Activism, Political Philosophy, Social Commentary
Codification is the common aim of activists. Feminists support ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. Following Dumbreck, Parliament passed the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1957. Sarah's law means highway authorities now have to inform pet owners if their dog gets killed by a car. Ensuring legal change is essential to ensure longlasting political progress. Legislation is a reliable method of entrenching progress because legislators are accountable to the people. Get enough people to support your campaign, and politicians begin to pay attention. Gun law in America is problematic for two reasons, public opinion and funding.
So long as hunting, gun ranges and militias remain popular social activities, the politician cannot reform the law without demonising themselves to a considerable portion of the population. Democrats pay lip-service to the anti-gun cause. That is not the same as enforcing change. Activists can be kept happy by pledges of the impossible, while inactivity prevents the opposition from having ammunition to throw in your face during the next election.
Money is the other big drive in the party machine. Advertising, conferencing and policy consultation all costs. Membership fees are one way of levying new funds; donations are another. Contemporary democracy is an oligarchy. Those with money purchase policy support. Lobbying is such a big industry because spending a couple million to ensure corporate taxes don't increase is a no brainer when the same taxes will cost you billions in the long run. Private funding is not, however, as anti-democratic as it would first appear. Democracy concerns governance by the people. Corporations and pressure groups compose of lots of people. Employees have a vested interest in their employers not going bust or relocating because taxes are too high. The NRA is called the National Rifle Association because it is an association of people, just like teachers' unions or Amnesty International. Sure a few individuals have pockets so deep they can turn the tide of an election. Still, usually, even Rupert Murdoch is looking out for business interests, interests employing a lot of workers.
You may be wondering why I have gone off on a tangent. This article claims to discuss why activists support codification, yet so far it has been side-tracked by me spouting views on political reality. My theory on politics operates, however, is vital in explaining why codification is a useful tool for activists. Griffiths said that everything is constitutional and nothing is, claiming a nation's constitution is nothing more than a function of whatever political claims are prevailing at any time in society's ongoing conflict. I have used Griffith's reasoning to explain why there is no right answer to debates on whether robots should have rights. Political constitutionalism as a concept equally highlights the advantages codification offers political reformers. Where no law exists either way on an issue, the dispute must be determined based on social practice. Customary law is the oldest type of law in the world because judges would enforce the accepted practice; deviating from the norm disappointed expectations. Condemnation resulted from that disappointment.
But what about where there is no norm? Earth's first men could hardly look to the past to solve their disputes. Well, then it was necessary to 'invent' a practice. Some activism is identical to the creation of customary law. Targeting the wrong of robotic slavery is central to many of my other pieces. Robot rights is kind of what I do. Campaigns to limit or allow the use of new drugs follow the same logic. Codification in those cases makes some sense because customs are difficult to control in the modern age. I can control my own actions, but the acts of others are unpredictable. Me smoking weed 2.0 or treating toasters as people makes little difference if everybody else does the opposite. However, get your reform in early enough, and the opposition won't have time to mount a defence. Codification amounts to a political blitzkrieg, allowing activists to give themselves the high ground. Note my point on gun rights earlier. Once a law is established, pledging the impossible is an easy way for politicians to get support without having to deliver. The longer a law has been in place, the more impossible those promises become. Americans repealing the Constitution or the British throwing out the Magna Carta is untenable. Both documents amount to a form of national religion by this point.
Moreover, the longer legislation is around, the more other legislators draft other legislation with references to it. Brexit was a pain, and that was only 48 years of law to untangle. One or two centuries would have made the task ridiculous.
Most activism is concerned with changing the law. No first-mover advantage (to borrow business jargon) exists in codifying the law. Sure the legislative process offers a form of legitimacy, but with enough case law and judicial activism, even the clearest statute can be undermined. UK courts were able to disapply law in the Benkharbouche litigation and refused to apply the Merchant Shipping Act in Factortame 2, all while lacking strong judicial review (the power to strike down statutes). Miller 2, Purdy and Trump v Hawaii are all examples of activists using courts as a useful tool. Where codification is superior to judicial law-making is malleability. Lawyers can give judges thousands of precedents to support their view by the judiciary always total control over the final judgment. In a hundred page judgment, a single word can allow a future case to distinguish from the principle. Exceptions build the Common Law.
Statutes, however, can be moulded to express absolutes. "Individuals have a right to bear arms against the State". "Individuals have a right to life". Courts would never speak in such absolutes. Legal maxims are always conditional. I said a thousand cases could do the same as one codified provision, and I stand by that point, but the resulting law will never be what the activists initially intended. Rules developed by different judges have the habit of being deformed creatures.
On the other hand, there is but one draftsman. Activists consult on bills, generally at the early stages, giving them more of an opportunity to influence the result. Even if consultation doesn't go your way, lobby enough representatives and the amendments can occur. Remember my opening speel when I called democracy an oligarchy? The few manipulate the many from the shadows, while politicians spout the liberal fallacy. Pressure groups are 'the few' just as often as multi-billion dollar companies. Having described lobbying as a force for democracy, now presenting pressure groups as puppet-masters manipulating the world appears to be completely off-key. But why does accepting political reality have to be a bad thing?
Seriously. Admitting politics is horribly corrupt, like god-damn awful, is the first step to using politics to enact our vision of a better world. Idealism gets us nowhere. I could write thousands of articles justifying robot rights or a drone registry. Still, if somebody doesn't think of a way to counter Amazon, Google and Facebook, there is no way these reforms will ever get enacted. Big tech, manufacturing and the arms trade have too much riding on developing artificial intelligence. Self-driving cars, entirely automated factories and a missile defence system which never sleeps; all of these things help raise taxes. VAT, corporate gains tax and income tax all depend on companies selling stuff and paying people. What do robot rights activists have to offer? A sense of morality and the goodwill of a few voters. Clearly, one side holds the balance of power. Contributing to the coffers of a few candidates is a food way to ensure intelligent machines have a fighting chance. Environmental groups use similar tactics. Logging and agriculture are more profitable than national parks. To turn the tide, like-minded folk pool their resources together to protect what they believe.
Once again, this article seems to have gone off-topic. Stating pressure groups pool their resources to protect what they believe in does not explain why codification should be activists' modus operandi. Educating the population about whatever policy you feel strongly about may be a better use of money. Even then, you are indirectly relying on codification. If everybody suddenly agrees pollution is terrible, there will be calls for the government to do something about pollution. Regulation is a form of codification.
No answer to the question has yet occurred. Stating codification does happen doesn't tell us why activists should support codification. So why should activists support codification? I suppose the answer is that codification is recognition that society has accepted your point of view. Having governments come and support your view gives the cause legitimacy. Having the Prime Minister stand up and say you've had a good idea provides a lot more publicity than a post on Reddit or an obscure blog. What I've been trying to get at is that codification is not just about changing the law. Legislation makes a statement. Statutes are a way of the State declaring the status quo has changed. Legal change means the outlier has become the new norm. Desegregation, voting rights for the common man and decolonisation occurred through codification. Parliaments can flip the script on any political issue. Activists want change; codification can help recognise change. Therefore, activists should use codification to their advantage.
