2
   

How law works and why it does not.

 
 
Fido
 
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2007 06:07 pm
We have more people per capita in the system than ever before in history. We have more rich people who are fabulously rich than ever before. Law makes this possible since peace is required for trade and the accumulation of wealth. And it takes a great deal of wealth production to support both prisoner and the wealthy. But Law breaks down communities because the need for group control, group responsibility, and group defense and vengeance is seen as past. Yet, the power of law is possible because no one can stand alone against the power of the state, and yet all are forced to. The rise of the individual follows the power of the church in the middle ages. That age had a tremenous focus on legality, and since they resurrected the laws of Justinian they needed Greek philosophy to follow the logic, and understand them. There is no question that wealth and capital grew under the umbrella of law, just as law protects trade and property today. The question I have for you is: what are the long term benefits, and what are the draw backs of law? To my perception, people can have peace and enough prosperty with little law. Why the need for such an abundance? And, some peoples, like the Muslims believe people have an absolute right to justice. People overly concerned with justice never grow too wealthy, nor know too much of peace. The peace we know in our society is often beside much injustice. Yet, if we do not always have justice because we can freely pursue it with violence, that does not mean the need is gone with the power to enforce it. Where the people are powerless and justice is not within reach it is certain they will need war and seek war for an outlet for their frustrations.
 
l0ck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2007 06:51 pm
@Fido,
i know when you refer to "law" you refer to man made laws, but let me bring up another point first, and hopefully you can try to make a connection
law is everywhere
it moves the planets and the stars
everything is subject to natural laws
the absolute even abides by its own laws in order to create opposition
when an event seems miraculous, it is because the operative laws are not part of the contemporary conventional wisdom. The Absolute is subject to the imperatives of its own laws.
another words, the absolute makes up obstacles of itself in order to further its self realization
opposition is a way of learning
opposition allows us as spiritual beings to absorb quality and learn
the more difficult the obstacle the greater the reward in terms of quality or experience
to me laws are apart of conflict and opposition and are apart of the negentropic process the absolute uses to develop and augment itself
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2007 11:44 pm
@l0ck,
Smile
I only have one question,what is the absolute which is in the process of self-realization?
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2007 01:09 pm
@l0ck,
l0ck wrote:
i know when you refer to "law" you refer to man made laws, but let me bring up another point first, and hopefully you can try to make a connection
law is everywhere
it moves the planets and the stars
everything is subject to natural laws
the absolute even abides by its own laws in order to create opposition
when an event seems miraculous, it is because the operative laws are not part of the contemporary conventional wisdom. The Absolute is subject to the imperatives of its own laws.
another words, the absolute makes up obstacles of itself in order to further its self realization
opposition is a way of learning
opposition allows us as spiritual beings to absorb quality and learn
the more difficult the obstacle the greater the reward in terms of quality or experience
to me laws are apart of conflict and opposition and are apart of the negentropic process the absolute uses to develop and augment itself


Let me agree with you that when a formulation of behavior is arrived at concerning the natural world, what we would call a LAW, then it is illogical to consider any other happening. It is illogical to think an object, when dropped will fall up.
On the other hand, laws of a social nature tend to be constructed from a formulation of human behavior, and how a desired end might be arrived at from threats, admonitions, incentives, or punishments. Even if a moral purpose is desired, one should still ask: how moral is the desire to bend people to a certain will. We know the penal system is based upon a false psychology holding a well and happy person as an ideal. If you threaten a normal person you may get a desired form of behavior. If you threaten some one already brutalized by life the response may be entirely unexpected. You might better ask, is the penal system designed to get the law abiding to continue on that course, or to right the violent, or anti social. I think it is more about making the good feel good than about making the bad feel bad. It is too difficult to make a person feel wrong when they have been wronged than if they had never been wronged.

