The Vocabulary of a Law from A to Z

by
John Bosco

The pessimistic notion that no more than a fuzzy understanding of a law can ever be
achieved unsettled me. I was uncomfortable that our law schools did not make available to all
of their students a standard ideology that would, without fail, generate in its users’ minds a fair
and accurate representation of a law rather than just a poor, low fidelity, approximation. Where
was the compass whose needle always points in the direction of legal understanding and why
wasn’t I given one? The closest I came to learning how to perfect my legal understanding was
in the writings of Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld. However, Hohfeld, too, fell short. When the need
arose to teach law to a class of seniors at Monsignor Farrell H.S. in Staten Island, New York, I
decided to build the compass myself. Standing on the shoulders of Hohfeld, I created A Unified
Theory of a Law and its Periodic Table of the Elements of a Law. In a A Unified Theory of a Law
the boundaries that define a law have been discovered, explored and mapped. All knowledge
of a law exists within these boundaries. Outside these boundaries, as the mapmakers of old
would say, “hic sunt dracones”.

In building the compass whose needle always points in the direction of legal
understanding I began with the insight that a law, like uranium, was fissile. It can be split into
two components 1) its words and 2) its structure. They exist independently of each other.
Together they constitute a law. While many have taken notice of the words of a law, knowledge
of the structure of a law is still rare. The words, like ornaments, adorn the structure of a law. The
words change; but the structure stays the same. Like the DNA of a cell, the structure of a law
repeats itself over and over again in every instance of a law. To generate a law's meaning, both
its words and its structure cooperate. Anyone who wishes to push meaning into or pull meaning
out of a law must be mindful of a law's structure. Any failure to respect the structure of a law
generates inscrutable legalese and legal misunderstanding

In this article, I wish to present the lexicon of a law. It is a language with which to talk
about the structure of a law in general before the structure is adorned with particular words.
With this lexicon anyone can discuss any law as well as a legal genius. How can I make such
an extravagant claim that, on its face, seems preposterous? A law, when properly understood,
is akin to a cow that gives the same quantity of milk no matter who does the milking. A legal
genius is not able to milk any more meaning out of a law than the ordinary legal thinker who
understands A Unified Theory of a Law.

Here is the lexicon.

Acme of the Triangle of a Law: The acme is the peak of the Triangle of a Law. At the acme
is the sovereign’s throne occupied by a Lawmaker. From the acme of the Triangle of a Law, a
lawmaker despises the flow of conduct from the Source to the Recipient in circumstances at its
base and forms any of three (3) opinions about it. Perched upon the throne of the Triangle of
a Law, a Lawmaker focuses on the Source or upon the Recipient. Focusing upon the Source,
a Lawmaker creates a legal relationship between herself and the Source. Focusing upon the
Recipient, a Lawmaker creates a legal relationship between herself and the Recipient. The
shift in focus between a Source and a Recipient is the reason for the existence in the two legal
relationships of A Unified Theory of a Law.
Affirmative Conduct: A flow of conduct from a Source to a Recipient in circumstances has the
property of polarity. The polarity of a flow of conduct is off or on. Affirmative conduct is conduct
whose flow is on. Conduct that is off is negative conduct. There is no difference between
affirmative conduct and negative conduct other than its polarity. Affirmative conduct is turned
into negative conduct through the use of the word, ‘not’.

Base of the Triangle of a Law: The base of the Triangle of a Law is the horizontal leg at
the base of the Triangle of a Law. It is to the base that a lawmaker despises. It runs from the
Source at one corner of the Triangle of a Law to the Recipient at the other corner. It represents
the factual relationship of a Unified Theory of a Law. There are two legal relationships - 1)
between a Lawmaker and a Source and 2) between a Lawmaker and a Recipient - but one
factual relationship - between a Source and a Recipient. The factual relationship consists of a
flow of conduct from a Source to a Recipient in circumstances.

Binding: The process of making a law can be broken down into two stages: 1) Formation and
2) Externalization. During formation, a lawmaker forms any of three opinions about a flow of
conduct from a Source to a Recipient in circumstances. During Externalization, a lawmaker gets
the opinion out of her head and delivers it to the citizenry. Binding occurs during Externalization.
During Externalization, a lawmaker issues either 1) a command for affirmative conduct 2) a
permission for either polarity of conduct or 3) a command for negative conduct and binds the
chosen permutation to the participants in a flow of conduct with any of the four tokens.

