It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: crazyewok
Is that not what Somalia is?
And guess what? I dont want to live there
originally posted by: arpgme
If there's no law , then eventually someone who wants domination will declare themselves leader and make laws. Remember: at one point there was no law or society. Humans were nomadic and later got together in big groups to form cities and laws.
A society that doesn't value equality, is a society where, eventually, anyone's freedom can be taken away.
"majority rules" is the gang mentality and messs up freedom of expression, creativity, and individual freedom. It can even lead to a religious government where others a persecuted.
originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: FormOfTheLord
But what are laws when rulers don't obey them? Just window dressing.
Or you could call it the frosting on the cake of hypocrisy.
originally posted by: oneoneone
Oho, I just ran over a great animated example of why anarchy is better than rulership!
Start at 7:25 for the first of 2 anarchy explanations.
Those guys really helped me to have logical explanations to the usual slave arguments.
originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
Lol nice cartoon!
However I wonder if money would be a big issue or would most people trade if there were no laws?
originally posted by: twhite93
a reply to: calstorm
So if it's human nature to organize and follow, does that mean law is an extension of human nature? The very second we were put on this earth, we understood that we have to obey another persons law? Does that mean that if law is an extension of human nature, is crime also an extension?
Was there crime before there was law? Or was there law before there was crime? Or did the establishment of 'laws' let it be known what was a criminal offense and what wasn't? The same could be said for property. Is it wrong to take something that belongs to someone else? Or is it natural that people don't 'own things'? As it could be argued that law and property are two manmade concepts. The only reason we view these things as natural is because history has followed a model of laws and civilized society.
In my defense, I take part in civilized society. I follow the rules I see a benefit to following, and I often neglect others where I do not see their benefit, or those where see less risk on my part. However, I do believe that a lawless and chaotic society could be established. There might be rules. But Im sure that in an unstable and chaotic state, these rules would be unspoken and function based on human instinct and a will to preserve the free nature of their society.
But I do not think that adhering to manmade law is natural one bit.
(Make the most sense out of this as you can, I haven't even gotten out of bed yet. Would love to hear your side to the questions asked.)