Government requires the consent of the governed, disease does not. The two are not in the least comparable and the analogy is specious.
The claim that only those with a legal education can understand the law indicts not those who lack the education, but those who have it; they have made the law an indecipherable mass of politically and socially expedient cant, no longer fit as a basis for ordered liberty. Any law that cannot be understood by those governed cannot maintain the consent of those governed, and fails its first requirement.
The fact that the Constitution is taught in the public schools, and that juries are drawn from records of voters and licensed drivers, should demonstrate beyond argument that all that is needed *is* a mastery of grade school reading classes.
---------------------------------
Reflective and on the mark.
It is amusing to hear such blather that a higher mind is required to interpret Law. Wow, who knew???
Such an absurdity brings to mind the Principle of Parsimony, articulated by Ockham, a
Franciscan Monk and Scholastic; also labeled, his 'Razor.'
In brief, he argued that logic requires the fewest assumptions to explain any fact of Nature.
The greatest minds in science adhered to this Principle, among them:
* Archimedes and his Law of Buoyancy.
* Newton and his Laws of Motion.
* Galileo and his Law of Inertia.
It was not until the modern era that this Principle was ignored; most prominently by:
* Darwin in his 'Origin of the Species' and
* Einstein and 'Relativity'.
And what is most striking about the latter two scientists?????
THEY POSTULATED THEORIES WHICH TO THIS VERY MOMENT REMAIN
UNPROVEN DESPITE HUNDREDS UPON HUNDREDS OF PAGES OF ARGUMENT.
SO MUCH FOR PARSIMONY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As for the Law, what we need is humility, not arrogant bullshit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