It is often unwieldy to talk about a law using just 1) a command for affirmative conduct 2) a
permission for either polarity of conduct or 3) a command for negative conduct themselves. Like
a lawmaker, we too sometimes prefer to focus upon a Source or a Recipient. Hence, tokens,
that is 1) a right, 2) a no-right, 3) a duty and 4) a privilege have evolved to facilitate our legal
conversation. It has become customary to say that a participant in a flow of conduct has or
does not have a token instead of just talking about 1) a command for affirmative conduct 2) a
permission for either polarity of conduct or 3) a command for negative conduct themselves

The tokens, ‘right’ and ‘duty’ are near synonyms for a command. The token, ‘duty’, is used when
talking about a command from the perspective of a Source of conduct and the token ‘right’ is
used when talking about a command from the perspective of a Recipient of conduct.

The tokens, ‘no-right’ and ‘privilege’ are near synonyms for a permission. The token, ‘privilege’,
is used when talking about a permission from the perspective of a Source of conduct and the
token, ‘no-right’, is used when talking about a permission from the perspective of a Recipient of
conduct

A Source of conduct can have 1) a duty to do conduct, 2) a privilege to do or not do conduct as

the Source decides or 3) a duty not to do conduct. These reflect the three permutations of a law
which in turn reflect the three opinions of a lawmaker.

A Recipient of conduct can have 1) a right to receive conduct, 2) a no-right to either affirmative
or negative conduct or 3) a right to not receive conduct. These reflect the three permutations of
a law which in turn reflect the three opinions of a lawmaker.

Building Blocks: The physics of legal fission teaches that a law is assembled from buildings
blocks and can be dissembled into building blocks as well. A law, like uranium, is fissile. It can
be split into two components 1) its words and 2) its structure. They exist independently of each
other. Together they constitute a law. The words, like ornaments, adorn the structure of a law.
The words change; but the structure stays the same. Like the DNA of a cell, the structure of a
law repeats itself over and over again in every instance of a law. To generate a law's meaning,
both its words and its structure cooperate. Anyone who wishes to push meaning into or pull
meaning out of a law must be mindful of a law's structure. Any failure to respect the structure of
a law generates inscrutable legalese and legal misunderstanding

Circumstances: Circumstances are facts that surround a flow of conduct from a Source to a
Recipient. They are the context in which conduct flows.

Command: A command is one of the two flavors of a law. The other is a permission. Unlike
ice cream that comes in a variety of flavors, a law comes in only two. A command is either for
affirmative or negative conduct. A lawmaker issues a command for affirmative conduct when
she wants a Source to do the conduct and wants a Recipient to receive it. A lawmaker issues
a command for negative conduct when she does not want a Source to do the conduct and
does not want a Recipient to receive it. A command is a sentence in the imperative mood.
The helping verb, ‘shall’, is a clue to a command. A command is a law that has weight and
has standing. A lawmaker binds a command to a Source with a ‘duty’ and to a Recipient with
a ‘right’. . The decision maker with a command is the lawmaker not the Source of conduct.

Conduct: Conduct is what leaves a Source and flows to a Recipient. Conduct that arrives at
a Recipient is called consequences. Conduct is factual not legal. It is found at the base of the
Triangle of a Law. It typically has two ends. It is dynamic not static, that is, it flows. The flow of
conduct has two noteworthy properties: 1) direction and 2) polarity. Direction is the property
of a flow of conduct that indicates from and to whom conduct flows. The flow of conduct is
mono-directional, always from a Source to a Recipient, never in the other direction. Polarity is
the property of a flow of conduct that indicates whether or not conduct is on and flowing or off
and still. Conduct that is on and flowing is affirmative conduct. Conduct that is off and still is
negative conduct. There is no difference between affirmative and negative conduct other than
the polarity.

Consequences: Conduct that arrives at a Recipient is called consequences.

Context: A flow of conduct from Source to Recipient does not take place in a vacuum but in a
context. The context is the circumstances.

Corners of the Triangle of a Law: The Triangle of a Law has three corners. At its corners, the
characters of A Unified Theory of a Law appear. A lawmaker occupies the acme of the Triangle
of a Law. A Source of conduct occupies one of the corners formed by the convergence of a leg
and the base. A Recipient of the consequences of conduct occupies the other corner formed by
the convergence of a leg and the base. The occupants of the corners are the participants in the
two legal relationships and the one factual relationship of a Unified Theory of a Law.

