User Name
Password

Go Back   Planetarion Forums > Non Planetarion Discussions > General Discussions

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 4 Jul 2006, 13:02   #1
JonnyBGood
Banned
 
JonnyBGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Individuality and laws

Or, more accurately, from where do they derive their moral character? From my perspective I'd view two, rather general, positions. First that "just" laws are based on what the members of society wish, or second that "just" laws are based on what the members of society are. Both seem to have flaws to me. If laws are based on what people wish you can have two approaches, all people must consent or a majority of people must consent. The first seems remarkably silly as everyone is required to agree on the issue, children, the mentally ill, koen. The second leaves us open to the unrestricted exploitation of minorities by the majority. So do we put in place restraints on what we can choose to do based on what we are?

What are we then? First and foremost we're intelligent beings, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion and I'd be waiting outside your house with an axe to kill you, take your house and shack up with your girlfriend. We need to pin down what intelligent means though. Generally we don't accept children as "intelligent" (in the way I am using the phrase) as we don't see anything wrong with restricting what they can and cannot do. The view is that they are, for a certain, and variable, period of time incapable of making decisions in their own best interests. However surely they don't wake up one day and they're rational adults?

So we have a problem defining what qualifies us as intelligent beings. Ignoring this problem briefly can we say anything about what being an intelligent being entitles us to? Not really. It's like trying to tax someone's income without knowing their income isn't it? However look at the analogy, there are constants, for us the method of taxation is the same. So we can say that if intelligence is x, then y. So if intelligence is being an independent rational being what are you entitled to? Nothing strikes me as self-evident here. Maybe if you base it on the words you use, you're independent, so you're entitled to independence, you're rational, so you're entitled to use your rationality, you're "being", so you're entitled to existence. None of that seems very secure though. Rather a house of cards built on a foundation of sand in the path of a hurricane isn't it?

So my questions to you are should there be restraints on individual action and how far can they go, what is an individual and what does being an individual mean? In future, when wondering whether a law is just or not, I would advise you to have an evolving answer to the last two questions and analyse the law using the first question. Consistency, my friend, is the key.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
JonnyBGood is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Jul 2006, 15:35   #2
Deffeh
Angry Young Man
 
Deffeh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Mister Cacciatore's down on Sullivan Street
Posts: 7,518
Deffeh has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deffeh has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deffeh has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deffeh has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deffeh has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deffeh has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deffeh has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deffeh has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deffeh has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deffeh has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deffeh has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Individuality and laws

This is interesting but i'm not entirely sure how to reply to it.

Something that often occurs to me when talking about laws, and tacit / express consent, is that quite often the theory comes after the implementation. Discussing how laws come about is all very well, but the fact of the matter is, they do.

The answer is probably that laws come about because lawmakers can implement them, and do so in their own image and moral frame, rather than any complex examination of human nature or objective morality.
__________________

Believe in me, cause i don't believe in anything
And i wanna be someone, to believe, to believe in
Deffeh is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Jul 2006, 16:03   #3
Nodrog
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Individuality and laws

It really depends on what you mean by 'moral character'. Taken literally, the question of where laws come from is fairly trivial; people with power issue a demand, and if they have enough force to back it up then others will listen, and a law is born. There are many variations on this theme (mainly involving where the force comes from, and the methods used to persuade others that the lawmakers deserve to hold power), but ultimately pretty much every 'law' in human history reduces to this.

Asking when a law has 'moral character' probably just means "when do you find a law morally acceptable?". And on some level, the answer is always going to be "when it is in accord with what I think is morally right". So it would perhaps be less ambiguous to just skip the legal question altogether and get down to fundamentals; I think youre essentially asking "where does morality come from?" (or "why do you hold the moral beliefs that you do?")

Last edited by Nodrog; 4 Jul 2006 at 16:09.
Nodrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Jul 2006, 16:12   #4
JonnyBGood
Banned
 
JonnyBGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Individuality and laws

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deffeh
Something that often occurs to me when talking about laws, and tacit / express consent, is that quite often the theory comes after the implementation. Discussing how laws come about is all very well, but the fact of the matter is, they do.
Well the question ultimately is should we obey laws or are we only obeying them out of fear of reprisal if we broke them?
Quote:
The answer is probably that laws come about because lawmakers can implement them, and do so in their own image and moral frame, rather than any complex examination of human nature or objective morality.
My question wasn't historical dude, it's philosophical. Obviously laws are exploitative power relations biased towards the dominant economic class but are there ideas which should be laws which we should respect?

