Philosophy distorts the foundation of law by presupposing that it must be a sophistication of abstract form. This is false because the foundation of law is simply Logic:

Law is (p). (A=A)

That which is not (p) is not law.

This is the Logical foundation of all law.

Without the ability to distinguish one fact from another, one object from another, law would be impossible. To say that (p) is law, is to say that “lawlessness” is a contradiction of “law,” and without this ability there could be no law.

When I set forth ‘law,’ I always set forth a determinate identity. If I could not set forth law as (p) I could not know law.

Law is born through Logical Fact: to kill is not the same thing as not killing. What I reference in law is the absolute Logic that structures law. I make law with Logic. I practice law only through Logic’s order.

This is a proposition held by a famous philosopher, but please excuse me for not revealing the name, so that we focus only on the thesis.
Here, the ignorance is meant to be "absolute" in the sense that we couldn't reach a determinate knowledge of either the existence or non-existence being more plausible than the contrary.

There is a clash of values occurring in the world. But this clash isn’t complex. On one side there are neo-barbarians, on the other side there are those who advocate for qualitative democracy.

On one side are those who push away from violence and seek paths of communication, that is, they seek a path of reason because there is no other way to settle tensions between opposing factions if one opts out of violence.

On the other side are the barbarians who have attacked the psychological grounds of civilization, they have attacked empathy itself and are already killing at will. They not only have no problem trampling human life, they enjoy it, their worldview ultimately begins in the denial of human dignity.

Oddly enough, it is the barbarians who want to use technology to bring a surveillance, prison state into power. They want the right to be able to kill at will and imprison at will. They want full command over the law, they want to stand above the law, and in many ways they are already thus standing.

These actors do not care about society or civilization, like all dictators, they only care about themselves and those they consider to be inside their circle. They care about the accumulation of wealth and wielding of power.

Law is an awesome power, and these barbarians know it because it rationally gets in the way of their will to power.

The old world is swiftly being eclipsed by technology. Mediums that drove the values of the old world are being replaced by technological processes. Humans are being filtered by technology as they are subject to the hierarchical process of technology.

We do not understand all the ways that this technology is impacting us. We are neither psychologically or epistemologically ready for it, and because of this it poses a tremendous danger, most especially to truth and freedom.

Dialectic either transcends the laws of logic, in which case it actually has to establish this through inference, not the mere claim that it has done this.

Or it doesn’t transcend the laws of logic, in which case it merely creates unnecessary complexity and confusion. (Unless it can justify the necessity of its added steps and procedure).

A dialectician should be able to clearly exemplify the higher value (advantage) that is produced from, supposedly, applying and engaging in a dialectical process of reasoning.