Deregulation: Deregulation happens when a lawmaker issues a permission for either polarity
of conduct. In contrast, regulation happens when a lawmaker issues either a command for
affirmative conduct or a command for negative conduct.

Desire: A lawmaker’s desire that a flow of conduct from source to recipient in circumstances be
on and a lawmaker’s desire that it be off are two of the three opinions that a lawmaker can form.
The third opinion is indifference to whether or not the flow of conduct is off or on.

Despise: What a lawmaker does from the acme of the Triangle of a Law, that is, looks down
to the flow of conduct from a Source to a Recipient in circumstances at its base. A Lawmaker
cannot form an opinion unless and until the lawmaker despises the conduct. In A Unified Theory
of a Law the word has no negative connotation. However, by picturing the Triangle of a Law in
you mind with a Lawmaker seated smugly on her throne at its acme, you can conceive how the
word acquired its negative connotation.

Direction: Direction is a property of a flow of conduct. It describes from and to whom conduct
flows. The flow of conduct is mono-directional. Conduct always flows from a Source to a
Recipient. Conduct never flows from a Recipient to a Source.

Duty: A ‘duty’ is one of the four tokens. The other three are a ‘right’, a ‘no-right’ and
a ‘privilege’.
A lawmaker binds a command to a Source by giving the Source a ‘duty”. Think of a general
pinning a medal on the tunic of a soldier. It is a word reserved for when the focus is upon a
Source not a Recipient. It is said that a Source has a duty when a Lawmaker wants a Source
to do conduct or when a Lawmaker does not want a Source to do conduct. Within the three
permutations of a law, a ‘duty’ fits in as follows: a Source can have 1) duty to do affirmative
conduct, 2) a Privilege to do either affirmative or negative conduct or 3) a duty to do negative
conduct. A ‘duty’ is part of a triad of nearly synonymous linguistic vehicles that includes the
sentence known as a ‘command’ and the token known as a ‘right’. The subtle difference in
meaning being that a ‘duty’ is used to talk about a command from the point of view of a Source
and a ‘right’ is used to talk about a command from the point of view of a Recipient. A ‘duty’
indicates that a lawmaker wants to substitute her opinion about whether or not to do conduct
for the Source’s. The Source is not allowed to decide for himself. Instead, a lawmaker wants to
intrude upon the decision making process of a Source of conduct. Hence, a ‘duty’ has weight,
that is, feels heavy to a Source not light.

Externalize: After the nut is formed in the shell, it needs to get out. An opinion formed by a
lawmaker has no effect unless and until it exits the head of the lawmaker and is communicated
to the lawmaker’s citizenry. Externalizing the opinion means promulgating it to the citizenry.
Available to the lawmaker are six linguistic vehicles by which a lawmaker can externalize her
opinion: 1) command 2) permission 3) right 4) no-right 5) duty and 6) privilege. A lawmaker
issues either a command or a permission and simultaneously binds them to a Source and to a
Recipient with the appropriate token.

Extrapolation: Extrapolation takes place when there is a deviation form the ideology that is A
Unified Theory of a Law. For example, an extrapolation takes place when a lawmaker binds a
token to someone other than a Source or a Recipient.

Facts: In A Unified Theory of a Law the facts are always viewed as a flow of conduct from
a Source to a Recipient in circumstances. Although the number of facts is infinite, A Unified
Theory of a Law views them in only one way.

Factual Relationship: The factual relationship in A Unified Theory of a Law is a flow of

conduct from a Source to a Recipient in circumstances. It appears at the base of the Triangle of
a Law. There is only one factual relationship but two legal relationships.

Fidelity: Fidelity is the accuracy with which the model of a law inside our heads - our legal
ideology - corresponds to the laws that run around outside our heads in the legal world. A high
fidelity model generates a fair and accurate representation of our laws. A low fidelity model
generates only a poor approximation. A Unified Theory of a Law increases the fidelity of your
model.