Law like every individual thing is a form of relationship. Does it work? Does it not justify so much of what we hate to avoid what we fear? Let me offer you a terrible violent crime: Child abuse. It makes us feel good to put the criminals of this crime away for long stretches of time. What -if this results in a single child being killed because a criminal wants to escape capture when capture means life in jail. Is it ever worth it? Is it worth it to the one who dies? With time almost any pain or injury can be recovered from. Death is the exception, and is it worth it to society to punish with severity if that makes the criminal more brutal, more dangerous, and more careful? In the ideal, both criminal and society forgive each other, and get on with their lives. We see increasingly that every criminal is getting the mark of Cain, so that while none may injure him none need help him. Felons can be denied employment, and denied their vote. Are they not rehabilitated, restored to honor? If not; what are they doing free at all. Are they cut loose only to prove their freedom a failure?
l0ck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 11:20 pm
@Fido,
the absolute itself is basically existance
it is everything and all inclusive existance that expresses itself of infinitely and finite magnitudes
the absolute must express itself in every possible variation of expression good and bad
including the expression of self-realization
but it seems to learn by fooling itself basically
its a negentropic process
it seporates itself into finite magnitudes in order to achieve self awareness of its completeness
like you cannot know love without hate
or u cannot know light without dark
all aspects of the absolute are qualitative
we can start with any one quality and lead to the other
we can tell it expresses itself through energy and non-energy, energy having quality, both energy and quality are measurable
non-energy expressions are not measurable
non-energy expressions like cohesion hold energy in the form of mass, giving it quality, which is measurable
the finite environment around us is all energy
each brain just interprets its mass uniquely
the absolute expresses itself with an infinite number of awareness centers known as monads
monads are not of time-space, they exist in the infinite magnitude
every living thing can contain any number of monads
but there is only 1 host monad in each living thing
the monads become aware by absorbing qualities released by mass, which are literally pieces of the absolute, interpreted as mass and given manifestation in the brain
and together they form the complete awareness of the absolute eventually
in order for absolute expression to exist a finite magnitude must also exist separated into pieces and that is us right now, this is separation and effluxion of time
it is how the absolute exists eternally
through constant discovery and expression
monads are purely qualitative awareness centers whos purpose is to become aware and completely aware by use of the creative intelligence
and thats what we are doing
god i think is the absolute
the creative intelligence is why things happen though. it commands energy
energy gets absorbed by monads because of the creative intelligence
the creative intelligence is basically the decision maker and it is the reason anything happens
each time the universe is born a creative intelligence is born, a collective consciousness
once all time-space energy is absorbed by the creative intelligence it becomes one and starts all over again with another universe and another expression
the creative intelligences purpose is to get back to singularity
but it happens over a period of time, the illusion of separation of the absolute
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Sep, 2007 07:38 pm
@l0ck,
See: Anthropomorphism.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Dec, 2007 12:41 pm
@Fido,
Quote:
The question I have for you is: what are the long term benefits, and what are the draw backs of law?


This depends upon the nature of the law. I share your concerns with law and injustice. Wasn't law supposed to promote justice?
I think the problem is that law has lost sight of it's intent - this is an easy diagnosis. What is difficult is identifying the errors within the law that lead to the failure (which may even be the law itself).

One distinction I find useful is one of property, the difference between legally preserved ownership, and the possession of property. What right has a man to some property, let us imagine a plot of land, if he has no use for the land? If he does not work the land with his own hands? Here, I believe, we find the problem of law. This land, only known to the owner for it's revenue and loss, is worked by hired men. These hirelings do all of the work, yet everywhere in our society they receives the most meager portion of it's produce. What natural right to this land can the proprietor claim?

The law upholds and defends the unnatural ownership of property. As property is stored away by the few, the many have less to go around. Hardly a soul owns his home; the supposedly advanced nations of the world are nations of renters, men who live perpetually in debt. They work today to pay today's bills, and will work tomorrow for tomorrow's debts. At the end of his life, he will leave a little money if he is lucky; most will leave still more debts, for which the law demands the children bear responsibility.

You may be interested in looking into some of Proudhon's work. Some of his books can be found online for free.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Dec, 2007 09:48 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
This depends upon the nature of the law. I share your concerns with law and injustice. Wasn't law supposed to promote justice?
I think the problem is that law has lost sight of it's intent - this is an easy diagnosis. What is difficult is identifying the errors within the law that lead to the failure (which may even be the law itself).

