Law, Business, and the American Dream

Reading Posner this week made me think about laws place within America since the 19th century. As industrialism took power it seems that more legal measures were taking into account businesses and monopolies. This is not to say that there weren't social movements advocating equality for all members of society, but for what general purpose? It seems that people want to have equal obligations so that they can succeed in capitalistic endeavors. Products and advertisements, which became much more prevalent in the 20th century,  revolve in the scheme of big business and shifting the focus of how Americans view happiness and success; most now through material goods or celebrity-status. Today towards the end of class we talked about the corruption within Supreme Court decisions and how congress can hardly compromise anymore. This I ultimately feel is based on the society we are living in. As people become greedier and equate their happiness towards material and wealth, so do our politicians (for they are emerging from the same pool of citizens). This collective greed is then making policies that are failing the economy, in a large part due to corporate funding which gives corporations control, and with it the integrity and values of America.

Positivism or Interpretation?

The ideas presented by both Hart and Dworkin are rather convincing and I'm having trouble seeing who I agree with more. I understand why Dworkin would assume that interpretation would be needed in the purpose of hard cases, but it seems likely that too much subjectivity is factored in by the judge. A judge could really phrase his interpretation in whatever he seemed fit, and say it convincingly by his expertise, in how it would apply to the principles that were established and chosen. Or how could one decide what principle would outweigh another? This seems to rely solely on subjectivity, unless perhaps it was ruled by a jury on which principle needed priority. At the same time Hart's notion of 'law is law' seems to lack authority to give an answer in hard cases, but maybe this is a necessary error in terms of the legal process in promoting the law towards better and more precise decisions and regulations. Dworkin's interpretation can backfire towards biased decisions while Hart's positivism can lead to a dead end. To me the hard part of deciding who has a better qualified idea of jurisprudence is going to have to be decided by the particular court case.

A Decision Towards Freedom

As we were discussing incompletely theorized agreements it struck me that this is very similar to theatrical direction. This connection was established when we discussed how Levi and Sunstein were against general principles. To form a completely theorized agreement would really be impractical, perhaps even impossible. This is then very similar to acting because decisions need to be made in order to allow progress and change; the foundation of a direction for action must be established. Otherwise it will result in too much freedom causing chaos or unjustified behavior to ensue on stage. This runs parallel to how precedent works as dramatic action needs to correspond with a decision that will create a repeatable and orderly pattern. As Anne Bogart, a well known director states, "paradoxically, it is restrictions, the precision, the exactitude, that allows for the possibility of freedom. The form becomes a container in which the actor can find endless variations and interpretive freedom . .  this freedom can only be found within certain chosen limitations." This is in accord with how the legal process functions. A law is established and then based on precedent is repeated and interpreted based on particular cases when needed. This allows society to function in an orderly way and give freedoms and rights to citizens.

Formalism to show Absurdity

I recently read an article about a man driving in the HOV lane by himself. He had with him his corporation papers in hopes of showing that there was actually a second person in the vehicle. Now many of you have probably heard the idea that corporations are people, so what this man was trying to prove was that he was actually carpooling according to the law. This is a case I think where formalism can actually be beneficial because it is showing the ridiculousness of a previous law or the mere idea that a corporation is a person. If corporations are people then there surely must be a material manifestation of that person. The documentation seems to be the best case of this 'person' because the land and other resources of this corporation/person is merely the property of it. Do you think this man's case is valid?

Here is a link to the article and video.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/05/16372432-california-man-says-he-can-drive-in-carpool-lane-with-corporation-papers?lite