Fission: The physics of legal fission postulate that a law can be split into two components 1)
its words and 2) its structure. They exist independently of each other. Together they constitute
a law. While many have taken notice of the words of a law, knowledge of the structure of a
law is still rare. The words, like ornaments, adorn the structure of a law. The words change; but
the structure stays the same. Like the DNA of a cell, the structure of a law repeats itself over
and over again in every instance of a law. To generate a law's meaning, both its words and its
structure cooperate. Anyone who wishes to push meaning into or pull meaning out of a law must
be mindful of a law's structure. Any failure to respect the structure of a law generates inscrutable
legalese and legal misunderstanding. See, also, Fusion and Building Blocks

Flow: Conduct is not static but dynamic. It flows. It flows from a Source to a Recipient in
circumstances. The flow can be on or off. When the flow is on, the conduct is affirmative. When
the flow is off, the conduct is negative. There is no difference between affirmative conduct and
negative conduct other than the polarity.

Focus: The focus of a lawmaker is upon a Source and upon a Recipient. The focus of a
lawmaker shifts between the two participants in a flow of conduct. The shift in focus between a
Source and a Recipient is the reason for the existence in the two legal relationships of A Unified
Theory of a Law.

Indifference: Indifference toward whether or not a flow of conduct from source to recipient in
circumstances is on or off is one of the three opinions that a lawmaker can form. See Desire for
the other two opinions.

Intrusion: A Source decides whether or not to engage in conduct. However, a lawmaker

can intrude upon the Source’s decision making process in an attempt to either start the flow
of conduct or stop the flow of conduct. Or a Lawmaker can abstain from intruding and allow
the Source to decide for himself. When a lawmaker intrudes to turn off a flow of conduct, a
lawmaker issues a command for negative conduct. To a Source, a command for negative
conduct feels heavy. When a lawmaker intrudes to turn on a flow of conduct, a lawmaker
issues a command for affirmative conduct. To a Source, a command for affirmative conduct
feels heavy. When a lawmaker abstains from intruding, a lawmaker issues a permission for
either polarity of conduct. To a Source, a permission feels light. Intrusion is found in the legal
relationship between a Lawmaker and a Source.

Issue: During the second stage of the process of making a law, Externalization, a lawmaker
issues 1) a command for affirmative conduct, 2) a permission for either polarity of conduct, or 3)
a command for negative conduct and the binds the chosen permutation to the participants in the
flow of conduct with the appropriate token.

Law: A Law is the fruit of the externalization of a lawmakers opinion and comes before a legal
thinker in the form of any of the six linguistic vehicles available to a lawmaker to carry her
opinion out of her head into the heads of her citizens. The six legal vehicles are 1) a command,
2) a permission, 3) a right, 4) a no-right, 5) a duty, and 6) a privilege.

Stage 1 of the process of making a law is called formation. During formation a lawmaker
despises the flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in circumstances and forms any of three
opinions about it. She 1) wants the Source to do the conduct and wants the Recipient to receive
it, or 2) does not care whether or not the Source does the conduct and does not care whether
or not the Recipient receives it or 3) does not want the Source to do the conduct and does not
want the Recipient to receive it.

Stage 2 of the process of making a law is called externalization. During externalization a

lawmaker who has formed an opinion gets it out of her head and communicates it to her
citizens. In other words, first the nut is formed within the shell and then the shell is cracked
so the nut can be shared with others. During externalization a lawmaker issues either 1) a
command for affirmative conduct 2) a permission for either polarity of conduct or 3) a command
for negative conduct and simultaneously binds what was issued to a Source and a Recipient
with the appropriate token, that is, a 1) right, 2) no-right, 3) duty, or 4) privilege.

Lawmaker: The Lawmaker is one of the three main characters in A Unified Theory of a Law,
the other two being the Source and the Recipient. The Lawmaker despises a flow of conduct
from the Source to Recipient in circumstances and forms any of three opinions about it: 1) She
wants the Source to do the conduct and wants the Recipient to receive the conduct 2) She
does not care whether or not the Source does the conduct and does not care whether or not the
Recipient receives the conduct or 3) Shee does not want the Source to do the conduct and does
not want the Recipient to receive the conduct. A lawmaker externalizes these opinions with
the following linguistic vehicles 1) command, 2) permission, 3) right, 4) no-right, 5) duty and 6)
privilege. Forming the opinion and externalizing it are the two stages of the process of making
a law. A lawmaker participates in the two legal relationships of A Unified Theory of a Law. A
Lawmaker does not participate in the factual relationship.