Yes, and as I may have said earlier, Law is a form of relationship. I have an excellent book called Law and Revolution, the formation of the Western Legal Tradition, by Harold J. Berman which won an award as the best book of its sort in 1984. If that seems old, the subject is old and the book is very much in print. In any event, the sources of our law, the Bible, German Tribal Law, Roman Law, and Cannon Law are all relics of a bygone age, and we see everyday its progeny in its dotage. More than any form we deal with, Law exercises its grip on all our affairs from cradle to grave. I think it is The Problem, more than any other problem we face. When our politicians say: We are a nation of laws they are missing the point that all Nations must have some other glue to bind them besides ancient rules and privilages. And what does it matter when the President can say: I am the Law. The tower of power has become so shaky that none on the top dares to rock and roll in a test of the law he commands. So, ultimately the question comes down to this: Is the law above our ability to change, or must we all be changed by it? Why we seek forms in our lives is obvious. We want to build stability into our societies, and relationships. Does it work in the instance of law if we must all have a lawyer in our pockets before we dare to talk to our neighbors?

Quote:

One distinction I find useful is one of property, the difference between legally preserved ownership, and the possession of property. What right has a man to some property, let us imagine a plot of land, if he has no use for the land? If he does not work the land with his own hands? Here, I believe, we find the problem of law. This land, only known to the owner for it's revenue and loss, is worked by hired men. These hirelings do all of the work, yet everywhere in our society they receives the most meager portion of it's produce. What natural right to this land can the proprietor claim?

In the area of property I would classify it all that is not personal property or intellectual property as a privilege. Republics are common wealths. This whole country was brought into being by Capture. This whole country either belongs to all the people or to the rich only so long as they can hold it. Now; can we say in every case that the people should not directly benefit from what is our common property? I say: The property should pay its way in private hands, and show a public benefit. When property paid for the government of this country, as we were constituted, then, the need for labor to improve and make the property profitable made labor dear and property cheap. With labor bearing the cost of society, property can be a bank of wealth condensing into fewer and fewer hands while the price of labor is always pressed to its lowest point. Property has so much political power in this country because it was supposed to pay its way. Now it has power without obligation to any but itself.

Quote:

The law upholds and defends the unnatural ownership of property. As property is stored away by the few, the many have less to go around. Hardly a soul owns his home; the supposedly advanced nations of the world are nations of renters, men who live perpetually in debt. They work today to pay today's bills, and will work tomorrow for tomorrow's debts. At the end of his life, he will leave a little money if he is lucky; most will leave still more debts, for which the law demands the children bear responsibility.

You may be interested in looking into some of Proudhon's work. Some of his books can be found online for free.

So, I have already agreed with you. It is unnatural. Propertyis never private unless personal. Rather, anyone who can be a good steward of wealth should be allowed to make more of it, understanding that wealth, whenit represents power for one and poverty for another cannot be allowed to become our heritage. Equality is essential to a democracy. Inequality of wealth and power can everywhere be shown to result in injustice and inequalites of rights, and political inequalities. Today, those who own all the property neither defend the land nor pay for its defense. Today, those who have nothing to show from this country, who own no part of this country must support it and risk their lives in its defense. Law is like any other form of relationship. Every form can be manipulated to ones benefit until it loses meaning completely as a relationship. That is where we are in this nation of laws. They do not follow law on the top. Why should anyone follow law on the bottom?

I think I should like to read Proudhon's: The Poverty of Philosophy. Certainly, the title in itself is an argument few can refute. If philosophy dared to challenge the status quo, perhaps more people would be willing. Nothing on earth is worse than a problem unresolved and left to fester or grow worse. If we understand we are dealing with a simple form, just as Jefferson said: "forms to which they are accustomed", then what does it take to approach the problem like any other; To say: people have always changed forms all the time when better suited their purpose. The problem is well illustrated by The declaration of Independence. Even as an act of grand larceny, of the theft of rights en masse from the king and country of England; it is still presented as a legal brief. The ultra, and over arching form of law was one no one dared to live without. But it is just a form. It is just a social machine long past due for a rebuild. And, most of its premises should be tossed out whole. This little dog is hiking his leg up against the tower of power. I suggest you do the same.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Dec, 2007 05:19 pm
@Fido,
Quote:
In any event, the sources of our law, the Bible, German Tribal Law, Roman Law, and Cannon Law are all relics of a bygone age, and we see everyday its progeny in its dotage.


