The most overrated phrase ever: "there were no laws back then"

[InsecureLivesMatter]

1619 -- Atlantic Slave Trade

One of my biggest pet peeves ever is hearing my parents and my (now former, thank God) middle/high school teachers use this phrase. I fucking hate it when people make this statement, especially in regards to history and colonization and colonialism, that "there were no laws in the (1400s, 1500s, 1600s, 1700s, 1800s)." NEWSFLASH!! There have ALWAYS been laws. How long ago was the Constitution first amended? More than 240 years ago!! So many legislators and politicians and lawyers and police officers and etc. don't even follow the Constitution. American citizens, especially right-wing "conservatives" and "independents" LOVE to brag about patriotism and nationalism and Christianity (note- I'm a Christian, I was raised in a Christian household; please take no offense) and such, but they don't even understand MOST of the Constitution (besides pretty much just the 1A and 2A, and barely at that). All this talk about hanging and lynching and stoning, coming from the voices of the ignoramus (my own family included) who seem like they are BRAGGING about it just by tone.

[monorprise]

It is indeed a silly phrase. But I'm not sure I've heard people use that phrase outside of referring to a species set of behaviors in context.

In this respect given the same legislators are constantly making new laws it is usually true at some point in the past there were no laws on any given subject in which there are now laws.

Just as today there are no laws on a great many subjects which we might expect there to be laws before the civilization and thus the State it supports collapses under the weight of the same laws.

[BCA6010]

Yeah, that's an insane claim to make. Even the smallest, most primitive tribes thousands of years ago had their own rules/laws.

The only time actual lawlessness exists is usually in the context of a completely collapsed, failed state such as Somalia in the 90s. Even so, there would still be "laws" in the form of whatever the strongest warlord says, goes.

Sounds like the wild belief that a simple sign or piece of paper reigns supreme over the actual power to enforce...

[Stoner710]

You’re not wrong the only society within the 1800s I can conclude that was officially lawless was deadwood South Dakota and that’s because there was conflict between I believe it was the Lakota and the US federal government on who controlled this land there wasn’t no law but in terms of what people mean by lawless society this was as close as you’re going to get. The sea was had laws but no one could enforce them to enforce the law. So even though there was law the enforcement of law was absent. Pirate could easily commandeer ship and make it into a pirate ship and proceeded to loot and plunder without any consequence until they got caught. Same with outlaws living the caves in the middle of Colorado Texas Utah Nevada whatever state do you want to use. These was law but you could get away with murder, say in 1949 I committed a murder robbery in San Francisco and left and never returned say I went to Alaska. Of course there not going to catch me hence the idea of lawlessness. The concept of law course did exist but there’s nobody to enforce it hence why we have the idea of lawlessness. So of course there was laws back then on the legal books boat without enforcement of the laws on the books you break down into lawlessness because people aren’t honoring the law many people didn’t honor the law many people died in their murderers are never caught. Again this is a concept. Tell the concept of lawlessness is valid even though there was law.

[RavVid]

Look there are two corner stones of history. First was the English Revolution which I think was the fundamental as it rejected absolute rule. The second was 1776 and the American Constitution which embedded thought on the failures of first.

I think you are naive. Yes there always have been laws but most of them weren't what you'd like in 2023. In the later Roman Empire, the slave supply chain became unreliable and so most petty farmers became serfs which was much the same as motivated slaves. Motivated because the serfs had to grow their own sustenance where as a slave owner was motivated to preserve their investment in a bad season.

I think it was more true that there were no **nice** laws back then.

[Anonymous]

Speaking as a person who's country was colonised I can say there was no laws against invading foreign countries, committing genocide, stealing their land and enslaving the people. It was in fact the norm in the majority of cultures and countries.

There has always been laws but laws are useless unless they are enforced. In the past the law was not made for the plebs.

[monorprise]

There are still no laws against such things in the anarchy between the nations of the world. Today it is simply frowned upon by the major powers who may or may not do something about it.

[ParaAustral]

I've never heard this phrase used before, but if anything, laws could be used to justify the existence of colonialism and slavery. Most land was ceded to the British and French empires via treaty and slavery was a legal purchase and the transfer of bonded labor.

[legalboxers]

they still say this... lol

[OddBeMe]

What’s the question?