2
   

How law works and why it does not.

 
 
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2008 10:11 pm
@Fido,
I do like history.

Quote:
Marx came very close to saying what I say in saying Capital is a relation; while I would call it a form of relationship.


What's the difference?
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 01:09 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
I do like history.



What's the difference?

Well, while this may truly be said of capital, I believe if it is said correctly it sheds much more light on all human relationships. Now, in the case of Marx, what he said was like an objective judgement based upon a great deal of study. If we see capital as a formal form of relationship it is revealed as being a part of a great class of forms which are all forms of relationship. Apart from a value judgement on a form of relationship like slavery; if it can be seen a form purely, then the human relationships within can be seen objectively for what they are. So, if I say all forms (ideas, as can be concieved) are also forms of relationship then, as a common denominator in all relationships they can be excluded in any relationship. On the other hand, in any form of relationship, if one can exclude the relationship as without form then the form may be seen clearly for what it is. To try to look at both together form and relationship the variety alone is confusing. Marriage is a form of relationship. What can we tell of the form by looking at one marriage? Not much. Add ten, and then what can you tell of marriages? Again, more but still little. Excluding the relationship in any form, the form can be studied comparatively with other like forms. Then, excluding the form which gives it structure, marriages can be examined purely as relationships, and judgements can be made as to what works or fails in all relationships.

Now, to exclude the relationship from the form is not really possible. Some relationships are all form, and little personal relationship. Some forms are very informal, being mostly personal relationship without structure. Ultimately, the lesson I draw is not just the obvious one, that all forms are forms of relationship, but that each relationship is more formal as it is less relationship, and that at one period of time the relationship dominates and at other times the form dominates, that, this is true of forms of governments as forms of relationship, and that over formalization is the destruction of relationships. Invariable when something like capital no longer answers human needs so much as presents human problems, the answer becomes that: it is what it is and it cannot be changed. That is forms, because forms resist change, and are an attempt at stability. In the case of government we can see how this formalism is expressed in megalythic structures that literally shout to the skies that they will not be changed. If they cannot change they will neither serve a human purpose nor survive as a form. In fact they may destroy us in the process. And we should ask: is it really in the best interest of this people to be at their own throats with hatred because the other is seen as intransigent? The intransigence is in the form.

(here I will offer an observation made by some unknown on the Bourbon kings of France; that the learned nothing, and forgot nothing.

To change forms does not take that much, little effort, and much understanding. Even the worst forms serve some body's interest, and they defend the form, and this creates violence. To actually change the form means to reject it, and begin again. It can be like a disappointed husband jumping into the car to go for a bottle of wine, a loaf of bread, and thou; and never going back. We are only lost if feeling powerless before the form. It is the relationship that makes the form real, and gives it meaning. If the form can be cruel and mean to those within it is a demonstration of its dependence upon the people for its being.

Read the declaration of independence for a statement of forms.
0 Replies
 
Wizzy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2008 11:46 am
@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


The difference between man made laws and natures laws (like the once you mentioned) is simply that man made laws are made to hold people back (as you said with obstacles) but that we can function and live without them, what creates a law is simply that someone have decided that it's wrong. Now I'm not saying that stealing or murdering is wrong, cause it is but I'm just saying that man made laws are nothing but what another man have decided that you can not do. Which I have to say, is f:ed up. I mean, who the hell have the nerv to say that I can't decide for myself? Ofcourse alot of people can't, and then the laws are good to have in some cases, and in other cases, completley worthless.

Another thing that buges me about most if not all law systems are that they are designed not to protect civilians but to punish the people who have wronged the law. In other words, it's still every man for himself...
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2008 05:42 am
@Wizzy,
What we call a law is the same in the world of science as it is for the social world, and that is a formulation of behavior. If we throw it up we know it will fall, and we can count on it. We also formulize human behavior, and when we do this I think we miss the essence of social behavior, and that is the emotion of affection, and sympathy that bonds each person with another in peace and friendship. If we ignore the emotion, and control the behavior then the result is that those without love will use law for their advantage and undermine the emotionas attachment that really makes societies function. The law should be that people care for each other and bear no injustice, or exploitation. When law prevents justice in a small sense it permits injustice in every sense and should be discarded.
0 Replies
 
Play Dough
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2008 02:51 pm
@Fido,
Re: How law works and why it does not....