I'm not sure where you are from, though, most law in the US comes from English common law, with the exception of Louisiana which is derived from French code. Either way, the bodies of law you mention certainly influenced these systems. As for the book, I'm not familiar with it, though I have to wonder if Mr. Berman brought up this point: law changes constantly. Certainly, our laws can be traced back to ancient and more primitive systems, but these systems have radically changed. Law is always changing, and changing to meet the demands of the modern world. We see this happening in a very visible way with laws regarding the internet.
Even though our systems can be traced back to systems which are without question antiquated, our systems seem to be able to meet the demands of the chaning world.

Quote:
More than any form we deal with, Law exercises its grip on all our affairs from cradle to grave.


Law is influential in our lives, yes, but how significant? In the case of laws which limit individual liberty, such laws certainly are out of place. But are the legal ramifications of murder and theft really so intrusive on our lives?

Quote:
When our politicians say: We are a nation of laws they are missing the point that all Nations must have some other glue to bind them besides ancient rules and privilages.


Politicians suck.

Quote:
And what does it matter when the President can say: I am the Law.


Especially tyrants.

Quote:
Is the law above our ability to change, or must we all be changed by it? Why we seek forms in our lives is obvious. We want to build stability into our societies, and relationships. Does it work in the instance of law if we must all have a lawyer in our pockets before we dare to talk to our neighbors?


And this is why my first response in this post is so important. Don't get me wrong, I abhor our legal system. Within it exists an untold number of unjustices, many so extreme the stories can make you break down in tears. I have been arrested, jailed, tried and convicted for a crime which I do not believe to be criminal. I have had my share of injustice from our system. However, just because our system is not perfect, does not mean that the general notion of law which exists is more harmful than beneficial.

Remember, the system changes everyday. People change it. We are both people.

Quote:
In the area of property I would classify it all that is not personal property or intellectual property as a privilege.


What do you consider personal? The craftsman's workshop? The farmers field, barn and pigs? The millionaire's jet? A family's home?

Quote:
Rather, anyone who can be a good steward of wealth should be allowed to make more of it, understanding that wealth, whenit represents power for one and poverty for another cannot be allowed to become our heritage.


Who has use of the excess of wealth?
Who is a good steward of wealth, and in society, who should make such a decision? Certainly, there must be some method for deciding if some will be allowed to make more of it based on such a decision.
Can wealth be accumulated without causing poverty for another?

Quote:
That is where we are in this nation of laws. They do not follow law on the top. Why should anyone follow law on the bottom?


In this nation? Yes. And just as well, often worse in every other nation in history.

Quote:
I think I should like to read Proudhon's: The Poverty of Philosophy. Certainly, the title in itself is an argument few can refute.


I recomend it. I much prefered his libertarian socialism to the marxist literature.

Quote:
If philosophy dared to challenge the status quo, perhaps more people would be willing.


Has philosophy done much else other than challenge the status quo? Even when some philosophy becomes the status quo, some other comes along to combat the establishment. Socrates was executed, and he was far from the last thinker to be persecuted for challenging authority on philosophical matters.

Quote:
The problem is well illustrated by The declaration of Independence. Even as an act of grand larceny, of the theft of rights en masse from the king and country of England; it is still presented as a legal brief. The ultra, and over arching form of law was one no one dared to live without.


Of course it was a legal brief. Jefferson was a legislator, and the declaration of independence is a legal declaration - that these people will make laws for their own posterity and no longer be ruled by the laws of England. 'No taxation without representation' was the battlecry, the people had enough of England's laws.

Quote:
It is just a social machine long past due for a rebuild. And, most of its premises should be tossed out whole.


And what do you consider to be the outdated premises? Even Confucius found value in having law.

Quote:
This little dog is hiking his leg up against the tower of power. I suggest you do the same.


"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism"
- Thomas Jefferson
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Dec, 2007 01:39 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Just a quick reply with more later, perhaps. I will agree that England's laws, for the most part, became ours; but was it only common law? Blackstone is quoted as giving the sources of English law thus: Natural law, divine law, international law, ecclesiastical law, Roman law, law merchant, local customs, common law, statute law, and equity. Appearantly Burke commented against the current of English thought that there was much of Medieval law in English law. talk later, thanks.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Dec, 2007 02:17 pm
@Fido,
My friends who study law tell me that it's English Common Law.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Dec, 2007 06:59 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
My friends who study law tell me that it's English Common Law.


