A Country Without Laws Would You Live There?

Only if I were the only citizen. Well, maybe my immediate family could come too. But even with the three of us there would be rules/laws between us. So I guess for a perfectly lawless society it would have to be just me.

OK, I’m just making this up , so don’t hold me to it. I reserve the right to change my mind at any time without notice.

Definition of Law:
A law is any arbitrary rule intended to control the behavior of participating members of an established social order/group.
So, a system of laws is the set of rules defining acceptable behavior for participation in a group; the group being any number of individuals united for a common cause, goal, or purpose.

A law obviously doesn’t have to make sense, and there’s no requirement that it be of any benefit to anyone. A bad law is no less valid than a good one. It can be good or bad, right or wrong, moral or immoral; it doesn’t matter. Some of most impassioned battles in Congress are fought over issues a typical 3rd grader would consider brain-dead.

Despite all that, though, unless you’re Ted Kaczynski (the Unibomber), I’m afraid that laws are as necessary for survival as food, water and oxygen. We are a social animal and, therefore, require a set of rules to function as a cohesive group. Without laws we would quickly degenerate into the savages we all are just under the surface. Chaos and anarchy would rule. It would get very ugly.

Besides, I don’t think most people could handle total freedom. Nor do they want it. Most folks prefer that most of their decisions be made for them. It makes life a lot easier that way, and leaves more grey matter to devote to important things, like the Kardashians.

As far as total freedom goes, a lot of people might think they want it, and may fantasize about it, but wouldn’t know what to do with it if they had it...

PS: I do agree there are an awful lot of stupid laws, though, that we would be better off without.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Obama lives in a country without laws.

If our leaders don't observe laws, then they live in a country without any. This is because no one enforces laws on our leader.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: FormOfTheLord



Obama lives in a country without laws.



If our leaders don't observe laws, then they live in a country without any. This is because no one enforces laws on our leader.

Lol America has plenty of laws, cmon dude. . . .

originally posted by: crazyewok
Is that not what Somalia is?


And guess what? I dont want to live there

I agree, it becomes a dog eat dog society. I do not think anyone would want ME to be in that type of world, so I'm sure I would not want that either. Every love and peace society seems to have imploded into something truly horrendous. There is a reason why humans are the top dog on this planet at 7 billion even though we are weak slow and can't live 3 days on our own. We are the Velociraptor of the mammal world and some people just do not want to recognize that fact. I agree there are people out there that are all into this, but as the Avatar movie line goes “Every living thing that crawls, flies or squats in the mud wants to kill you and eat your eyes for Jujubes.” Well these people would end up this way very quickly...

No, but I would love to live somewhere that had only one law/rule: do what you will, but harm none.

originally posted by: DMFL1133
No, but I would love to live somewhere that had only one law/rule: do what you will, but harm none.

I would like to live in or at least visit such a place.

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: 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.

Well in such a hypothetical scenario there would be a fight as some force attempted to take control of a nation thats only law is there are never to be any there.

I bet everyone would gun down and exterminate anyone who tried to pull such a stunt with impunity.

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: 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.

A very good point, that being the laws are for us not them, its good you make that distinction.
For example police dont seem to do a very good job at policing themselves. . .
The FBI isnt looking for criminals in the FBI .. . . ..
The CIA & NSA isnt thinking of how to spy on itself. . . .
ETC . . . .

All that crapola is for we the people. . . .

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Book of Eli, Great movie

I have not seen that particular Batman movie yet.

My all time favorite movie dealing with this subject?

THE ROAD WARRIOR!:

)www.madmaxmovies.com...

The more more money you have, the less laws you have to follow...

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: 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.

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: FormOfTheLord
Lol nice cartoon!

However I wonder if money would be a big issue or would most people trade if there were no laws?

I would create additional local currencies or look for trade material to have an overview of more important things like food, so nobody can trick us without being killed as result, to prevent further harm, if not possible to change the person.

The more money you got, the more money you get. I don't trust the official money. Exploiters have to be rid of if the harm of removal is lesser than the harm prevented.

Payment in estimated working effort is the ultimate key before most realize why making others happy makes oneself happy.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

His point is a valid one.

If there are laws they are only really laws if they apply to all people equally, top to bottom, if the people who are charged with protecting and defending those laws only pick and choose which of those laws they will follow and how they will follow them, then the laws are only so much toilet paper.

The only reason we do not have complete anarchy yet is because too many people still respect the old order.

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.)

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.)

Interesting post, individual laws or customs are just human nature, of course what is right for some isnt always right for all.
Which is why I have come up with the idea of this thread, a kind of self rule society is what America was founded on but never quite got right.

So in a lawless society where everyone does whatever they want without fear of the government comming after them things may actually work out.

What about countries with Jungle Laws ? Would you live there?