Hello Vid. I understand the necessity of our present judicial system considering the world we live in. I honestly do. Is it a just system? Perhaps considering our current state of affairs, I think so. Is there a better way? Yes, I think there is and it should be based on a code of conduct that begins in the home and is followed up by our educational system and then into society at large and must be global in the application of it and no one should be exempt from it. No one
Vid, we are living in an impossible situation that involves an elaborate entrapment mechanism controlled by a few, victimizing many. We are constantly exposed to the carrots dangled in front of our noses and when we take a bite or effort to, we get our hands slapped or even worse.
We live in a reality that emphasizes more is good when most can be much happier with less but the carrot is always there and the waste it creates is evident everywhere. People are constantly entice/seduced/manipulated/coerced/tempted to want more to spend money they don't have to acquire resources they don't need.
Let's take a look at a moment at what perpetuates crime and makes a lucrative income from that crime. If no one stole, how many people would be out of work? If no one got sick, how many would be out of work? If it weren't for fines, penalties and taxes how many cities would fold up and blow away. We have become dependent on the frailties of man wanting more to be happy and enormous incomes are derived from that. A catch 22 of major proportion. Take a look at your own "stashes/caches" of "stuff" you have acquired you no longer need that you spent money on? From your view point you will do all in your power to justify all that you have; it give you power. Now please, Vid, I am not talking about you "personally" but "us" as a whole. Few are not entrapped into this elaborate "Ponzi Scheme" that will ensure in the end everyone will lose. Everyone who is so entrapped and our judicial system protects those who are involve in it's perpetuation until it does eventually collapse.
Perhaps this was meant to be? To lose all before we finally come to our senses and realize how precious the "little things" are in life and more is lure, an entrapment, an illusion. Most don't realize how much they do have and how little they need to sustain what they do have. All they need to do is turn on the greatest manipulator that has ever been devised by man to witness all they don't have. Ingenious contraption, the television and all it is capable of doing to lure innocents into the trap. I know, I made a good living convincing people to want more (money) so the would be happier.
Vid, if you do a little research it will become apparent to you how elaborate this scheme is and he safeguards it has in place to perpetuate it.
Of course it matters little to most for, hell, we are going to be dead in a few years anyway, huh? What difference does it make?
I have related many times it is not the quantity of life we have but the quality of that life we do have that is what is important. It is understandable why it can be concluded in our beginning when much of this world was alien to us, it was necessary to ensure our survival to hoard, secret, stash all we could get our hands on. Are we not beyond that?
When I stated it would be more prudent for us to investigate why people steal, kill, commit adultery, covet and so forth and eliminate or attempt to eliminate those "mores" then we can create a peace that does not involve the mandates required by law. Are we close? Not yet. The bottom it seems has to completely fall out before we will do that. Now what that will entail; your guess is as good as mine. But as I said; what the hell, we are all going to be dead in a few years anyway. What the use?
To answer your inquiry no this is not always the case positively speaking, but from my observation we can and do have the technology to change an economic system that is absolutely insane. Yes, there are responsible people who can live peacefully and legally with this system, but it plays it's havoc on them also when their "money" begins to "run out". The money that is a crucial part of what it takes that allows them to be a part of human race and participate in this thing we call life. Most of those who suffer the most fill those court rooms and are found guilty of crimes they would have never committed if they had the means to sustain them and their families.
Vid, I understand this is a novelty when it comes to theorizing an option to the economic structure we have "always" had in place. Those who are it's primary advocates are those who control the society that makes those laws that selfishly protect them and the gross stashes of financial wealth they have accumulated at the expense of others. There are many ways one can rationalize their over abundance and I disagree with all of them, yet there is a way those whose contributions to this life can be rewarded in just ways that will offer them a wealth beyond anything they can imagine that cannot be hoarded, stashed that forces them to hide from a majority that will do anything to "SURVIVE" and will illegally demand an equity that will allow all to live that, in most cases, will be against those laws in place.
But would that also make the fact there can exist bad and neutral laws as well? I would think, at least in the case of the former, that it would actually affirm at least one of these rather than make them obsolete. What would be a rationalization of a bad law would be the fact that perhaps it is attributed as good to begin with.
You mean "the end justifies the means"? Perhaps I am not understanding what you are putting forth as to what "neutral and bad". Please, if you could give me an example of each we could get on better footing. Thanks.
On bad laws such as a man not being allowed to steal, I don't understand your reasoning for this, although I can possibly understand where you are coming from with it. You basically say that if you solve the reason why a person steals, there is no reason for the law that prohibits them in the first place? Is life really like that where all problems of the world can be addressed in a gigantic bundle of solutions that coexist harmoniously with each other?............No, but it would sure as heck be nice though. I think that all what you wish is doing is trying to roll a problem into a paradox, dip it in secret sauce, and anonymously eat it. You still eat the thing, but you just don't know what you are eating.