I re read the introduction of the book in question looking for that reference to Blackstone; and finally found it by the index. No less than the English, we are inclined to look at the law as a cohesive whole, and the introduction makes that point. If your friend cannot see the parts for the whole I am afraid he will not do well as an attorney. One of my children is an attorney, who does bankruptcies. He is living in a mansion compared to my house. So, who am I to judge. In any event, one of the major concepts I am aware of in ours, and in Western law, is in regard to spolation coming from very old Cannon Law. And, we of course do have corporations, coming from ancient Roman Burial Societies (and they will bury us), And we do have international law, which we seem to think we are above; and the Law Merchant which seems to be a part of domestic business law, but was originally the reciprical rules governing international trade, and traders. Trespass and felony are words straight out of feudal law, and even the word defy, which you could safely do to your lord if he slept with your wife; so you could keep your fife without obligation.

Our law, which in some respects is like English law, some what different from European law as a whole, came out of a movement which was really revolutionary -with its beginnings in end of the first millenium, but which came to a head in the 11th and 12 centuries. It was with the discovery of the laws of Justinian, that philosophy first became a necessity, as the laws were apparently inexplicable without them. They, the priests and clerics who first studied these Roman laws gave dialectics a whole new meaning from the discovery of truth through conversation to a resolution of opposites or perhaps contradictions. I have the book right beside me, but, I have not read it in perhaps five years or more. I think you might enjoy it. It is only six hundred plus pages long. It covers a lot of interesting stuff.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Dec, 2007 07:44 pm
@Fido,
Any legal system which predates another has influence upon the newer one. Some having more influence than others. English law has a number of significant influences, I would imagine. I think the point is that it was the English law, having been influenced by the others you mention, which was appropriated by the US. So, the other systems have some influence upon ours, but this is residual, it is by virtue of their influence upon English law.

As for my friend, I must wonder which one as I have several studying law at the moment.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 08:24 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
I'm not sure where you are from, though, most law in the US comes from English common law, with the exception of Louisiana which is derived from French code. Either way, the bodies of law you mention certainly influenced these systems. As for the book, I'm not familiar with it, though I have to wonder if Mr. Berman brought up this point: law changes constantly. Certainly, our laws can be traced back to ancient and more primitive systems, but these systems have radically changed. Law is always changing, and changing to meet the demands of the modern world. We see this happening in a very visible way with laws regarding the internet.
Even though our systems can be traced back to systems which are without question antiquated, our systems seem to be able to meet the demands of the chaning world.


You mispelled 'chaining'.

Quote:


Law is influential in our lives, yes, but how significant? In the case of laws which limit individual liberty, such laws certainly are out of place. But are the legal ramifications of murder and theft really so intrusive on our lives?
Let me give you an example that is true even today. In German, or in American Indian tribal society it was very often possible for a man guilty of murder to get off with his life, but not without his family making a deal for a settlement of goods with the other family. This of course shows an acceptence of fate as a factor in ones life, but also an understanding that such acts as murder are inevitable. Rather than having one death lead to two, or three, or more; people made a deal, and got on with their lives. The difference should be clear: first, people had control of their own affairs. Second, people had immediate resort to justice if their honor was offended because there was no social contract. And third, control and responsibility was recognized as being through family, kin, and community. This last fact meant that if peace was not brought about by agreement found just to both sides then the whole community would suffer from feud violence that might fall upon the guilty or innocent alike. One of the goods often traded for peace was women, and they tended to bind communities in a greater desire for peace. What has happened inthe last thousand years is this: We are treated as individuals. We must appeal to a neutral third party for justice. And this has made the institution of law into a parsitical form of relationship that in my county comprises the largest part of the budget. With little to show for it since there is no want of crime while as a country, we have more people per capita in prison than any other.

Quote:


Politicians suck.



Especially tyrants.
Follow Aristippius, as he has shown us all the way. When abused for kneeling before a tyrannt, he said: I can't help that his ears are in his feet. That is true across the board with their physiology since their hearts are in their diks and their brains are in their asses.