It does not (generally) matter what the law is or how that 'law' is applied.....
Why? Because the 'fail safe' for any ridiculous law or any application of law to any fact situation is THE JURY.
A jury does not need to account for itself. A jury can always refuse to convict (criminal action) or refuse to assign a monetary judgement (civil action).
If there is a problem with 'the law' then that problem rests with the composition of juries. It is juries (of our 'peers') that are enforcing problematic laws.

The 'law' (in the West) is simply a codification of philosophy!
If the public refuses to apply the law (via the jury system) then that law is discarded or made 'moot'.
So... if there is a problem with the law then the problem rests with our neighbors who populate the jury boxes.

The solution for 'bad laws' is for the jury to 'just say NO'!

.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2008 08:26 pm
@Play Dough,
Play_Dough wrote:
Re: How law works and why it does not....

It does not (generally) matter what the law is or how that 'law' is applied.....
Why? Because the 'fail safe' for any ridiculous law or any application of law to any fact situation is THE JURY.
A jury does not need to account for itself. A jury can always refuse to convict (criminal action) or refuse to assign a monetary judgement (civil action).
If there is a problem with 'the law' then that problem rests with the composition of juries. It is juries (of our 'peers') that are enforcing problematic laws.

The 'law' (in the West) is simply a codification of philosophy!
If the public refuses to apply the law (via the jury system) then that law is discarded or made 'moot'.
So... if there is a problem with the law then the problem rests with our neighbors who populate the jury boxes.

The solution for 'bad laws' is for the jury to 'just say NO'!

.

Jurys are given the principals upon which to decide the law, just as judges and lawyers. I would not doubt, that if they find strongly against the evidence that they may found in some sense in contempt. Ultimately it is for thewhole people to make the law and consent to the or they are not bound by it. You would never get me on a jury because on the basis of common sense I would not convict some who are technically guilty while I would convict others before a trial.
So how about you. Tell me of your travails. Where have you been?
Play Dough
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2008 10:01 pm
@Fido,
Fido;10118 wrote:
Jurys are given the principals upon which to decide the law, just as judges and lawyers. I would not doubt, that if they find strongly against the evidence that they may found in some sense in contempt. Ultimately it is for thewhole people to make the law and consent to the or they are not bound by it. You would never get me on a jury because on the basis of common sense I would not convict some who are technically guilty while I would convict others before a trial.
So how about you. Tell me of your travails. Where have you been?


The jury is the ultimate decider. The 'power' is with the people. Evidence is irrelevant to unfair laws. The friendly neighbor who finally burned down a ghetto crack-house, after complaining to the police (who did nothing) over a three year period, can be found 'not guilty' by a jury. The jury does not have to explain its decision.

My 'travails'? ... Overcoming my rational mind (the mind of 'can't' and 'not'), which was the warehouse of my ego and its ridiculous preferences.
I have been to the 'end of time' only to discover my original 'starting place'. Beyond that, I am a mystery to myself.....

.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2008 05:27 am
@Play Dough,
Play_Dough wrote:
The jury is the ultimate decider. The 'power' is with the people. Evidence is irrelevant to unfair laws. The friendly neighbor who finally burned down a ghetto crack-house, after complaining to the police (who did nothing) over a three year period, can be found 'not guilty' by a jury. The jury does not have to explain its decision.

My 'travails'? ... Overcoming my rational mind (the mind of 'can't' and 'not'), which was the warehouse of my ego and its ridiculous preferences.
I have been to the 'end of time' only to discover my original 'starting place'. Beyond that, I am a mystery to myself.....

.

I just checked in to see what condition my condition was in...