Quote:
Asking when a law has 'moral character' probably just means "when do you find a law morally acceptable?". And the answer is going to be "when it is in accord with what I think is morally right". So it would probably be less ambiguous to just skip the legal question altogether and get down to fundamentals; I think youre essentially asking "where does morality come from?" (or "why do you hold the moral beliefs that you do?")
Partly yes, but ignoring the fact that both immediately and eventually decisions will have to be made over what are and are not just laws isn't wise. As I rather summed up in my concluding paragraph!

One should realise that the approach of "when you're reading a newspaper article about a proposed new law, try to think analytically" is easier to follow than "sit down and re-evaluate morality".
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.

Last edited by JonnyBGood; 4 Jul 2006 at 16:21.
JonnyBGood is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Jul 2006, 16:59   #5
Paisley
The brother of Spammer
 
Paisley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Paisley - Scotland
Posts: 2,352
Paisley is a glorious beacon of lightPaisley is a glorious beacon of lightPaisley is a glorious beacon of lightPaisley is a glorious beacon of lightPaisley is a glorious beacon of lightPaisley is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Individuality and laws

Laws are all about what you can get away with....
Paisley is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Jul 2006, 17:53   #6
JonnyBGood
Banned
 
JonnyBGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Individuality and laws

Fair enough, do you think that's intrinsic to any rules governing our lifes or something specific to do with how rules have developed historically?
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
JonnyBGood is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Jul 2006, 18:44   #7
Dante Hicks
Clerk
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Individuality and laws

Quote:
Originally Posted by JBG
So my questions to you are should there be restraints on individual action and how far can they go, what is an individual and what does being an individual mean?
This is rather broad, and difficult to answer in one post.

Overall I'd say that most philosophical approaches to this topic seem to be attempts to systematise basically intuitive notions of "fairness". One of the things that I like about the Dec of Independence is that it just says : we hold these truths to be self-evident. This seems to be a more honest approach then trying to retrospectively intellectually justify pre-existing ideas about morality.

Of course, some "intuitive" morals are bunk and can be torn down as generally harmful to freedom or justice generally. However, the base ideas seem to be rather axioms. Sure, we can try to analyse why some people dislike others suffering (e.g. appeals to psycho-analysis, looking at their cultural background, evolutionary psychological explanations about altruism and so on) but I'm not sure that really gets us anywhere.

I don't however think laws are just about restraints on individual action. I mean, perhaps most criminal law can be simplified down to that but that doesn't really tell us much about (say) tort or contracts. I think generally it's a notion of what's "fair" or not, and that heavily influences what laws tend to persist in most societies.
Dante Hicks is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Jul 2006, 18:58   #8
gzambo
Fightin-irish for life
 
gzambo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: guinness brewery
Posts: 2,177
gzambo has a brilliant futuregzambo has a brilliant futuregzambo has a brilliant futuregzambo has a brilliant futuregzambo has a brilliant futuregzambo has a brilliant futuregzambo has a brilliant futuregzambo has a brilliant futuregzambo has a brilliant futuregzambo has a brilliant futuregzambo has a brilliant future
Re: Individuality and laws

rules (or the law) has changed and adapted as society has evolved unfortunatley not always for the best
__________________
Ascendancy, now with added Irish

"In the absence of orders, find something and kill it."
-Rommel
gzambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Jul 2006, 19:04   #9
JonnyBGood
Banned
 
JonnyBGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Individuality and laws

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
This is rather broad, and difficult to answer in one post.
You don't have to answer them in one post dude!

Quote:
Overall I'd say that most philosophical approaches to this topic seem to be attempts to systematise basically intuitive notions of "fairness". One of the things that I like about the Dec of Independence is that it just says : we hold these truths to be self-evident. This seems to be a more honest approach then trying to retrospectively intellectually justify pre-existing ideas about morality.
I like the declaration of independence too but it seems to be just too much of a get-out clause. Self-evidential second-order facts can be denied and it's difficult to make a meaningful counter-argument beyond "u r wrong".

