of the three permutations of a law to killing.
Negative regulation
Negative Regulation is one of the three permutations of a law.
Let us look at the
OPINIONS of the Lawmaker engaged in negative regulation.
The two opinions that pair up to constitute negative regulation are
- a dislike of killing that produces a desire to turn the flow of killing off
(the negative conduct) and
- a lack of like for killing from which a desire to turn the flow on is not produced.
(the affirmative conduct) .
In negative regulation, a Lawmaker wants the polarity of the flow of killing to be off
(a neither focus) . A Lawmaker does not want the Source to kill
(a source focus) . A Lawmaker does not want the Recipient to be killed
(a focus on the Recipient) .
Let us look at the
VEHICLES a Lawmaker uses to convey the opinion.
In negative regulation, a Lawmaker issues a command to not kill
(neither focus) . The command takes the form of
Thou shall not kill . The word, 'shall', is the clue to regulation. A Lawmaker binds to the Source a duty not to kill
(a Source focus) . The Lawmaker binds to the Recipient a right not to be killed
(a Recipient focus) .
Let us look at
METAPHORS applicable to negative regulation.
In negative regulation, a Lawmaker grabs onto conduct to turn off its flow.
(a neither focus) . The "hands on" Lawmaker pushes the negative conduct from the Source
(a Source focus) and pulls the negative conduct to the Recipient
(a Recipient focus) .
Step back and take notice of what just happened
It happened so smoothly that you may have missed it. In the exegesis on Negative Regulation above and with regard to the other two permutations of a law below, A Unified Theory of a Law systematically escorted you through four well-defined contexts: 1) opinion 2) vehicle 3) metaphor and 4) focus after having organized the facts. Is this significant? We can now "do law" according to a well defined plan. No longer will the legal thinker stumble from one context to another context like a drunk stumbling from bar to bar. We now have a mutual vocabulary with which to talk about a law in general. A law professor can instruct her students, for instance, to talk about a permutation of a law using the vehicles that convey a Lawmaker's opinion when the focus of a Lawmaker is upon a Recipient. A law student can answer a question by talking about the opinions of a Lawmaker when the focus of a Lawmaker is upon a Source. By knowing how to "do law" systematically, a legal thinker comes into possession of power. It is the power to address a legal problem purposefully according to a preexisting, well defined plan instead of haphazardly.
The role of the word 'not' in a unified theory of a law
The word, 'not', has the slipperiest of meanings that escapes our grasp lest we handle it carefully. It appears in both the legal context and the factual context. 'Not' indicates negation. A negation has two functions: 1) to exclude and 2) to point.
In the factual context, the number of occupants in the universe of polarities of conduct is two: 1) affirmative conduct and 2) negative conduct. 'Not' excludes one of the two polarities of conduct from our consideration and points to the other polarity of conduct.
In the legal context, the number of occupants in the universe of permutations of a law is three: 1) affirmative regulation, 2) deregulation and 3) negative regulation. 'Not' excludes one of the three permutations and points to the other two. Moreover, In the legal context, the number of occupants in the universe of opinions of a Lawmaker is four. Two of the opinions contain 'not' within themselves. They are the 0 opinions. A 0 opinion excludes a 1 opinion of the same polarity and points to the other two opinions of the opposite polarity.
Lastly, the word 'not' appears in the vehicles of a Lawmaker. A command is a sentence that contain the word, 'shall'. A permission is a sentence that contain the word, 'may'. 'May' signifies an absence of intervention, that is, a "hands off" lawmaker. 'Shall' indicates the presence of intervention, that is, a "hands on" lawmaker. 'Not' has no bearing on the words, 'shall' or 'may' which belong to the "legal". 'Not' pertains to the polarity of conduct which belongs to the "factual". Many legal thinkers err when they see the word, 'not' in a vehicle of a Lawmaker and mistakenly think it applies somehow to 'shall' or 'may' instead of simply reversing the polarity of the conduct to off from on.