Ultimately when people will not obey the law because it is unjust, and juries (which is a very liberal accomodation of common law) will not convict them of crime, then the society is at a cross roads. The responsible actions of a few people isnot sufficient to save the whole country from injustice. Making law, and being bound by the law requires the assent and consent of the whole people. If you suffer a law that you never agreed to be bound to on the presumption that your presence here constitutes acceptence then you will not be alone in jail, and there will be more criminals out than in. It is just to have the final say in law, and to demand consensus. Look at congress passing laws, and presidents signing them because they are politically popular, or the lobby wants them; even when they know if they are challenged they will be found unconstituional. When you trade your honor for a vote, and desert your obligations for gain, and leave government to the caprice of the courts you are a traitor.
0 Replies
 
urangutan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2008 04:04 am
@Fido,
Sadly, it is much easier to ammend laws that are wrong than to simply abolish them. It is at this juncture that confusion is played upon and the truth is toyed with, to avert, from the falsehoods.


Sorry if this point seems inapropriate at this stage, I had read the first page of this thread and did not realise there was more to follow. I will read up and see if I should ammend this view or at least apologize to any who may have covered this. I do think Fido was leading this way when I read the last post of page one.

Any Laws made today are for those who are lazy. The truth is that most of society is built from corruption.

Rattle the concept of a Boston Tea Party during Thanksgiving while listening to a Chinese pirated copy of your favorite music.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2008 06:06 am
@urangutan,
urangutan wrote:
Sadly, it is much easier to ammend laws that are wrong than to simply abolish them. It is at this juncture that confusion is played upon and the truth is toyed with, to avert, from the falsehoods.


Sorry if this point seems inapropriate at this stage, I had read the first page of this thread and did not realise there was more to follow. I will read up and see if I should ammend this view or at least apologize to any who may have covered this. I do think Fido was leading this way when I read the last post of page one.

Any Laws made today are for those who are lazy. The truth is that most of society is built from corruption.

Rattle the concept of a Boston Tea Party during Thanksgiving while listening to a Chinese pirated copy of your favorite music.

I think a worse problem than amended laws is all the laws that are never used, but are a threat, like spitting in the street. Over all, the major problem is this: Once you have established peace with law there is nothing to stop anyone from manipulating law for their own benefit, and making laws which are unjust, and so rob the whole society of the basis of peace which is justice.
Khethil
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2008 06:57 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
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.


Good question with almost no right answer; complex and convoluted. To take a mass of *individuals* and set hard-and-fast rules is to walk one very thorny path. But we kind of need to, don't we?

I believe it self-evident (given the context) that you're speaking of laws established within a 'state'. Without going off on a tangent on one single aspect of what you said or flying off the handle on the terms you use (which some others appear to have done), I believe its simple: These laws are humans attempt at structuring individual conduct to live within a collection. Yes; they get befuddled. No; they don't fit everyone's conception of 'fair'. Corruption and greed are very real ubiquitous companions (as is the *appearance* of corruption and greed where none existed). I think it most-important we remain mindful of not assuming too much - like making the mistake of attributing our perceptions of someone's motives where no basis for this exists.

I also believe that the more laws a society implements, the more convoluted and contradictory (and thus unenforceable) they become. Ironic, isn't it? Try to be more thorough and a collection of people end up with just the opposite effect. Don't institute laws and society has no recourse for actions detrimental to the populace. Do institute laws and you'll inevitably step on someone's toes. Ow!

There's a host of problems with this whole process endemic to the human animal: Differences in concepts of justice, individuals' perception of fairness, how many laws are too much, vast differences in personal values that - to many - rise to the need of 'law', etc., etc. But almost no collection of humans has any chance for peace, prosperity and the requisite amount of liberty without them. So we urk through as best we can. Show me any system of laws and I'll show you its flaws - show me any society without laws and its pain would be undeniable to even the most-blind. Justice is a concept we made up (read; vengeance), as is fairness (Read: 'I'll get what I deserve'). These exist in innumerable variations depending on who's doing the talking.