Thanks Vid, brilliant analysis, but I must disagree. You have stated what all have stated in the past; "What's the use? It can never be done? Impossible? You're living in a dream world! Get a grip!" Ha, ring a bell? How about nothing ventured nothing gained? It is as it has always been and it's time for a change. The old ways just don't work anymore and now thanks to this unique method of global communication, people are beginning to "wise up". Not all people but some anyway as I said it will take a little time for all to see the light of the injustices that have been imposed on them and as Albert Finney exclaimed in the movie NETWORK, "He's mad as hell and he is not going to take it anymore"!
I have made it known I don't watch television but my "housemate" does and one of his favorite shows is LAW AND ORDER. I happen to have been passing through and became interested in the subject matter and lingered to watch. The episode was called AUTHORITY and it's special guest start was Robin Williams. In short he portrayed a victim of the system and was truly hurt by that system and beat it at it own game. His wife had bled to death as a result of a needless natural birth procedure when a caesarian was called for and the 'doctor' (authority) knew better and took his own professional opinion and did what he thought was best, all at the husbands stating otherwise.
William's was a brilliant individual not to be taken so lightly and proceeded to instill justice of his own for his loss that was no fault of his whatsoever and got that justice. Due to William's elaborate manipulation the doctor was motivated to commit suicide by Williams through a complicated communication network that hounded the doctor to insanity.
William's set it up so he would be eventually be found out so he could take it to the courts where he won there also as he served as his own defense counsel. He ate their lunch, so to speak.
It showed how inept those in authority were in the dealing with this brilliant individual such as what THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR was all about and he beat them and as if by a miracle of fate, disappeared in the end as if it were destined a higher justice was guiding him.
Vid, I am not advocating vigilantism but that is what occurs when individuals get "mad as hell and will not take it anymore". History is inundated with it and what revolutions are made of.
It is the primary reason why all the bloodshed we have encountered..........all of it without exception and the "list" I have stated so often. The inequity and the iniquity that is it's twin. End one and the other follows suit. Until then they will be joined at the hip. We need a rewards system that is resource based that will allow us to share in the resources the Earth has to offer; including those "human resources" and our "technology" is thwarting that all in the desire to "earn money". To hell with the rest. If you want to see a man go against his true nature, offer him enough money and stand by and watch. Not all men but those who desire to rule, in an instant as they rationalize the 'end justifies the means". What a crock!!
No, it cannot be done overnight; it will take time to change this economic structure and the laws that keep it in place. After careful analysis it always, always comes down to money and what people will do to acquire it and it does not have to be that way. We just haven't tried another and it's time we should.
Interestingly enough though, isn't he fact that positivistic law is just a reminder to begin with. Positivism assumes that people are rational beings that have the ability to comprehend the theory of law. If people understand the nature of the laws, they would not break them in the first place. And yet we still have crime.
I hope, at least to some degree, I have shown where that statement just will not suffice any longer. I hope! No, it's a dictate Big difference. A reminder would not involve penalty. A penalty that exacerbates recidivism to pay the penalty that in most cases forces them to engage in those activities that brought them into the courts. Yes we do have crime and that is a consequence. Eliminate the inequity and the iniquity goes too.
This is just a minor point, but take the seat belt law for instance. That's a bad law, big time. If a person does not wear a seat belt the only one who will suffer is that person; no other. Yet we have a law that demands it or he will be penalized. You tell me why that is?
Now do your research. Every single year there have been automobiles on the road between 40 and 45 thousand people have and will lose their life due to automobile accidents...................PERIOD. That's a fact. It may have been different in the early days of the automobile, but the wearing of seatbelts have not altered that fact one iota. Yet we continue to make faster and faster cars. We put speedometers that show a maximum speed of 120 miles an hour and penalize anyone that goes over 70 (in most states). The autobahn being the only exception that I know of. I am not sure if it is still that way or not. I think the highest posted speed limit is in Poland where 140 klm or 87 mph is allowed (per wiki).
I am not familiar with other countries as to seatbelt laws only the U.S..
It is an "entrapping mechanism" designed to stop a car for reason to "start trouble" when no offense has been committed..............NONE other that of not wearing a seat belt. The same with lights and signals when one has a tail light out or his brake lights fail to operate. It gives them a chance to ask if one has obeyed the law and has the necessary insurance needed by law that will enable a person to operate a vehicle and those fines imposed help fill the city coffers, when a gentle reminder is all that is necessary to allow the person to realize his auto needs repair. No penalty of further inspection. No crimes have been commited that threaten any other person. Of course if one states "what if" someone failed to see you are slowing down, what then?; will not stand up in a court of law, but not have insurance will. Get my drift?
Before mandatory liability was enacted, liability insurance was the cheapest form of auto insurance, collision being the highest and understandably so. They were laws based on the "what if" factor. Again a crock. Yes actuary tables show exactly how many accidents will occur and Insurance companies rely on those figures and adjust their rates accordingly until it became mandatory and then began to take advantage of that law; just like seat belts. There is profit to be made here.
Vid, I hope this response will offer an inkling of what I meant by just laws and what makes them unjust. Please offer your response. I know it is "idealistic" to espouse what I do, but when considering the consequences of maintaining the status quo, I feel it necessary to at least try and to achieve perfection rather than get cooked in mediocrity. :a-ok: