Human social behaviour is complex and far reaching.
Its evolution is not the subject of this debate and perhaps (fruitlessly) one can speculate on its evolutionary – and perhaps inherited memory – origins.
Nonetheless, because of this intuitive capacity human social groups are capable of a high level of organization. This organization necessitates a mutual understanding of behavioural expectations. Not only that, but the depth of the expectation must be sufficient for each member of that society to accept it as an unquestioned “truth”.
Naturally the more homogenous the society so the less likely there are to be reinterpretations. Should there be reinterpretations of intuitive expectations of some humans about the behaviour of others, fragmentation of that society is probable. Perhaps these altered expectations (for that read rules of behaviour) change as mutations which may have long term advantages. However, for that to happen those portions of society which intuitively interpret behavioural expectations differently are likely to fragment away from the main body of society.
With the evolution of written records, it has become customary for these intuitive expectations, generally agreed amongst society at an intuitive level, to become written.
This must be considered to be the origin of law. Therefore law, by this definition, is simply inscribed intuitive behaviour.
Biblical references abound, perhaps the most significant of which were the inscription of the “Ten commandments”. These 10 commandments have become varied in their interpretation over historic time. Nevertheless the principle holds.
Unfortunately, multiple reinterpretations of these relatively simple inducted constructs became vulnerable to sophistry, changes of perception with context, and probably admixed by increasing inhomogeny as societies increased in size.
Thus law became progressively more complex and ultimately too complex to be understood intuitively. This led to the evolution of the “lawyer”. This person became progressively separated and distinct from the body of society.
Once this had occurred, the political influence on behaviour emerged. This is now distinguished as “statutory law” as opposed to “common law” which – as its name suggests- was the law adduced by common (for that read universal) opinion.
Such was the tabulation of law that it increased exponentially. It can now be demonstrated that law is so complex as to fulfil the definitions of fractal geometry.
Since the intuitive behaviour in accordance with law has long since been lost, behavioural enforcement became the standard. It was a short distance from that point that various “behavioural alteration” mechanics were introduced, primarily by the politician. Now known more widely as “behavioural engineering” this represents a substantial threat to the equilibrium, indeed even the continued existence of integral, homogenous societal behaviour.
The concept of “agreed” behaviour as it has been implied is not so much a cognitive agreement, but rather an acceptance of an inherent belief which is common. This is to be distinguished from “agreements” which are cognitive or quasi cognitive constructs enforced upon parties (or enforceable on parties) in the highly complex and artificial behavioural constructs that characterize recent centuries.
Since human cerebration is essentially binary, and purportedly linear (in the cause-and effect manner) such legal inscriptions have a superficial appeal which has been used to justify their rigidity and “absoluteness”.
This, of course, is contrary to all biological phenomena, including biological behaviour, which is characterized by the capacities to adjust flexibly and dynamically.
Therefore, seen in that light, the rigidity of law must be accepted as a perversion, contrary to the essential nature of biology – and by extension the performance biology of humans. The ominous threat which appears now imminent is that the complexity of law will become such as to be unworkable and “unaffordable”.
The outcome which can be expected is that of breakdown of the entire construct, anarchy, and consequently fragmentation of societies into relatively tiny groups. Polarisation and conflict, in such circumstances, then becomes inevitable. As would be expected different systems or “streams” of law evolved. To complicate matters further some of these were re-amalgamated one with the other and as “hybrid” systems of law.