»Home | »Philosophy  | »Advocacy | »Weblog  | »Contribute Online »Terms
:: The Rule of Reason ::

:: Friday, May 02, 2003 ::

Civil vs. common law 

:: Posted by Skip at 12:31 PM

Cato's Richard Rahn has a superb column in today's Washington Times on the conflict between common law and civil law in the United States. Rahn provides the type of intellectual depth and context that's missing from much of the current political debate over "judicial activism" and legal reform:

America has been blessed with the English common law system, or customary law based largely on precedent and statutes in effect in England under James I in 1603. Many of the former English Colonies adopted the common law system. Continental Europe, on the other-hand, and many other countries adopted a civil law system based on detailed written codes.

The civil law system traces its origins to the ancient Roman law system. The most famous of these civil law systems is the "Code Napoleon" of 1804, which serves as the basis for modern French law.

It is widely recognized that the "rule of law" is necessary for a civil and prosperous society. But in order to have a "rule of law," people need to know what the law is and for the laws to be considered reasonable. The Ten Commandments are an example of this principle. Most everyone could memorize 10 rules, but no person can know 10,000 or 100,000 rules. The beauty of the traditional common law system was there were relatively few rules, and the subsequent development of the law was based on the commonly understood first principles. Thou shall not murder, steal, etc.

Unfortunately, in recent decades we have had an explosion in detailed rulemaking that has drifted far from the common law. For instance, 30 percent of all federal criminal laws have been passed since 1970. Before 1950, most Americans could pretty well know whether an action they might undertake would violate the law. That has now changed.


In my specialty, antitrust, the problem of civil law is on full display. I'm always amazed that there are literally hundreds of otherwise law-abiding businesses that somehow manage to violate the antitrust "laws" despite retaining highly competent (and highly paid) legal counsel to advise them on antitrust matters. If antitrust law was objective and concise—that is to say, if it was understandable by the commoner—you wouldn't see the plethora of merger reveiews and FTC consent orders you see today. Indeed, the FTC would probably be out of the antitrust business altogether, since no rational business would deliberately incur the agency's wrath.

:: help support this website | link | 0 Comments

 

 

» Recent Posts

» Talkin' baseball...
» Off to Vail!
» The Stamp Act Crisis: The First Defense of Freedom...
» Any why do they even care?
» When is Don Luskin going to replace Paul Krugman a...
» Who keeps Latino culture down? We do, we do.
» Recording Industry Targets Kazaa Users
» FTC boss can see clearly now
» Iowa's highest-paid drunk
» VMI loses again

» RSS Feed


» Capitalist Book Club
Purchase the essential texts on capitalism.


» Feedback
We want to hear from you!



Blogs We Love:
» Alexander Marriot
» Armchair Intellectual
» Best of the Web Today
» Conspiracy to Keep You Poor & Stupid
» Charlotte Capitalist
» Daily Dose of Reason
» Dithyramb
» Dollars & Crosses
» Ego
» Ellen Kenner
» Gus Van Horn
» Harry Binswanger List
»
History At Our House
» How Appealing
» Illustrated Ideas
» Instapundit
» Liberty and Culture
» Michelle Malkin
»
Mike's Eyes
» NoodleFood
» Objectivism Online
» Outside the Beltway
» Overlawyered
» Powell History Recommends
» Potomac Gold Star Wives
» Quent Cordair's Studio
» Randex
» Rational Public Radio

»
Sandstead.com
» SCOTUSBlog
» Southwest Virginia Law Blog
» The Dougout
»
The Objective Standard
» The Secular Foxhole
» Truth, Justice and the American Way
» Words by Woods

» Link Policy
» Comments Policy


» Blog Archives

» March 2003
» April 2003
» May 2003
» June 2003
» July 2003
» August 2003
» September 2003
» October 2003
» November 2003
» December 2003
» January 2004
» February 2004
» March 2004
» April 2004
» May 2004
» June 2004
» July 2004
» August 2004
» September 2004
» October 2004
» November 2004
» December 2004
» February 2005
» March 2005
» April 2005
» May 2005
» November 2005
» January 2006
» February 2006
» March 2006
» April 2006
» May 2006
» June 2006
» July 2006
» August 2006
» September 2006
» October 2006
» November 2006
» December 2006
» January 2007
» February 2007
» March 2007
» April 2007
» May 2007
» June 2007
» July 2007
» August 2007
» September 2007
» October 2007
» November 2007
» December 2007
» January 2008
» February 2008
» March 2008
» April 2008
» May 2008
» June 2008
» July 2008
» August 2008
» September 2008
» October 2008
» November 2008
» December 2008
» January 2009
» February 2009
» March 2009
» April 2009
» May 2009
» June 2009
» July 2009
» August 2009
» September 2009
» October 2009
» November 2009
» December 2009
» January 2010
» February 2010
» March 2010
» April 2010
» May 2010
» June 2010
» July 2010
» August 2010
» September 2010
» October 2010
» November 2010
» December 2010
» January 2011
» February 2011
» March 2011
» April 2011
» May 2011
» June 2011
» July 2011
» August 2011
» September 2011
» October 2011
» November 2011
» December 2011
» January 2012
» February 2012
» March 2012
» April 2012
» May 2012



Philosophy Blog Directory
 

Copyright © 1998-2012 The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism. All Rights Reserved.
Email: 
info-at-capitalismcenter.org · Feedback · Terms of Use · Comments Policy · Privacy Policy · Webmaster