Quote:
Of course, some "intuitive" morals are bunk and can be torn down as generally harmful to freedom or justice generally. However, the base ideas seem to be rather axioms. Sure, we can try to analyse why some people dislike others suffering (e.g. appeals to psycho-analysis, looking at their cultural background, evolutionary psychological explanations about altruism and so on) but I'm not sure that really gets us anywhere.
Me neither. I didn't think I was doing that...

Quote:
I don't however think laws are just about restraints on individual action. I mean, perhaps most criminal law can be simplified down to that but that doesn't really tell us much about (say) tort or contracts. I think generally it's a notion of what's "fair" or not, and that heavily influences what laws tend to persist in most societies.
Surely you can just say "people cannot promise, where promise is defined as contract blah blah, to aid others in x way for y in return and not do so"? I'm afraid I don't really know of any law that doesn't boil down to individuals interacting.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
JonnyBGood is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Jul 2006, 19:21   #10
Dante Hicks
Clerk
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Individuality and laws

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Self-evidential second-order facts can be denied and it's difficult to make a meaningful counter-argument beyond "u r wrong".
I'm not sure there is much sensible discussion beyond that though. I mean, I can say "Well, I think people deserve rights because they have ratrionality" and we can debate ultimately what I mean by rights or by rationality but surely you get down to an axiomatic statement which is either satisfying to you as an individual or not. I don't see how we can reduce this to some logical test which can't be denied.
Quote:
Surely you can just say "people cannot promise, where promise is defined as contract blah blah, to aid others in x way for y in return and not do so"? I'm afraid I don't really know of any law that doesn't boil down to individuals interacting.
Well, of course all these things are about human interaction, but I don't think everything is about restrictions, as such. I mean, perhaps you could define all these things as restrictions, but I'm not sure that's a helpful way of analysing some aspects of interaction. Contract law isn't just about restricting what people can or can't promise something, it might also be about what's a reasonable length of time to (say) return an item when the contract is unclear on the matter, or something like that. When someone says "the law is unfair" they do not necessarily mean that x or y restriction is placed unfairly, they might also mean that the balance is too heavily weighted when looking at certain kinds of disputes.
Dante Hicks is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Jul 2006, 21:21   #11
Travler
Bona Fide Jesus Freak
 
Travler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In the Word of the Lord
Posts: 765
Travler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to all
Re: Individuality and laws

People are going to do certain things regardless of any laws. You may not be allowed to piss in public but when the need arises you may. So the question is do you piss in public out of need or because you could care about the laws?

Then there are things that a majority of society or at least the ones in power find morally wrong. Murder is usually wrong but it's ok if done by the government during war or to punish a violent offender. Also ok if the government is totalitarian and the one to be killed is speaking out against the governemnt. Then again it depends if your local government finds murder in any way ok or not. Some places do not have a death penalty.

Alot of laws pertain to property and who gets what, when, and under what conditions.

A comedian once said "Of course grown men want to have sex with teenage girls, thats why we have laws against this sort of thing." Some laws are meant to curb our natural tendancies.
__________________
Matthew 24:9 (New International Version) "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me."
Who the hell gave you posrep you christian fundamentalist?
god is bollox, mkay and you are not discussing it
You're not the voice of Christianity di**head.

CT R22-20, [1up] R18-16, TGV R15,
The Illuminati - [NoS] - R14-13
Travler is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Jul 2006, 22:46   #12
JonnyBGood
Banned
 
JonnyBGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Individuality and laws

Quote:
Originally Posted by Travler
People are going to do certain things regardless of any laws. You may not be allowed to piss in public but when the need arises you may. So the question is do you piss in public out of need or because you could care about the laws?
Pissing in public is rather a minor point of social order. In general it has a bit of a "tragedy of the commons" feel to it, in that if one person takes a piss up against a tree walking home from a nightclub it's not harming anyone. However obviously if everyone did it I imagine the world wouldn't exactly smell of roses, that said I can imagine the smell in a few places being improved. In general it's need versus respect for the laws. Sometimes people whose need is great enough will lash out and break the laws because they're that desperate.

