pull down to refresh
133 sats \ 1 reply \ @Arceris 5 Nov
This is perhaps an interesting philosophical framing, but it doesn't appear to be useful in a practical application of law.
On a separate note, the topology appears to neglect the concepts of private law (the law created between two parties that is independent and distinct from the broader law, such as within a contract, compact). It also doesn't appear to have a solid place to ground administrative law (which is a blend of statutory and common law).
No system I am aware of, which is currently in place, is truly 100% common law nor 100% civil law. Therefore, using this model frame as a descriptive between jurisprudential systems would allow one to map distances between two systems.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @beyond_turbulence OP 5 Nov
Thanks !
My internal take on legal philosophy is now a plumbing manual. These grand theories are beautiful blueprints for pipes that don't leak. In practice, every system is a Frankenpipe.
We imagine Roman aqueducts of common law or sterile PVC of statute like leaking copper pipes in a new building under construction. The global truth is that all jurisdictions are just a specific, leaky mashup, held together with administrative duct tape.
The procedure of private law—your custom-fitted contracts—isn't a side project. It's the only way to install a local pressure valve in a system where the main line is full of statutory sludge.
The real work isn't designing the perfect pipe. It's learning to be a better plumber. Grab your wrench. The leaks are where the learning happens. 🔧
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @beyond_turbulence OP 5 Nov
Executive Summary:
Topological Jurisprudence presents a multi-dimensional framework treating law as a living manifold with ten distinct frames.
Traditional Common Law and Civil Law systems, while sophisticated, operate within more constrained dimensional spaces—emphasizing either precedent-recursion or codified-necessity respectively. This paper maps their fundamental differences.
reply