The three permutations of a law arise from the pairing of two of the four opinions of a lawmaker
The chart above entitled the Spectrum of Opinions from which The Three Permutations of a Law Arise consists of four columns entitled, -1, -0, +0, and +1.
Negative Regulation results from a combination of the opinions in column -1 and the opinions in column +0. In negative regulation, a Lawmaker reserves the decision whether or not in engage in a course of negative not affirmative conduct to herself and does not delegate it to a Source of conduct.
Deregulation results from a combination of the opinions in column -0 and the opinions in column +0. In deregulation, a Lawmaker delegates the decision whether or not in engage in a course of negative conduct or affirmative conduct to its Source and does not reserve it to herself.
Affirmative Regulation results from a combination of the opinions in column +1 and the opinions in column -0. In affirmative regulation, a Lawmaker reserves the decision whether or not in engage in a course of affirmative not negative conduct to herself and does not delegate it to a Source of conduct.
When the opinions of a Lawmaker is combined to make a permutation of a law, understanding is better when all legal thinkers are on the same page, that is, focusing on the same thing. Therefore, combine opinions that share the same focus.
Ambiguity and coexistence
Because the absence of a desire for a polarity of conduct is one of the two opinions that appears in both Regulation and Deregulation, it is ambiguous alone and tells us nothing about the governing permutation of a law. When only one permutation is examined and the absence of a desire is detected, the opinions of a Lawmaker toward the other polarity of conduct must be looked at to determine the governing permutation. Not so when the presence of a desire for a polarity of conduct is detected. When the presence of a desire for a polarity of conduct is detected, the permutation of a law is immediately known. It is either affirmative regulation or negative regulation. The opinion of a Lawmaker with regard to the opposite polarity is always an absence of a desire because the presence of desires toward both polarities of conduct cannot co-exist. The pairing of a +1 opinion with a -1 opinion is irrational existing only in theory but not in the real world. A Lawmaker cannot want you to do something and want you to not do something simultaneously.
Furthermore, none of the permutations of a law can coexist with each other with regard to the same flow of conduct from Source to Recipient through circumstances. A Lawmaker picks one permutation and rejects the other two. Why? The pair of opinions that underlie each permutation of a law are different for each permutation of a law.
The conjunctions of lawmaking
Because a Lawmaker, during the process of making a law, takes into account both polarities of conduct, it is helpful to take notice of the conjunctions used to join the two polarities of conduct together in a permutation of a law. The conjunction of Regulation is the word, 'not' and the conjunction of Deregulation is the word, 'or'. The opinion of a Lawmaker engaged in affirmative regulation is 'I want affirmative conduct
not negative conduct'. The opinion of a Lawmaker engaged in negative regulation is 'I want negative conduct
not affirmative conduct'. The opinion of a Lawmaker engaged in deregulation is 'I don't care whether affirmative conduct
or negative is done.' In Regulation, the polarity of conduct desired by a Lawmaker is typically the only one expressed. The polarity of conduct not desired is implied. The same is true in Deregulation wherein, typically, only one polarity is expressed and the other implied. This habit is a potential pitfall because it obfuscates the fact that a Lawmaker takes into account both polarities of conduct in each permutation of a law. The habit of expressing only one polarity of conduct and implying the other arises because our view of a legal dispute is often through an adversarial lens. One side takes up one polarity of conduct in their advocacy of a permutation of a law and the other side takes up the opposite polarity. Proponents of 'Thou shall not kill'
(See, the chapters on Vehicles and The Nature and Structure of a Legal Arguments) are met by opponents who advocate either 'Thou may kill' or 'Thou shall kill'. In this legal argument, the negative polarity of conduct is pitted against the affirmative polarity.
Synecdoche
Be advised that my usage of the word, 'opinion', is slippery. Technically, a Lawmaker has one opinion about the two polarities of conduct. Each opinion has two components: 1) an affirmative conduct component and 2) a negative conduct component. At times I use the word, opinion, to refer to the opinion itself and at times I use the word, opinion, to refer to its components. Greek rhetoricians, if I am not mistaken, called this synecdoche, referring to the whole by reference to a part and referring to a part by reference to a whole. As long as you are aware of what is being done, however, this mixed usage does not put understanding at risk.
As a lagniappe thrown in to make a baker's dozen is a table using just the symbolic shorthand. As a test for your understanding of the opinions of a Lawmaker, determine whether or not you understand what the table and the comments mean. The use of symbolic shorthand consisting of a limited vocabulary of just four words, +1, +0, -0, and -1, brings mathematical precision to the understanding of the opinions that make up the permutations of a law.
| AFFIRMATIVE CONDUCT |
NEGATIVE CONDUCT |
PERMUTATION OF A LAW |
|
+1 |
-0 |
Affirmative Regulation |
|
+0 |
-0 |
Deregulation |
|
+0 |
-1 |
Negative Regulation |
- The opinions available to a Lawmaker are four in number: +1, +0, -0, -1.
- +1 equals like and a desire to turn the flow of conduct on
- -1 equals dislike and a desire to turn the flow of conduct off
- +0 equals an absence of like and an absence of a desire to turn the flow of conduct on
- -0 equals an absence of dislike and an absence of a desire to turn the flow of conduct off
- (+1 or +0) plus (-1 or -0) equals a permutation of a law. This is the equation that makes a permutation of a law
- (+1) plus ( -0) equals affirmative regulation
- (+0) plus ( -1) equals negative regulation
- (+0) plus ( -0) equals deregulation
- In the three permutations of a law more 0 opinions than 1 opinions are found so an understanding of the 0 opinion is important
- There is a 0 opinion in every permutation of a law
- There is a two 0 opinions in 1 of the 3 permutations of a law
- There is a 1 opinion in 2 of the 3 permutations of a law
- There is either a 0 or a 1 for each polarity of conduct
- The 1 opinions occupy the ends of the spectrum of opinions and the 0 opinions occupy the middle.
- -0 excludes -1 and points to +0 and +1
- -0 means not -1 but either +0 and +1
- +0 excludes +1 and points to -0 or -1
- +0 means not +1 but either -0 or -1
- +1 and -1 is an irrational pair of opinions
- a +1 and a -1 cannot coexist
- a +1 only coexists with a -0
- a -1 only coexists with a +0
- a -0 can coexist with a +0 or a +1
- a +0 can coexist with a -0 or a -1
- +0 is an opinion found in both negative regulation and deregulation
- -0 is an opinion found in both affirmative regulation and deregulation
- +0 alone is ambiguous with regard to the permutation of a law
- -0 alone is ambiguous with regard to the permutation of a law
- +1 alone is unambiguous with regard to the permutation of a law
- -1 alone is unambiguous with regard to the permutation of a law
- -1 is an opinion only found in negative regulation
- +1 is an opinion only found in affirmative regulation
John Bosco
Project Director
The Legal Literacy Project
