On the nature of law

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on May, 18 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
I want to start off with saying that I understand why we have a concept of law, with that said, let's discuss why and if it's even necessary.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that no one should have any ultimate say over anyone else.

I'm also of the opinion that a law is only a law if the majority of the populous accept it as a law.

If a law is only effective by the majority of acceptance, then is it really a law or is it just bullying by the majority?

I agree that some things should be enforced if the directly affect a persons individual self, such as murder, rape, theft, slavery and even damage to the environment, but laws that dictate what a person can say, do or think are ethically illegal.

Do we really need all these frivolous unnecessary laws or can we condense all laws into a more readily memorized index that all people can agree upon?




posted on May, 18 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   
If society as we knew it collapsed. Overnight common law would become the norm. Common law is much more basic, having the tone of the Mission Statement of any company. Our constitution in the USA is an example of common law, in my mind. You don't need tons of interpretation on guidelines such as these. The only thing in my mind that has interfered with this common law doctrine is that people want to control others into submission of their own beliefs.

If the common law is all people shall be treated equally: then it doesn't take a judge or advanced degree, or another law the outlines everything that qualifies as equal or not equal. The average person can look at any given situation honestly as was this person treated any differently than anyone else?



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


Yet at the same time, it is we whom allow others to control us. If we as a majority chose to denounce frivolous laws and regulations that are essentially ethically illegal, then the law can't be upheld by those few who deem themselves to have a legal right to subjugate and control us.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 06:17 AM
link   
If laws are governed by only those who wish to maintain control over others, then why do others allow them to have control over them?

Are most people just followers and unquestioningly do as they are told by those who seem to have more authority?

Could it be more out of fear that we follow laws? Are we more conditioned to fear consequences by unseen sources for failure to follow ethically illegal laws?

Are people truly living happier lives being forced to give away part of their earnings to someone else who says they have control over them? Isn't their laws against that sort of behavior for the rest of us?



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
1. If laws are governed by only those who wish to maintain control over others, then why do others allow them to have control over them?

2. Are most people just followers and unquestioningly do as they are told by those who seem to have more authority?

3. Could it be more out of fear that we follow laws? Are we more conditioned to fear consequences by unseen sources for failure to follow ethically illegal laws?

4. Are people truly living happier lives being forced to give away part of their earnings to someone else who says they have control over them? Isn't their laws against that sort of behavior for the rest of us?


I feel like I am in my philosophy class all over again and a good way to keep my mind from slowly breaking down over this summer time.

1. Looking to Thomas Hobbes "Leviathan" is it not that they wish to be controlled merely to do so, but rather for the sake of protection first and foremost (at least that is what I got from it) just as well as "bonding" (I suppose, but would slowly evolve later on) though of course if Thomas Hobbes' way of thinking were to be taken into consideration.

2. I would question that it probably just depends on what's at stake at the moment which may lead some to follow without questioning. Let's take for example wartime; an enemy attacks the soil of a country and the nation needs troops to protect the peace and liberty that it once had or wants to regain it. Most wanting to be patriotic may be swept up in a maelstrom of patriotism and volunteer to serve. Whereas it may not be as strong if it dealt with something else that lets say; sending aid to another country when their own country isn't doing so well perhaps.

3. Yes, so far in I agree. Most do not want to lose the status that they have built up so far in the course of their life. Whether it be through their job or their significant other that they have found in their life. Most of the time if one gets hit by the long arm of the law and is either thrown in jail or has it stamped upon their record that they committed an act; the possibilities of living "the dream life" slowly start to deteriorate.

4. Well in a sense I would say yes and no. Happy in the sense that they know happiness, perhaps if people know that their were better and more efficient ways in which their earnings could be used and they aren't being used efficiently then their would be some turmoil ( I guess it could be synonymous with what happened with the banks? ) As much as I know about laws for this country [which sadly I must say is very little] their probably is some sort of "code of higher standing", but when big figures start to come into play, the ink on the paper slowly starts to become dollar signs rather than the alphabet used to inscribe the code.

Not sure if those at all answered what you may have been trying to convey in the questions, but I figured I would give it a shot. I also numbered them so my responses would be easier to find for each question; rather than you having to hunt through the text to find them.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
I want to start off with saying that I understand why we have a concept of law, with that said, let's discuss why and if it's even necessary.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that no one should have any ultimate say over anyone else.

I'm also of the opinion that a law is only a law if the majority of the populous accept it as a law.

If a law is only effective by the majority of acceptance, then is it really a law or is it just bullying by the majority?

I agree that some things should be enforced if the directly affect a persons individual self, such as murder, rape, theft, slavery and even damage to the environment, but laws that dictate what a person can say, do or think are ethically illegal.

Do we really need all these frivolous unnecessary laws or can we condense all laws into a more readily memorized index that all people can agree upon?


I hope you don't mind if I reply to this one as well and separately since I was about to hit the limit on the other one.

To start off I would say that their should be at least a group of people rather than just one head honcho who will have the say over anything, generally one person's mind may not follow the will of the people which has been chosen for a few countries and generally deemed as "the best" way to govern people. A group or council seems to be the best way or some form of consensus.

That is true also that a law is pretty much a law if the majority accepts it, If I recall a lecture from my sociology class last semester. My teacher said the exact same thing about the status quo, if everyone or rather the majority does it, then it is deemed "normal" yet if one ventures off; it is deemed abnormal.

Well that question seems to put someone between a rock and a hard place and could be difficult to answer. Yet, most of the time adults raise their children in the status of the law and try their best to teach them about such; or perhaps the teachers of institutions do so. So more or less it may not be bullying if they grow up to accept the law as just "something that has always been." Rather it seems like it may become a problem when the law is changed, forcing people to comply. Generally it seems like it forces all of the populace to comply with a new law rather than just those who see it as fit as not just the minority but also the majority must give up something for a change in the law {Generally}. For example a speed limit change from 55 to 45. Not only affecting those who choose to go over, 55 but those who go 55 must all change and go down to 45.

The problem with something in which we can all agree upon is that, well we all just can't really agree upon it. As much as the world would be a nice place if people could agree upon something then it would be a boring world filled with barely any progress. If someone agreed with everything I said no matter how wrong, I wouldn't progress; rather their needs to be some balance to it. Perhaps if their was an index and if people were at least more open-minded about some things then maybe such an idea might work; but it would undergo revisions just as much as laws now go under revisions. So in a sense it seems like we { the populace } would be right back to where we started.





new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join