Quote:
Then there are things that a majority of society or at least the ones in power find morally wrong. Murder is usually wrong but it's ok if done by the government during war or to punish a violent offender. Also ok if the government is totalitarian and the one to be killed is speaking out against the governemnt. Then again it depends if your local government finds murder in any way ok or not. Some places do not have a death penalty.
No dude, murder is always morally wrong. The word you're looking for is "killing". And I was asking what you think is right, not what governments say is right whenever they so choose.

Quote:
Alot of laws pertain to property and who gets what, when, and under what conditions.
I have absolutely no idea how this contradicts anything I said.

Quote:
A comedian once said "Of course grown men want to have sex with teenage girls, thats why we have laws against this sort of thing." Some laws are meant to curb our natural tendancies.
Well, this falls under the question of intelligence and being able to make your own decisions. While I'm sure many concerned souls out there will protest loudly at a 25 year old having sex with a 15 year old who protests over a 21 year old having sex with a 60 year old? I don't think you quite got what this thread was about. You seem to have just pointed to the current body of laws in western society and said "look, there's lots of them!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante
I'm not sure there is much sensible discussion beyond that though. I mean, I can say "Well, I think people deserve rights because they have ratrionality" and we can debate ultimately what I mean by rights or by rationality but surely you get down to an axiomatic statement which is either satisfying to you as an individual or not. I don't see how we can reduce this to some logical test which can't be denied.
Possibly not, however arguments in themselves can be compelling even if all they do is eventually offer a statement that you can agree or disagree with.

Quote:
Contract law isn't just about restricting what people can or can't promise something, it might also be about what's a reasonable length of time to (say) return an item when the contract is unclear on the matter, or something like that. When someone says "the law is unfair" they do not necessarily mean that x or y restriction is placed unfairly, they might also mean that the balance is too heavily weighted when looking at certain kinds of disputes.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Contracts shouldn't be unclear on those sorts of things and if they are it's more advantage to whoever has to gain from it. Obviously contracts aren't unlimited things, you can't sell yourself or your children into slavery, but generally restrictions on them are going to be of the same character as drug laws. Come on guys they're in place for your benefit!
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
JonnyBGood is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Jul 2006, 00:07   #13
Travler
Bona Fide Jesus Freak
 
Travler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In the Word of the Lord
Posts: 765
Travler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to all
Re: Individuality and laws

Personally I think alot of laws are created upon the assumption that most people cannot be trusted to supervise themselves in regard to moral behavior. In other words most people are incapable of rational thought in how they should behave without having a set of rules or laws to follow.

Morals is where we have certain attitudes about things from a social, economic, religeous, or political viewpoint. The morals of a society can be the same as the law which often happens in a religeous state. Most often the moral standards are higher than the laws which leave a section in between that most call ethics. Most people function in this area between the law and what they feel is morally acceptable. Some people disagree or disregard a law and operate on their own moral standards.

BTW I saw this movie called "Beyond the Gates of Splendor." It was about a small group of missionaries that went to teach a small south or central american tribe. The tribe was brutal and murder was socially accepted and a normal part of the tribes culture as a mean of dispute resolution or as a means of showing power and gaining control. They would murder people in their sleep and then take everything they had including the women. Needless to say this small tribe was getting smaller each time there was a power struggle. They had no moral viewpoints on murder. It was simply a way of doing things to them. By the end of the movie it was revealed that they had changed their viewpoints about murder/killing due to the work of the surviving missionaries.
__________________
Matthew 24:9 (New International Version) "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me."
Who the hell gave you posrep you christian fundamentalist?
god is bollox, mkay and you are not discussing it
You're not the voice of Christianity di**head.

CT R22-20, [1up] R18-16, TGV R15,
The Illuminati - [NoS] - R14-13
Travler is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Jul 2006, 09:46   #14
JonnyBGood
Banned
 
JonnyBGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Individuality and laws

Quote:
Originally Posted by Travler
Personally I think alot of laws are created upon the assumption that most people cannot be trusted to supervise themselves in regard to moral behavior. In other words most people are incapable of rational thought in how they should behave without having a set of rules or laws to follow.
Undoubtedly. However I don't believe this assumption is correct. Do you?

