What does 'not' do?

Before I proceed, I must digress so you can hear the story of not. The story of not is also the story of may and shall. The word not frequently appears in our laws. It is common to see it escorted by the words, shall or may, as in the sentences, Thou shall not kill or Thou may kill. But what does not mean? Or better, what ought it mean? How ought it be used?

'Not' in the Factual World is different than 'not' in the Legal World

In A Unified Theory of a Law, not has a well defined job. A flow of conduct has the property of polarity. Polarity is the property of a flow of conduct that indicates whether the flow of conduct is on or off. Affirmative conduct is flowing; negative conduct is not. The job of not is simply to turn off conduct that is flowing. Not, by affecting the polarity of a flow of conduct is, therefore, a word that belongs to the factual not to the legal. In colloquial use, however, not sometimes escapes from the factual into the legal. Thou may not kill is often intended to mean the same as Thou shall not kill. The not in Thou may not kill indicates the absence of permission. It is like saying, Thou hath not permission to kill. This is not an illegitimate usage of not. However, it is a usage shunned by A Unified Theory of a Law on account of its ambiguity.

The Facts are Binary; the Law is Tertiary

Furthermore, the binary - on and off - state of a flow of conduct is confined to the factual world. In the legal world, there are three options not two. In the factual world, there are two polarities: on or off. However, in the legal world, there are three permutations: 1) Affirmative Regulation which arises when a law maker expresses a command for affirmative conduct, 2) Negative Regulation which arises when a law maker expresses a command for negative conduct, and 3) Deregulation which arises when a law maker expresses a permission for either polarity of conduct.

Both Polarities exist either expressly or by implication in the Three Permutations of a Law

Furthermore, both factual polarities of a flow of conduct either expressly or by implication exist in each of the three permutations of a law.

Although both polarities of a flow of conduct exist, both are seldom explicit. Our language has evolved so that, usually, only one polarity is expressed. In commands, the polarity expressed is the polarity that is desired not the undesirable polarity. In permissions, the polarity that is expressed often depends upon the command against which it is compared. One example will suffice to illustrate what goes on. Assume that advocates of life promote the command, Thou shall not kill. Their opponents can advocate either of the two remaining permutations of a law: Thou may kill or not kill or Thou shall kill. Assuming further that their opponents are promoting the permission, the tendency is for the opponents to use the polarity that is the opposite of the one used in the command. In the command, Thou shall not kill, the negative polarity was used. Therefore, the opponents would use the affirmative polarity and say, Thou may kill. Yet, using both polarities in the expression of a permission reinforces the central characteristic of a permission that a lawmaker does not object to either polarity of conduct. That is why we often see the word, or, as a companion to may. After may, one polarity of conduct is expressed and after or the other.

Footer

This work is licensed by John Bosco under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 3.0), and is an Open Educational Resource.

Last edited by John Bosco on Aug 6, 2009 11:04 am GMT-5.