Legal Relationships: There are two legal relationships in a Unified Theory of a Law. One
legal relationship is between a Lawmaker and a Source of Conduct. Another legal relationship
is between a Lawmaker and a Recipient of Conduct. These two relationships are depicted on
the Triangle of a Law by its two sides. The legal relationship between a Lawmaker and a Source
of Conduct is characterized by Intrusion and the absence of intrusion. A Lawmaker brings
the Source of Conduct into a legal relationship by binding a law (that is, either a command
or a permission) to a Source with a duty for affirmative conduct, a privilege for either polarity
of conduct or with a duty for negative conduct. The legal relationship between a Lawmaker
and a Recipient of Conduct is characterized by recognition. The legal relationship between
a Lawmaker and a Recipient of Conduct is characterized by recognition and the absence of
Recognition. A Lawmaker brings the Recipient of Conduct into a legal relationship by binding a
law (that is, either a command or a permission) to a Recipient with a right to receive affirmative
conduct, a no-right to receive either polarity of conduct or with a right to receive negative
conduct.

Legal Thinker: An observer of the process by which a law is made.

Legs of the Triangle of a Law: The Triangle of a Law has three sides, one of which is its
base and two of which are its legs. Its two legs represent the two legal relationships in a Unified
Theory of a Law. One legal relationship exists between a Lawmaker and a Source of Conduct.
The other legal relationship exists between a Lawmaker and a Recipient of the consequences
of conduct. There are two legs because the focus of a Lawmaker shifts between the Source and
the Recipient.

Linguistic Vehicles: There are six (6) linguistic vehicles by which a lawmaker externalizes
any of her three (3) possible opinions and communicates it to others. Two (2) of the linguistic
vehicles are sentences and four (4) are tokens. The two (2) sentences are a command and a
permission, The four (4) tokens are a right, duty, no-right and privilege. The linguistic devices
gravitate together. A command, duty and right gravitate together. A permission, privilege and
no-right also gravitate together. When a command is issued, a lawmaker binds the command to
a Source of Conduct with a duty and to a Recipient of conduct with a Right. When a permission
is issued, a lawmaker binds the permission to a Source of Conduct with a Privilege and to
a Recipient of Conduct with a No-right. With these six (6) linguistic devices, a lawmaker
communicates our laws.

May: May is a helping verb found in a permission. It is a clue to a permission

Monolithic Heresy: A legal thinker is in the grip of the monolithic heresy who cannot
disassemble a law into its building blocks. Such a legal thinker is akin to a physicist who, being
stuck at the level of the atom, refuses to believe in the existence of sub-atomic particles.

Mono-directional: Conduct flows in one direction and one direction only: from a Source of
conduct to a Recipient of the consequences of conduct.

Negative Conduct: A flow of conduct from a Source to a Recipient in circumstances has the
property of polarity. The polarity of a flow of conduct is off or on. Negative conduct is conduct
whose flow is off. Conduct that is on is affirmative conduct. There is no difference between
negative conduct and affirmative conduct other than its polarity. Affirmative conduct is turned
into negative conduct through the use of the word, ‘not’.

No-right: A ‘no-right’ is one of the four tokens. The other three are a ‘right’, a ‘duty’ and
a ‘privilege’. A lawmaker binds a permission to a Recipient with a ‘no-right’. Think of a general
pinning a medal on the tunic of a soldier. It is a word reserved for when the focus is upon a
Recipient not for a Source. It is said that a Recipient has a no-right when a Lawmaker does
not care whether or not a Recipient receives conduct. Within the three permutations of a law, a
no-right fits in as follows: a Recipient can have 1) right to receive affirmative conduct, 2) a no-
right to receive either affirmative or negative conduct or 3) a right to receive negative conduct.
A ‘no-right’ is part of a triad of nearly synonymous linguistic vehicles that includes the sentence
known as a ‘permission and the token known as a ‘privilege’. The subtle difference in meaning
being that a ‘privilege’ is used to talk about a permission from the point of view of a Source
and a ‘no-right’ is used to talk about a permission from the point of view of a Recipient. A ‘no-
right’ indicates that a lawmaker does not want to substitute her opinion about whether or not
a Recipient shall receive the conduct for the Source’s. The Source is allowed to decide for
himself. A ‘no-right’ indicates that a lawmaker does not want to recognize a Recipient’s interest
in receiving the conduct. Hence, with a ‘no-right’ a Recipient lacks standing. A Recipient is
invisible to a Lawmaker.
Not: The function of the word, ‘not’ is to reverse the polarity of a flow of conduct. The
word, ‘not’ turns the flow of conduct off. It belongs to the factual not the legal.