Quote:
Morals is where we have certain attitudes about things from a social, economic, religeous, or political viewpoint. The morals of a society can be the same as the law which often happens in a religeous state. Most often the moral standards are higher than the laws which leave a section in between that most call ethics. Most people function in this area between the law and what they feel is morally acceptable. Some people disagree or disregard a law and operate on their own moral standards.
Ah, but why? Are we confusing morals with freedom of choice? Nobody considers it a moral issue if someone walks to work or rides a bike. Also the study of morality is ethics, I'm not sure what "area in between" you think ethics occupies.

Quote:
BTW I saw this movie called "Beyond the Gates of Splendor." It was about a small group of missionaries that went to teach a small south or central american tribe. The tribe was brutal and murder was socially accepted and a normal part of the tribes culture as a mean of dispute resolution or as a means of showing power and gaining control. They would murder people in their sleep and then take everything they had including the women. Needless to say this small tribe was getting smaller each time there was a power struggle. They had no moral viewpoints on murder. It was simply a way of doing things to them. By the end of the movie it was revealed that they had changed their viewpoints about murder/killing due to the work of the surviving missionaries.
That seems to be a fairly bizzare remnant of hunter-gatherer civilisation. Previously, obviously, to the rise of sedentary agricultural societies killing your "competitors" was not an intrinsically destructive act, due to the isolated nature of your existence. (Er, also was that just a movie or did it actually happen?)
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
JonnyBGood is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Jul 2006, 10:29   #15
Dante Hicks
Clerk
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Individuality and laws

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
I'm not sure what you mean here. Contracts shouldn't be unclear on those sorts of things and if they are it's more advantage to whoever has to gain from it.
The point is there's always going to be some ambiguity in human relations and some of the law is to arbritrate disputes. We can't write contracts like a programming language which will alway be interpreted identically.

My point is that this idea of the law being identical with restrictions isn't really accurate : that might apply to criminal laws, but not to other types of law. I can't see this going away any time soon - even in a society with no crime or state I can easily imagine a scenario where I trip over a bit of private pavement you own and wanting some sort of compensation because you've neglected your duty to maintain it, or something like that.
Dante Hicks is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Jul 2006, 10:42   #16
JonnyBGood
Banned
 
JonnyBGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Individuality and laws

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
The point is there's always going to be some ambiguity in human relations and some of the law is to arbritrate disputes. We can't write contracts like a programming language which will alway be interpreted identically.
Obviously we're not looking for exact be-all and end-all dead certs, but basic similarities and principles are a necessity for rational examination of our laws. Referencing my end-point in the first thread a bit while everyone thinks about murder or armed robbery and wonders how the law should deal with murderers and robbers not everyone is kept awake at night by the vagaries of tort law.

Quote:
My point is that this idea of the law being identical with restrictions isn't really accurate : that might apply to criminal laws, but not to other types of law.
But laws are descriptions of what you can't, and can by exclusion, do.

Quote:
I can't see this going away any time soon - even in a society with no crime or state I can easily imagine a scenario where I trip over a bit of private pavement you own and wanting some sort of compensation because you've neglected your duty to maintain it, or something like that.
What were you doing on my property? Your example isn't very good dude! Perhaps I went too far though and a more limited viewpoint considering just criminal law as opposed to "social order laws", which would include things such as pollution and travler's example where a cumulative effect has the potential to exist.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
JonnyBGood is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Jul 2006, 12:36   #17
Snurx
Dirte
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 5,573
Snurx spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldSnurx spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldSnurx spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldSnurx spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldSnurx spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldSnurx spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldSnurx spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldSnurx spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldSnurx spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldSnurx spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldSnurx spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus would
Re: Individuality and laws

Laws are made for the sole basis of protecting the current social model.

I think most rational people will agree on a few basic things as morally wrong. Things like rape, slavery, racism and polluting can be things that I would hope most people can agree to is wrong. But there is no reason to have laws to stop these things, as they wont be stopped by laws. Rape happens, murder happens, violence happens even if the law says they should not. Laws arent meant to stop criminals or people with mentall problems, they are meant to hold the general public in fear of breaking these invisible chains. Combined with the fear that the lawmakers put into the genreal population, it gives them a awesome weapon in the fight against what they say is morally wrong.

