Abstract
This excerpt from my dissertation outlines and explains what I have coined “pluralistic juridical nihilism.” I posit that the history of jurisprudence is largely fraudulent. The concept of “law” is not a fixed idea. Rather, law is a word that represents several concepts that change depending on the context in which it is used. To some degree, this essay supports the work of Dr. Glanville Williams on the subject but expands thereon by showing my own internal “pluralism”—several theories of jurisprudence may coexist at the exact same time without any conflict whatsoever. Ultimately, law is a word that evokes both sadness and joy. Importantly to me (and why I decided to write this essay), the word brings up the sadness and anger I felt when a police officer took a family member’s life. It brings up the shock I felt when another family member was taunted by a state court judge at a preliminary hearing. It reminds me of the joy I felt when I sued prisons and won injunctions to protect vulnerable individuals.
Keywords
Pluralistic Juridical Nihilism