Occam’s Razor: The doctrine of Occam’s Razor as applied to the permutations of a law holds
that if three permutations of a law are sufficient to give our minds a high fidelity model of the
lawmaking process then there is no need for any more permutations.

Opinions of a Lawmaker: A lawmaker forms an opinion about a flow of conduct from a Source
to a Recipient in circumstances. The opinions at either end and in the middle of the spectrum of
opinions are important. At one end a lawmaker can hold the opinion that she likes the conduct
and wants the flow of conduct to be turned on. At the opposite end, a lawmaker can hold
the opinion that she dislikes the conduct and wants the flow of conduct to be turned off. In
the middle, a lawmaker can be indifferent about the conduct and not care whether the flow of
conduct is turned on or turned off. Out of these three opinions arise all of our laws. A lawmaker
externalizes her opinions using the following linguistic vehicles: 1) command 2) permission 3)
duty 4) right 5) privilege and 6) no-right.

Participant: A participant is one of the three main characters of A Unified Theory of a Law who
are involved in one or more relationships either factual or legal or both.

Participate: A Lawmaker, a Source and a Recipient take part in the three relationships of
A Unified Theory of a Law. A Lawmaker participates in the two legal relations. A Source
participates in the factual relationships and one of the two legal relationships. A Recipient
participates in the factual relationships and one of the two legal relationships. In other words,
the three main Characters of a Unified Theory of a Law participate in its relationships.

Permission: A permission is one of the two flavors of a law. The other is a command. Unlike
ice cream that comes in a variety of flavors, a law comes in only two. A permission is for both
affirmative and negative conduct. A lawmaker issues a permission for either polarity of conduct
when she does not care whether or not the Source does the conduct and does not care whether
or not the Recipient receives the conduct. A permission is a sentence in the permissive mood.
The helping verb, ‘may’, is a clue to a permission. A permission is a law that lacks weight
and lacks standing. A lawmaker binds a permission to a Source with a ‘privilege’ and to a
Recipient with a ‘no-right’. The decision maker with a permission is the source of conduct not
the lawmaker.

Permutations of a Law: Any particular law can come in three (3) permutations. Why?
Because the three (3) permutations of a law reflect the three (3) opinions that a Lawmaker can
form about a flow of conduct from a Source to a Recipient in circumstances. With regard to the
same flow of conduct from a Source to a Recipient in circumstances, a lawmaker can issue 1) a
command for affirmative conduct 2) a permission for either polarity of conduct or 3) a command
for negative conduct. Warning: Do not confuse the three (3) permutations of a law with the two
(2) polarities of conduct.

Polarity: Conduct is not static but dynamic, that is, it flows. Polarity is a characteristic of a flow
of conduct that indicates whether the flow is on or off. Hence, the polarity of conduct is binary -
- either on or off. When the polarity of a flow of conduct is on, the conduct is affirmative. When
the polarity of a flow of conduct is off, the conduct is affirmative. There is no difference between
affirmative conduct and negative conduct other than its polarity.
Privilege: A ‘privilege’ is a token used by a lawmaker to fine tune the issuance of a permission
by binding it to a Source of conduct. The other three tokens are a ‘duty’, a ‘right’ and a ‘no-
right’. A ‘privilege’ is a word reserved for when the focus is upon the Source not the Recipient.
A ‘privilege’, a ‘permission’ and a ‘no-right’ are the triad of linguistic devices - one sentence and
two tokens - that a lawmaker uses to externalize the opinion that she does not care whether
or not a source does the conduct and does not care whether or not a Recipient receives the
conduct. The three are nearly synonymous. A ‘privilege’ indicates that a lawmaker does not
want to substitute her opinion about whether or not to do conduct for the Source’s. Instead, the
Source is allowed to decide for himself. The issuance of a ‘privilege’ indicates that a lawmaker
does not intrude upon the decision making process of a Source of conduct. Hence, a ‘privilege’
feels light to a Source not heavy.

Process of making a law: Our laws do not come into being full fledged having been delivered
as the stork delivers babies. Prior to the birth of a law is a process. It has existed below the
murky surface of the intellect of a lawmaker. There, cloaked in mystery, the process has
heretofore enjoyed immunity from scrutiny and discourse. A Unified Theory of a Law exposes
the process, makes it visible and finally brings it under our control. The process consists of
a Lawmaker forming any of three opinions about a flow of conduct from source to recipient in
circumstances, externalizing the opinion with a command for affirmative conduct, a permission
for either polarity of conduct or a command for negative conduct, and binding the chosen
permutation of a law to a source and recipient by handing them a token, i.e. a right, no-right,
duty or privilege. The process of making a law, therefore, has two stages: 1) formation and 2)
externalization.