These things could be enforced by local communes just as easily (and probably much better) then any court and judge. Of course, a strong sense of right and wrong is nessecary for these communes, as sentencing and imprisonment are also things that I would hope most people can someday see as morally wrong. Not to take vengeance, but to protect the lifehood of the general majority, you could issue things that are alike to punishment, but in another form then todays.

Removing laws regarding property, and removing the basis of social need, would cut down on what is precived as crimes today by a very large precentage. Basing our life on solidarity and cooperation instead of egoism and selfcentring would make us more capable of sharing our common needs and working them out, thus removing the need for these laws.

I think these things is something that is true for all forms of law and order, no matter if its turbocapitalism, fascism, or communism.
Law, order, punishment and sentencing are a barbaric tradition, that still gives lawmakers power and still gives the general population a morality thats beyond all logic. Its populist nature is sickening, as is its effects on those who is oppressed in a greater way by it.
Snurx is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Jul 2006, 13:16   #18
Dante Hicks
Clerk
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Individuality and laws

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Referencing my end-point in the first thread a bit while everyone thinks about murder or armed robbery and wonders how the law should deal with murderers and robbers not everyone is kept awake at night by the vagaries of tort law.
I don't know, I think all these issues come under the general heading of "justice" and that is a wider question which we do all consider all the time. I think there's an ideological split here though, from previous discussions with the right-libertarians on this forum they seem to view things very differently. For some reason I am heavily reminded of this thread (posts 76 - 89)
Quote:
What were you doing on my property?
Visiting your shop, or travelling down an established right of way, that sort of thing. If the state (or the community) doesn't "own" the roads then someone does, which by definition will be someone's (private) property.
Dante Hicks is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Jul 2006, 14:20   #19
JonnyBGood
Banned
 
JonnyBGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Individuality and laws

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
I don't know, I think all these issues come under the general heading of "justice" and that is a wider question which we do all consider all the time. I think there's an ideological split here though, from previous discussions with the right-libertarians on this forum they seem to view things very differently. For some reason I am heavily reminded of this thread (posts 76 - 89)
I wasn't saying I think it's great that people aren't concerned about private property rights. I was saying they're more concerned with criminal law and if you want a starting point from which to urge people to rationally analyse their beliefs it's a good one.

Quote:
Visiting your shop, or travelling down an established right of way, that sort of thing. If the state (or the community) doesn't "own" the roads then someone does, which by definition will be someone's (private) property.
Presuming you were made explicitly aware that my floor, or roads, may be in bad condition I don't see why I would owe you anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snurx
These things could be enforced by local communes just as easily (and probably much better) then any court and judge. Of course, a strong sense of right and wrong is nessecary for these communes, as sentencing and imprisonment are also things that I would hope most people can someday see as morally wrong. Not to take vengeance, but to protect the lifehood of the general majority, you could issue things that are alike to punishment, but in another form then todays.
The point of courts and judges is to avoid the natural element of bias from influencing decisions (as much as possible). I think simplifying it down to the "local" level would cause many miscarriages of justice in the long term.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
JonnyBGood is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Jul 2006, 14:56   #20
Dante Hicks
Clerk
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Individuality and laws

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Presuming you were made explicitly aware that my floor, or roads, may be in bad condition I don't see why I would owe you anything.
I think we're presuming that you didn't let me know, for it to be a sensible analogy. Obviously if someone fully warns you of the dangers of something and you still injure yourself doing it then you've got no claim in most sane scenarios, but that's fairly self-evident.
Dante Hicks is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Jul 2006, 15:47   #21
JonnyBGood
Banned
 
JonnyBGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Individuality and laws

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
I think we're presuming that you didn't let me know, for it to be a sensible analogy. Obviously if someone fully warns you of the dangers of something and you still injure yourself doing it then you've got no claim in most sane scenarios, but that's fairly self-evident.
I'm confused about who would object to these rules? If you're going to offer a service on your property obviously you can't start randomly executing people without any warning when they walk into your shop just because it's your property.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
JonnyBGood is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jul 2006, 11:25   #22
Travler
Bona Fide Jesus Freak
 
Travler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In the Word of the Lord
Posts: 765
Travler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to all
Re: Individuality and laws

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
That seems to be a fairly bizzare remnant of hunter-gatherer civilisation. Previously, obviously, to the rise of sedentary agricultural societies killing your "competitors" was not an intrinsically destructive act, due to the isolated nature of your existence. (Er, also was that just a movie or did it actually happen?)
The movie was more like a Christian propaganda/documentary about the actual events.
__________________
Matthew 24:9 (New International Version) "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me."
Who the hell gave you posrep you christian fundamentalist?
god is bollox, mkay and you are not discussing it
You're not the voice of Christianity di**head.