I believe a legal system that could apply to all people is conceivably possible, but remains elusive given the vast differentiation we have in individual values. Given this, any 'successful' system would necessarily rely on the willingness of the individual to subordinate their views, values and liberty. And this is a bitter pill to swallow indeed
0 Replies
 
urangutan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2008 07:01 am
@Fido,
Fido there are very, very few places that have established peace with law. There are fewer places still that have kept that peace
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2008 01:08 pm
@urangutan,
urangutan wrote:
Fido there are very, very few places that have established peace with law. There are fewer places still that have kept that peace

Since most of our law springs from failed societies maybe we should ask why we bother unless we act with the presumption that law is not what cause them to fail. Again, I think the answer is supplied by Abelard who said that Justice is the genus, and law was a species of it. If it is not Justice, it is not technically law, but coercion. If you can force a person into peace without giving him justice you have sabotaged the social contract. It is not the common law breakers who destroy the meaning and value of law, but those who make law to make what should be illegal legal for the benefit of their class or their persons. For this reason I like what the Germans and the French call law, and that is: Right, because what is law should also be right, and people should examine all the rules they live by for the right there defined. It is so unfortunate that in reading forensic quotations, that one often finds in English Law which is the father of American law, a fact; the fact that justice is not a first or even routine consideration of law, but precident and practice and the act itself. No judge can consider on his own the justice at issue, and that is wrong, and ultimately means that justice is reactionary, not supporting the people in their needs, but supporting the institutions of law and government apart from what should be their prime purpose: Justice.
There was another, and previous reply which I cannot answer due to time. Please forgive, and I will return.
Holiday20310401
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jun, 2008 08:11 pm
@l0ck,
How does creative intelligence mean to try to get back to singularity. The way I see it creativity is variation which is more like a gradient, not a singularity
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jun, 2008 09:25 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401 wrote:
How does creative intelligence mean to try to get back to singularity. The way I see it creativity is variation which is more like a gradient, not a singularity

This post makes me think there is something wrong with my hearing aid and I don't wear one. Thanks.
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2011 05:49 pm
@Fido,
Fido like always you are way ahead of the rest of us but if you would like to keep this thread going I will give it my best because I find it interesting even though it may be over my head! I will think deep about it but maybe you can help by asking more questions or adding more statements.
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2011 05:59 pm
@Fido,
I thought that you were going to return it has been more than three years please do not keeps us waiting to much longer! Laughing
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2011 08:44 pm
The simplest answer to this silly question is found in the negative - have a look at places with large populations were law and order has broken down, or barely functions.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jul, 2011 08:15 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:

The simplest answer to this silly question is found in the negative - have a look at places with large populations were law and order has broken down, or barely functions.
Well look at Nazi Germany where the leaders were the law, and the law the law the law had to be obeyed down to the last letter... Who stood up against the law??? It was the Catholics who as a group are most responsible for the rule of law that cast the deciding vote for the enabling act that made the will of hitler law... It was the Lutherins who drew a line between the inner soul and the outer man and who made revolution one of the worst of sins, and made obediance to even a tyrant into a virtue who made tyranny in germany possible... Law is the destruction of commuities... It forces every individual to stand alone against injustice if they will stand at all... Even in a place like Germany which fed on its prisoners, and liquidated all their belongings and found every excuse to add to their number found the cost of watching them extreme... Because all it did to expand its borders, and to enslave distant populations was common to nature, they thought it had the support of natural law... War was the natural state of mankind, and who were they to fight nature??? In fact, it was the injustice of their own society that they did so much to accept and endure that was the export of war... True law is justice, but what most of us know of law is simply a form by which the rich rule the poor... And injustice does destroy society... And I would be the last to say that Stalins form of injustice was any better than Hitler's... It was the injustice of them both made law that resulted in so many on both sides dying for nothing... Law without justice is tyranny, and a free people is unfitted for tyranny... But they are healthy and strong and able to defend what they have... A population of slaves is good for an army, and good to follow a tyrant into injustice... Look at the greats of Western History: Elizabeth, Napoleon, Bismark... These people first destroyed the democracy of the people and laid down the law... They were then fit for empire...

When you say function; what do you mean??? Because for many, funciton means world conquest, but it is better to have people squabbling like a bunch of yahhoos than fighting the whole world... Democracy is good for defense only when each person is a general knowing where his area of defense lay... But a people who take their defense for granted in offense are a terror... Democracy is slow, and tyranny is fast... But tyranny is impossible without a regimentation of society that makes it weak though it may seem strong... Democracies appear weak but are strong because when every individual will defend their own justice they are in a position to defend justice anywhere...
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jul, 2011 09:05 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:

We have more people per capita in the system than ever before in history.

I think the ratio of people per capita has remained remarkably steady at 1:1.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
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
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/05/2020 at 11:13:07