On law and the categorical imperative
Does the law need universal submission in order to benefit society?
Earlier today, a conversation with a socialist friend convinced me that I should probably spend a little more time laying out my thoughts on the law. The conversation revolved around this recent passage from The New York Times:
Piker: I’m pro stealing from big corporations, because they steal quite a bit more from their own workers…
Spiegelman: I feel part of what I’m seeing around me is that people feel like the laws are immoral. The rich don’t play by the rules…So, at some point, if the laws don’t feel moral, do you start to question your own sense of having to abide by them?
Contrary to what this exchange seems to suggest, it is not in fact an orthodox Marxist position to support theft from capitalists. In one of his most important texts on the law, Marx argues that by outlawing the collection of wood lying on the forest floor, the legislature is expanding the definition of private property for the benefit of capitalists. But in the same breath Marx also defends existing law that classifies the wood of living trees as the owner’s private property:
In order to appropriate growing timber, it has to be forcibly separated from its organic association. Since this is an obvious outrage against the tree, it is therefore an obvious outrage against the owner of the tree.