Quote:



And this is why my first response in this post is so important. Don't get me wrong, I abhor our legal system. Within it exists an untold number of unjustices, many so extreme the stories can make you break down in tears. I have been arrested, jailed, tried and convicted for a crime which I do not believe to be criminal. I have had my share of injustice from our system. However, just because our system is not perfect, does not mean that the general notion of law which exists is more harmful than beneficial.

Remember, the system changes everyday. People change it. We are both people.

The legal system has been very intransigent. Western Law, even if Russia has went through several revolutions only to find new masters in place of old.

The absolute worst thing about our system is that it gives us less justice daily and more need of law at the same time. When teachers have to fear the power granted to students by law so that it makes a difficult job next to impossible; or when parent have to fear their children, and we do, when they deserve a spanking, but threaten the law, or when parents conversely feel they must ride herd on their kids and feel the need to beat them because they have no power, as in days of old, to stand between the law and their children. A community is not a collection of individuals. A community is a cooperative enterprise, and it is communities which have suffered. Churches still exist as corporations, and corporations exist as corporations, and schools exist as corporations; and even the government acts as a corporation. Only the individual has to stand alone. What every community is, is that group of people who will defend your rights. Now, In my country, the U.S., we find unions necessary to protect our rights and the rights of consumers. Why? Are we not governed by the sole purpose to mututally defend our rights, and is not welfare and tranquility and the blessing of liberty, and even Justice stated clearly as goals? Why then, should anyone have to bear union dues when taxation is the dues we all pay for justice? Abelard without his balls said it better than this whole country with its balls, that Justice is the genus, and law is a species of justice. So what is law without justice but tyranny? Inevitably there will be those without talent or honor that will seek power for its own perks rather than for its purpose in defense of justice. When this occurs we have to realize that we are dealing with a very formal form based upon preconceptions of a philosophy and theology that no one would espouse in public on its own. We have torealize that this form has accomplished all the good it can, and is now nothing more than form, and that all forms can be changed no matter how ensconced they are in impediments of stone.
Quote:



What do you consider personal? The craftsman's workshop? The farmers field, barn and pigs? The millionaire's jet? A family's home?



Who has use of the excess of wealth?
Who is a good steward of wealth, and in society, who should make such a decision? Certainly, there must be some method for deciding if some will be allowed to make more of it based on such a decision.
Can wealth be accumulated without causing poverty for another?

I do not care what a person accumulates in a life time. Everyone with a new method or a better invention should know the benefit of that. But, what they do not give away in the desire of forming relatonships that will survive them should go to the state, or more properly, the people after death. Property should be taxed while the owner is alive, and taken with his death. Wealth in movement can make an entire nation wealthy. Wealth in few hands makes the whole nation poor. Our constitution has been changed to give wealth a great deal of protection while loading the cost of government and defense onto workers. This forces the price of labor down and the price of property up. Government pressure should be in the opposite direction, making property dance for its meals and making certain workers must only work once for theirs. Neither wealth nor poverty should be hereditary.
Quote:



In this nation? Yes. And just as well, often worse in every other nation in history.



I recomend it. I much prefered his libertarian socialism to the marxist literature.



Has philosophy done much else other than challenge the status quo? Even when some philosophy becomes the status quo, some other comes along to combat the establishment. Socrates was executed, and he was far from the last thinker to be persecuted for challenging authority on philosophical matters.



Of course it was a legal brief. Jefferson was a legislator, and the declaration of independence is a legal declaration - that these people will make laws for their own posterity and no longer be ruled by the laws of England. 'No taxation without representation' was the battlecry, the people had enough of England's laws.



And what do you consider to be the outdated premises? Even Confucius found value in having law.



"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism"
- Thomas Jefferson
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 08:51 am
@Fido,
Quote:
You mispelled 'chaining'.


Correction - I mispelled "changing" :p

As for your "example that is true even today", I'm not sure what your point is. I understand the idea that there have been ancient laws which seem unjust, but how does relate to the modern laws regarding murder and theft? I agree the system is not perfect, but while we criticize the law so greatly, and we both have, it would seem to me that, generally, laws which discourage and handle cases of murder and theft would be a benefit to society more than they are harmful.
I would like to clarify, though. I am one to think that, when you see theft, the injustice predates the theft. People only steal when they have too little, and others have far too much.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2007 06:57 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
Correction - I mispelled "changing" :p

As for your "example that is true even today", I'm not sure what your point is. I understand the idea that there have been ancient laws which seem unjust, but how does relate to the modern laws regarding murder and theft? I agree the system is not perfect, but while we criticize the law so greatly, and we both have, it would seem to me that, generally, laws which discourage and handle cases of murder and theft would be a benefit to society more than they are harmful.
I would like to clarify, though. I am one to think that, when you see theft, the injustice predates the theft. People only steal when they have too little, and others have far too much.


