It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Would you rather live without the law?

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 04:07 PM
Lately, all over the world, we have seen the corruption in law
enforcement agencies, political rulers and even religious leaders
come full circle. So it seems that every one involved with making
the laws, enforcing the laws, due process of law, even Gods law

Seem to take advantage of their status and do not live by any
law. At least according to their less conventional appetites if they
have any. Those with a good moral foundation and spiritual fortitude,
would find no reason, to live out side the rule of any laws, they are
involved with.

But does that mean that all who are involved in law, are of a good
moral standing? Are people who look good in a suit and tie,
automatically above suspicion? What about you? If the great number
of people mentioned here don't have to live by the law, if they don't
choose too? Then why should you?

If the model we have today is what results from mans law, then we
must assume by the one model, that all the following models would
determine the same results. Because we must view a one for one
as good as a ten for ten in regards to the long term. So if you follow
me, what good does it do us to have any government at all? When
in an anarchy you know who you can and can not trust. And by the
rule of law many a wolf hides, cloaked in sheeps clothing.

But where did the idea of law even come from in the first place?

When it comes to mans law? I think I just might as be an anarchist.
And when the rum is gone, may the fires smoke reach up to God in his

But what would be your rather?
The continued rule of law that serves only the lawless?
Or no law at all, no hiding place for wolves and flesh eating
rats. Which one is worse from where you live your life? I
know many of you would fall apart, by your own nerves, without
the illusion of protection offered by society. But it's a very
frail illusion.

posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 04:14 PM
I prefer law because I have a kid and I would like to see her grow old...

posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 04:24 PM
There needs to be law.

The problem is there are too many laws.

Only criminal law we need is:
No murder
No rape
No child abuse
No stealing/fraud
No lying in public office/court
No treason
No violent assualt or threats(self defence no included.)
No reckless action that can endanger someone involentary (ie drink driving)
No tresspassing/property damage
No animal cruelty.

Those simple laws would stop socity collapseing, keep us safe yet be simple and clear enough to stop the state overburdening us and overfilling prisons with stupid "crimes".

Civil law is abit more complicated.

posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 04:38 PM
And if laws were trashed, then decent folks would band together and have more physical, violent members of the band step up as protectors of the rest with eggheads deciding the particulars... and thus it starts all over again...

So maybe once we grow up a bit and not just live by 'bigger fish eats smaller fish' then maybe, just maybe, we can live together without law... only kindness and common sense... but don't hold your collective breath.

posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 04:44 PM
It`s the people who make the laws I could do without.
We do need laws but just because some people make doesn't make it right.
There are too many laws which limits our lifestyle and I think governments have lost control where law is concerned.
The outcome is we`re not able to have a free society....

posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 04:49 PM
Anarchy is great if you are young and healthy but for the rest of society, children, disabled, old etc, anarchy is certain death.

I think locally made laws would be a better system than wide spread blanket type laws.
The local people of any given area know better what laws would best support their particular way of life.The best thing about having locally made laws is that if you don`t like the laws in one particular place you could move to some place else that has laws that best suit your lifestyle.
Politicians are always going on about how our diversity makes us strong but then they make wide reaching blanket type laws that destroy our diversity little by little.

posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 04:54 PM
A law should only exist if it protects my unalienable rights from being infringed upon by someone else or protects me from bodily harm by someone else.

Law should not exist for any other reason, and most especially people should STOP making laws to try to protect me from myself.

posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 04:54 PM
I want Fair Honest law...I'm sick of the monopoly get out of jail free card the cops get away with..

posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 04:56 PM
a reply to: randyvs

Without law, humanity would reverse to primal instincts. It isn't that law is bad, but that those who rely upon those who create the laws do it in such of a manner to allow themselves the "pleasure" of their primal urges while imprisoning those of who do the same?

Humans are NOT exemplary examples to any intelligent life forms in the universe as to a reason to preserve our ignorance.

edit on 10-1-2015 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 04:59 PM

originally posted by: greydaze
I want Fair Honest law...I'm sick of the monopoly get out of jail free card the cops get away with..

What about those who create the laws that the "cops" are responsible for upholding????

The police DO NOT create the laws!

Attack those in the government who legislate the laws and protect those they employ to enforce them!

posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 05:01 PM

I do not support anarchy.

posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 05:02 PM
a reply to: randyvs

Humanity is still far too young to embrace true Anarchism. Society, as defined by our current sociological paradigm, would ultimately collapse beneath the weight of such responsibility. Anarchy could work if we were all on the same wavelength. Unfortunately I don't see that happening anytime soon. Still too much hate, greed, anger and any myriad of negative mindsets.

posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 05:10 PM
a reply to: seeker1963
Nah,just kidding..I'm a loner
edit on 10-1-2015 by greydaze because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 05:13 PM
a reply to: randyvs

I think we get a little taste of how things would be when the power goes out in the cities.

posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 05:34 PM
If the law makers just kept in mind the saying, "The law is an ass" they would stop making crazy laws that try to nuance every aspect of human behaviour which is nigh impossible, and you end up with stuff like Zimmerman, and Wilson who both dispached someone into the next world because they were scared of them. One went to court and was let off, the other didn't. Anyone who does that should go to a proper court, courtesy of the State/Crown prosecutor's 'evidence' and let a jury decide. Get rid of the Tea and Buns pretrial which is a nonsense and unfair, and probably stinks most of the time.

posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 05:36 PM
There are so many disdainful, insidious things that go on, we found it necessary to appoint a group of people, who we have given authority, who can go in and say "you can't do this".

Dirty job, but somebody's got to do it.
edit on 1/10/2015 by ladyinwaiting because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 06:03 PM
The claim that anarchism is chaos was refuted long ago by Alexander Berkman when he wrote:

" I must tell you, first of all, what anarchism is not. It is not bombs, disorder, or chaos. It is not robbery or murder. It is not a war of each against all. It is not a return to barbarianism or to the wild state of man. Anarchism is the very opposite of all that.

I tend to agree with Mr Berkman. Several dictionaries define the word differently. I think the sixties movement of living in a commune may come close. A group of individuals who mutually decide to live their lives without the need for external authority. I often wonder which is more morally repugnant, the law makers or the enforcers. I have no issue with living my life outside the bounds of modern day authority. : )

posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 06:07 PM

originally posted by: greydaze
a reply to: seeker1963
Nah,just kidding..I'm a loner

I'm a loner and anti social behavioral person and I have the papers to prove it! Do you?

The problem is that our primal instincts are bursting at the seems as a society to rebel from the government oppression that is diminishing our societal duties as human beings!

You can toss in any political ideology or religion you want, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to say what is right from wrong?

The problem I see in todays society, is that too many people are so damn stupid that they demand the government to create laws that do nothing more than imprison people for nothing more than falling into a "category" that the Progressive left deems as offensive!!

Ask the people of France how that worked out!

posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 06:38 PM
Problem is that we have laws that are designed to generate revenue. The government says that it has no interest in running people's lives but makes laws that affect anything you do. If you build a room on your home with permission you break the law and must pay. If you pee in a bush you Break the law and must pay. And they make news laws all the time. They sit around and think of ways to make new laws so they can charge people for breaking them and create more revenue by collecting fines. When a big company has to pay fine for screwing people who gets that money?

posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 06:42 PM
I vote for keeping laws and the police departments. I don't think we need the FBI or Homeland security though, they are way too expensive for what we get out of them. If we got rid of Lawyers, I wouldn't be too upset though.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in