Recipient: A Recipient is one of the two participants in a flow of conduct. The other participant
is a Source. The destination of a flow of conduct is a Recipient. Conduct flows to a Recipient
from a Source in circumstances. A Recipient participates in the factual relationship and one of
the two legal relationships of a Unified Theory of a Law.

Recognition: What intrusion is to a Source of conduct, Recognition is to the Recipient. A

lawmaker can recognize a Recipient’s interest in receiving a flow of conduct or not recognize it.
Thus, a Recipient is either visible or invisible to a Lawmaker, that is, has standing or lacks it.

Regulation: Regulation happens when a lawmaker issues a command for either affirmative
conduct or a command for negative conduct. In contrast, deregulation happens when a
lawmaker issues a permission for either polarity of conduct.

Relationships: In A Unified Theory of a Law are three relationships. That is why the geometric
shape of the Triangle is perfect for representing them. One of the relationships is factual and
two are legal. The factual relationship is between the Source and the Recipient. The mantra
of the factual relationship is that it is a flow of conduct from the Source to the Recipient in
circumstances. One legal relationship is between the Lawmaker and the Source. The second
legal relationship is between the Lawmaker and the Recipient.

Right: A ‘right’ is one of the four tokens. The other three are a ‘duty’, a ‘no-right’ and
a ‘privilege’.
A lawmaker binds a command to a Recipient by giving the Recipient a ‘right’. Think of a
general pinning a medal on the tunic of a soldier. It is a word reserved for when the focus
is upon a Recipient not a Source. It is said that a Recipient has a right when a Lawmaker
wants a Recipient to receive conduct or when a Lawmaker does not want a Recipient to
receive conduct. Within the three permutations of a law, a ‘right’ fits in as follows: a Recipient
can have 1) right to receive affirmative conduct, 2) a no-right to receive either affirmative or
negative conduct or 3) a right to receive negative conduct. A ‘right’ is part of a triad of nearly
synonymous linguistic vehicles that includes the sentence known as a ‘command’ and the token
known as a ‘duty’. The subtle difference in meaning being that a ‘duty’ is used to talk about
a command from the point of view of a Source and a ‘right’ is used to talk about a command
from the point of view of a Recipient. A ‘right’ indicates that a lawmaker wants to substitute her
opinion about whether or not a Recipient shall receive conduct for the Source’s. The Source is
not allowed to decide for himself. Instead, a lawmaker wants to recognize a Recipient’s interest
in receiving the conduct. Hence, with a ‘right’ a Recipient has standing. A Recipient is visible to
a Lawmaker.

Shall: Shall is a helping verb found in a command. It is a clue to a command

Sentence: A command and a permission are the two sentences that a Lawmaker uses as a
vehicle to convey her opinion to her citizens together with the four tokens.

Source: A Source is one of the two participants in a flow of conduct. The other participant is
a Recipient. The source of a flow of conduct is a Source. Conduct flows from a Source to a
Recipient in circumstances. A source participates in the factual relationship and one of the two
legal relationships of a Unified Theory of a Law.

Stages of the Process of Making a Law: The process of making a law consists of two stages:
1) Formation and 2) Externalization. During formation a lawmaker decides which of the three
possible opinions to apply to a flow of conduct from source to recipient in circumstances. During
externalization a lawmaker issues either a 1) command or a 2) permission and binds it to the
source and recipient with any of four tokens: 3) right, 4) no-right, 5) duty, and 6) privilege. A 1)
command, 2) permission 3) right, 4) no-right, 5) duty, and 6) privilege are the six literary devices
that a lawmaker uses to externalize her opinion. A law is the fruit of the process of making a
law.

Standing: Standing is a metaphor. It is a metaphor that is pertinent to the legal relationship

between a Lawmaker and a Recipient. The metaphor pertinent to the legal relationship between
a Lawmaker and a Source is weight. Standing is visual; weight is tactile. Standing has to
do with the visibility of a Recipient. A Recipient is either visible or invisible to a Lawmaker.
An invisible Recipient is a Recipient to whom a lawmaker has awarded a no-right. A visible
Recipient is a Recipient to whom a lawmaker has awarded a right. A Recipient with a right has
standing. A Recipient with a no-right lacks standing. Standing is a way to talk about the process
of making a law elliptically. When the focus is on a Recipient it is less obscure if we talk about
1) a right to receive affirmative conduct 2) a no-right to receive either polarity of conduct or 3)
a right to receive negative conduct. These are the three permutations of a law available to a
lawmaker when the focus is upon a recipient.