CT R22-20, [1up] R18-16, TGV R15,
The Illuminati - [NoS] - R14-13
Travler is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jul 2006, 11:33   #23
JonnyBGood
Banned
 
JonnyBGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Individuality and laws

Quote:
Originally Posted by Travler
The movie was more like a Christian propaganda/documentary about the actual events.
Like the new testament am i rite am i rite i think i am!
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
JonnyBGood is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jul 2006, 12:11   #24
Dante Hicks
Clerk
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Individuality and laws

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snurx
But there is no reason to have laws to stop these things, as they wont be stopped by laws. Rape happens, murder happens, violence happens even if the law says they should not.
I know what you mean here, and I agree up to a point, but one of the advantages having a reasonably well defined set of laws (either as a set of actual laws or rulings in previous cases) because we can define some of the gray areas. We all agree rape is wrong I'm sure, but then we probably don't all agree 100% of when something is rape and so on.

Quote:
Laws arent meant to stop criminals or people with mentall problems, they are meant to hold the general public in fear of breaking these invisible chains.
Again, I agree but this is taking too far. You could say that having a rule in place justifies (or legitimises) punishments when it is broken. However, I do think you make a good point about rules only being useful against those who would obey them anyway. A lot of the more minor legal changes we've seen recently strike as slightly cowardly, or perhaps just cheap.

As a couple of examples : As part of some attempt to raise standards in educations, schools are now entitled (and perhaps even obliged) to threaten parents who take their kids on holiday in term time with expulsion. It seems a really strange policy. The parents who genuinely don't give a **** about their kids education are clearly going to ignore this anyway, and so it's really only of use against parents who care...which seems slightly redundant.

The government want to change the rules on the distinction between posession & intent to supply when someone is caught with drugs. And the limits they're suggesting are ridiculously low - to the point where as the Guardian is pointing out that someone caught with enough weed for 10 joints could (theoretically) be imprisoned for 14 years. But the point is that this is going to have zero impact on any serious professional criminal and is only really going to have an impact at people at the bottom. And that's probably the point, but it seems rather cowardly to me.

There are other examples too, e.g. withdrawing housing benefit from people who cause antisocial behaviour, but they all seem to face the main theme. I guess it's easy to punish people who have things to lose, but they're not always the ones who need to be punished.
Dante Hicks is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jul 2006, 02:03   #25
Travler
Bona Fide Jesus Freak
 
Travler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In the Word of the Lord
Posts: 765
Travler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to all
Re: Individuality and laws

I was taught in college that America was founded mostly because of the tyranny of England concerning property rights and commerce more so than lack of self government or british troops having free reign over the people in the colonies. It was the taxation that caused more strife and motivated the people more than anything else.

I could be wrong but this is what I taught about American History and Revolutionary War.
__________________
Matthew 24:9 (New International Version) "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me."
Who the hell gave you posrep you christian fundamentalist?
god is bollox, mkay and you are not discussing it
You're not the voice of Christianity di**head.

CT R22-20, [1up] R18-16, TGV R15,
The Illuminati - [NoS] - R14-13
Travler is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jul 2006, 06:21   #26
jt25man
Victim of Marriage
 
jt25man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 784
jt25man has much to be proud ofjt25man has much to be proud ofjt25man has much to be proud ofjt25man has much to be proud ofjt25man has much to be proud ofjt25man has much to be proud ofjt25man has much to be proud ofjt25man has much to be proud ofjt25man has much to be proud ofjt25man has much to be proud of
Re: Individuality and laws