In the example true even today, as the faith of Islam has supported tribal law, like tribal law it has encouraged the social solution. There is a great deal of encouragment to forgive even murder, and to embrace some settlement that will end feud violence.

Look, I see that when law protects injustice that it eventually destroys its reason for being. People all need a stake in society. Following the law is easy for one with something to lose, but as more an more people have nothing to lose penalties have to rise along with cruelty to make people mind the law. Sooner or later it will end in a blood bath or a reign of terror. I think it is so much easier for people to never wait for a tire to blow out that can be changed at one convenience. We can see what law is, and what its intent is, and since it is primarily a form of relationship that has become formal, and primarily form with little actual relationship; then, we can realize we are not victims of some great machine, but that it exist at our mercy.

If the object of law is justice, then we must say with the Muslims that justice is an absolute right of every individual. Nothing should come before justice, and certainly not peace. But, formalism should be avoided because the relationship is what we want. We really want to work out what is just in every situation as the question comes up. The idea that behavior can be formulized is false, and injurious to society. Rather, while certain behaviors can be desired or discouraged, these are only a guide. Where the law builds a wall the willing find a loophole. Don't do it. Rather, state primarily what is the end of law, which is not a peace enforced, but agreed to; and then facilitate justice. Justice is different in every situation. Yesterday's laws built upon yesterday's conception of justice never serves the needs of the moment. Given to the richest and most powerful in any land to find justice and they will find always in their favor. Few people ever have an objective view of their own society, but if one reads history it is easy to see how the greatest of injustices were legalized, which ended in every crime, injustice, and violence being legals because they could not be prevented. Injustice is the slow distruction of society.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2007 02:13 pm
@Fido,
Quote:
Look, I see that when law protects injustice that it eventually destroys its reason for being. People all need a stake in society. Following the law is easy for one with something to lose, but as more an more people have nothing to lose penalties have to rise along with cruelty to make people mind the law. Sooner or later it will end in a blood bath or a reign of terror. I think it is so much easier for people to never wait for a tire to blow out that can be changed at one convenience. We can see what law is, and what its intent is, and since it is primarily a form of relationship that has become formal, and primarily form with little actual relationship; then, we can realize we are not victims of some great machine, but that it exist at our mercy.


Of course law exists at our mercy, but we must remember that, in application, it exists at the mercy of all of us. When corruption has taken the helm, and the people are methodically deceived by that corrupt element, the law, in many cases does become a 'great machine' whose prey is the citizenry.
I agree wholeheartedly about law, and having a stake in society. I see this as the very problem. This is why I suggest property rights limited by posession, by what you have use of.
People only steal when they have too little, and others have too much. I think most crimes are really the result of various social injustices; to do something about crime we must fix those injustices.

I also like your suggesting about the lack of formalization in the law. You would enjoy reading Proudhon.

I guess that sums up everything - you would enjoy the Poverty of Philosophy. Smile
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2007 06:32 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
I was just yanking your chain pardner. Marx wrote the Poverty of Philosophy counter Proudon's Philosophy of Poverty. I don't have the later, but I do have the former. I'll at least check that out again.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2008 11:22 am
@Fido,
Trying to confuse me Wink The only Marx I've read was The Communist Manifesto and a paragraph here and there from Das Kapital (not really interested enough in Marx to commit myself to that tome).
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2008 09:17 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
Trying to confuse me Wink The only Marx I've read was The Communist Manifesto and a paragraph here and there from Das Kapital (not really interested enough in Marx to commit myself to that tome).

It is not just an historical book, but one of the most interesting books of history I have ever read. All of the communist theory of price and value is at the beginning, and then there is a wealth of knowledge about England and other countries. Marx came very close to saying what I say in saying Capital is a relation; while I would call it a form of relationship.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » How law works and why it does not.
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/20/2019 at 04:30:45