“There is but one rule that everybody ought to know: That all men are created equally, and that no man ought to be above the law.” This is a famous quote of Robert Gibson. In his book, The Laws of Success, Gibson has made this same statement. The problem with this famous quote of Gibson’s is that there are two conflicting theories on what The 11th Amendment means. This article will look at both the beliefs regarding Gibson’s laws, and that the correct interpretation should be.
According to The 11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, every citizen has the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. According to some people, these three rights should mean the same thing. They believe that the “pursuit of happiness” includes the right to own property and have access to education, healthcare, work, travel, and a level of taxation that allow them to achieve that level of wealth. These people believe that the “pursuit of happiness” includes having access to wealth.
The opposite of this belief is the view that the “pursuit of happiness” does not include the ability to have wealth. For example, some people may believe that the law is about personal freedom, and that people are permitted to pursue wealth creation in their own private lives. Others will argue that the law has to do with respecting other people’s rights to wealth creation. There are other arguments as well.
The wealth-creation theory
The wealth-creation theory means that the laws exist to help prevent the government from interfering with the wealth creators. So if a person believes that the government should not interfere with wealth creation or does not have the power to do so, these people would be against the law. However, this can seem like a rather extreme view. There are many problems with this kind of argument, for instance, it is unlikely that the laws will prevent the government from stealing from its citizens, or from abusing its power in the process.
If the wealth-creation theory is that the law exists to prevent people from being taken advantage of by other people, then it could be true. However, this is probably not the case. If we look at the history of laws that have been passed or attempted to be passed, we see that there are always exceptions to the general rule.
Another problem with the wealth-creation theory is that it seems to suggest that law only applies to a very narrow slice of society. It seems to suggest that if you are smart, successful, and know how to get yourself out of any kind of legal bind, then you can use any law to your advantage. This is certainly true. It is certainly possible that the law will not apply to everyone, and that there will be plenty of laws on when and how people should have their wealth protected.
The real problem with the wealth-creation argument is that it is suggesting that law is magic, and that there is no way to avoid it. If wealth protection is magic, then what would prevent people from stealing? After all, stealing will always be legal under the law. This is not only false but also ignoring the fact that human beings are emotional creatures, and will act in ways that will sometimes be outside the realm of legality.
Gibson’s Laws might be a useful model for teaching law students about why certain acts are illegal. Unfortunately, there is nothing concrete to base this model on. There is no guarantee that the model will work or even exist. If you are interested in learning more about Gibson’s laws, the best source is usually a good book. A great book to start with is No Evil Lawyer by Kevin Dunn.