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Obviously laws are exploitative power relations biased towards the dominant economic class but are there ideas which should be laws which we should respect?
I know this is going back a bit, but I agree with this statement. I've also noticed that those in the higher social and economical class are "punished" less harshly than those in lower classes. For instance someone commits armed robbery because they can't get a decent enough job to pay rent, they get 5-10 years in state prison, while executives who commit "white collar" crimes of fraud and steals a couple million dollars they get 6 months in a minimum security (usually federal) prison (at least in US), and maybe a small slap on the wrist fine.
jt25man is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jul 2006, 06:55   #27
SilverSmoke
Guy next door
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 4,745
SilverSmoke contributes so much and asks for so littleSilverSmoke contributes so much and asks for so littleSilverSmoke contributes so much and asks for so littleSilverSmoke contributes so much and asks for so littleSilverSmoke contributes so much and asks for so littleSilverSmoke contributes so much and asks for so littleSilverSmoke contributes so much and asks for so littleSilverSmoke contributes so much and asks for so littleSilverSmoke contributes so much and asks for so littleSilverSmoke contributes so much and asks for so littleSilverSmoke contributes so much and asks for so little
Re: Individuality and laws

That also might have to do with the fact that most armed robberies involve physical/mental danger/harm on human beings.

Preventing violence is a good reason to create a law.
__________________
..look
SilverSmoke is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jul 2006, 17:57   #28
Snurx
Dirte
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 5,573
Snurx spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldSnurx spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldSnurx spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldSnurx spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldSnurx spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldSnurx spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldSnurx spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldSnurx spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldSnurx spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldSnurx spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldSnurx spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus would
Re: Individuality and laws

SilverSmoke, can you please show me how a law can stop violence?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
The point of courts and judges is to avoid the natural element of bias from influencing decisions (as much as possible). I think simplifying it down to the "local" level would cause many miscarriages of justice in the long term.
Yes, it might. But then again, courts today are not fair, not unbiased, and do alot of miscarriages. I know of cases where people are fined just beacause they were arrested at a certain place, so that the police could say they had arrested the people who vandalized. Judges and especially jurymembers are very influenced by the media or political pressure (this includes from the police).
There was a bankrobbery in Norway where a policeman was shot dead. People where going nuts, yelling about attack on our democracy and whatnot. The policework, sentences, and cost to us taxpayers where beyond anything.

The point is that these local level "courts" would not sentence, or imprison. Just be a forum where people could discuss any problems. The strongest reaction I can see is forced treatment, and that is just if the person is crazy (as in a danger to itself or others beacause of a mentall problem). The strongest reaction a community could impose would be exile. I can't force anybody to be imprisoned, but I could sure as hell refuse to give a rapist my work. There might be miscarriages, but the implications wont be as bad as they are today. As long as humans are involved, things can go wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante
I know what you mean here, and I agree up to a point, but one of the advantages having a reasonably well defined set of laws (either as a set of actual laws or rulings in previous cases) because we can define some of the gray areas. We all agree rape is wrong I'm sure, but then we probably don't all agree 100% of when something is rape and so on..
That is very true. However, laws today don't do that to a great extent. If you are in the grey areas of the law, its up to luck. We will never agree to what consitutes a rape (or we might, but the general public wont) BUT a community can.
And this one advantage of having a clear set of laws does not mean that it overshadows the negative sides.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante
Again, I agree but this is taking too far. You could say that having a rule in place justifies (or legitimises) punishments when it is broken. However, I do think you make a good point about rules only being useful against those who would obey them anyway. A lot of the more minor legal changes we've seen recently strike as slightly cowardly, or perhaps just cheap..
It does justify punishent in they eyes of the law. But common sense does the same, and to a greater extent. My natural reaction if somebody punched me would be to punch back, not call somebody else to do it for me. If you punch somebody, you should be ready for a punch back, but imprisonment just seems odd and barbaric to me.
Of course, a thaiboxer running amok is another matter, but that is not a naturall reacion either. Personally I'm under the belief that if somebody clicks, a community can handle itself, with less damage both to the community and the crazy person then if the old bill is included. This is from experience working as a steward.
__________________
"Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in this; that he makes waffles not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely conceives it, wants it, and loves it."
Snurx is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:27.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018