Subject of a Law: The subject of a law is conduct. In other words, a law deals with conduct
that flows from a source to recipient in circumstances.

Token: A token is any of four (4) linguistic devices by which a lawmaker binds a law to a source
and to a recipient. The four (4) tokens are 1) duty 2) privilege 3) right and 4) no-right.

Token holder: A token holder is a Source that has been given a duty or a privilege or a
Recipient who has been given a right or no-right.

Trap of Legality: The trap that catches many legal thinkers involves the distinction between
conduct that is legal and conduct that is permissible. Conduct is legal in two ways; but conduct
is illegal in only one. Conduct is legal if it is done or not done in accordance with a permission
or in accordance with a command. Conduct is illegal if it is done or not done contrary to a
command. It is legal for a motorist to drive through a green light. However, it is legal because
it is mandatory not because it is permissible. (See, Test Your Legal Literacy by Answering One
Question by John Bosco). In a command and in a permission a lawmaker has no objection to
at least one polarity of conduct. This is the common characteristic that confuses many legal
thinkers. Any particular flow of conduct from Source to Recipient in circumstances cannot be
both permissible and mandatory at the same time. The way to avoid falling into this trap is to
keep in mind that

1. the process of making a law is about who decides whether to turn the flow of conduct
on or off: the lawmaker (i.e. regulation by the issuance of commands) or the source
(deregulation by the issuance of permissions). The same flow of conduct cannot be
both mandatory and permissible. Permissibility ipso facto means both polarities of
conduct are unobjectionable. Unless both polarities are unobjectionable, there is no
choice. Mandatory means one polarity of conduct is unobjectionable and the other is
objectionable.

2. a lawmaker holds any of three opinions about the same flow of conduct
a. likes it and wants the source to do it and wants the recipient to receive it, i.e.
wants to turn on the flow of conduct. This is externalized by a command for
affirmative conduct.
b. indifferent to it and doesn’t care whether the source does it or the recipient
receives it i.e. does not care whether the flow of conduct is on or off. This is
externalized by a permission for either polarity of conduct.
c. dislikes it and doesn’t want the source to do it and doesn’t want the recipient
to receive it i.e. wants to turn off the flow of conduct. This is externalized by a
command for negative conduct.

These opinions are mutually exclusive. A lawmaker can hold only one at a time.

This trap, therefore, is set when we divorce a law from the opinion of the lawmaker who issued it
- when formation is divorces from externalization.

Triangle of a Law: The Triangle of a Law is a mnemonic that helps us visualize the stage
upon which the process of making a law takes place. Its three (3) sides represents the three
relationships of A Unified Theory of a Law, two of which are legal and one of which is factual.
At its acme is the lawmaker who despises a flow of conduct from the Source to the Recipient
in circumstances at the base of the Triangle below. The base of the Triangle represents the
factual relationship of A Unified Theory of a Law. The two legs of the Triangle represent the two
legal relationships. One legal relationship is between the Lawmaker and the Source of Conduct.
The other legal relationship is between the Lawmaker and the Recipient of the consequences of
conduct.

Weight: Weight is a metaphor. It is a metaphor that is pertinent to the legal relationship

between a Lawmaker and a Source. The metaphor pertinent to the legal relationship between
a Lawmaker and a Recipient is standing. Weight is tactile; standing is visual. Weight has to
do with the heaviness of a Law. A law is either heavy or light. A heavy law is a command and
a duty. A light law is a permission and a privilege. When a lawmaker issues a command and
awards a Source a duty, a Source feels the weight of a Lawmaker. When a lawmaker issues a
permission and awards a Source a privilege, a Source does not feel the weight of a Lawmaker.
Weight is a way to talk about the process of making a law elliptically. When the focus is on a
Source it is less obscure if we talk about 1) a duty to do affirmative conduct 2) a privilege to do
either polarity of conduct or 3) a duty to do negative conduct. These are the three permutations
of a law available to a lawmaker when the focus is upon a Source.