1934 Chicago Tribune Cartoon--Similar Fears as Today?

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
When has a "rule" ever prevented any of the crimes you mention?

are you for real?

how exactly do you want me to measure something that never happened? if i said 98% of potential crimes are thwarted because they are a crime would that satisfy you!!

well, you get an A and a star from me for asking an interesting question.

i'm all for anarchy, seems to work well for somalia. you see, the rule of law allows a person to seek recompense outside of themselves and without needing to fear escalation.

people that don't see the value of law are usually most insulated and cosseted by it. they like the intellectual argument of saying we don't need it but lack any perspective on the realities involved.

tell me where and when people have been made free through lack of laws and justice.

[edit on 7/8/09 by pieman]

reply to post by pieman


I'd say the farmers of Pennsylvania were pretty free post Revolutionary War right up until Washington shot a bunch of them to death for protesting the new tax burden the fledgling federal government was imposing.

About 5 years of freedom.

An example of a lack of 'law' bringing about more responsibility can be found here in NH. There is no seat belt law and no law requiring automobile insurance. In both cases NH has a higher population percentage wearing seat belts and insuring their vehicles than our oppressive neighbor to the South, MA.

When people are free to chose for themselves they will chose the better option. When people are ordered to do things a whole world of emotional and philosophical options cloud their judgment be it petty rebellion or embracing what is now 'taboo' for a thrill.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I'd say the farmers of Pennsylvania were pretty free post Revolutionary War right up until Washington shot a bunch of them to death for protesting the new tax burden the fledgling federal government was imposing.

About 5 years of freedom.

can you give a few more details or a couple of links, i mean, "I'd say the farmers of Pennsylvania were pretty free" is a little vague to be fair.

An example of a lack of 'law' bringing about more responsibility can be found here in NH.

i thought i was fairly specific but maybe not, a lack of seatbelt and insurance law is not exactly what i had in mind.

you seem to be suggesting we don't need laws, there are quite a few examples of places and times where the rule of law broke down or didn't exist, can you point to one of them as an example of the way thing ought to be.

When people are free to chose for themselves they will chose the better option.

95% of the time, for 95% of the people, this is true. the problem is, for 5% of the people 95% of the time, it isn't.

[edit on 7/8/09 by pieman]

reply to post by pieman


I'm referring to the period of time post-Revolution and pre-Whiskey Rebellion.

There is no 'lawless' area I can point to that is truly free. Current 'lawless' areas are under outside influences from other governments, corporations or some other external authoritarian entity.

The 'faith in law' people have is part of this influence. People have been taught for generations to fear some mythical evil walking among them and that only some shinning hero can save them but this hero requires you all pay him a percentage of your property and abide by certain rules the hero lays out. In the end the crime that has always existed continues to exist undeterred, the people impose artificial and arbitrary limitations on their own lives, succumb to unnecessary expenditures and the hero grows fat, rich and powerful.

I cant give you a current case study because there is no part of this globe that is uncontrolled or uninfluenced by authoritarian forces. Maybe there are some untouched tribal societies somewhere that still live free but I'm not an anthropologist.

Originally posted by chiron613
Well, if you noticed, the US began pulling out of the Depression right around then. So if history really does repeat itself (and it doesn't), then this is good news. We'll be back on our feet in no time.

BTW - *spending*? That was the Bush administration that gave us the biggest deficit in history.

Actually the US did not pull out of the Depression until the start of WWII in the 40's. None of the excessive spending at the time really worked. It took a world war to pull us out of it. Lets hope we don't have to go that route again..

Still blaming Bush eh...Please check the facts first. Check what the federal deficit was during the Bush years and compare to the first 200 days of the Obama administration.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


i would argue that what "the shining hero" you mention is actually an inevitable consequence of human nature. man wants to live as well as possible in as easy a manner as is possible and, for some, this is always through the exploitation of others. the "shining hero" is different from the villain only in that he offers security as a reward for the exploitation he clearly foists.

the reason for laws, in my opinion, is as much to limit the influence of this exploitation and to regulate it's consequences as it is to enable the exploitation. laws are a contract that also offer the exploited some redress for their exploitation.

on the nature of law, we probably agree to an extent, but where you believe that there would be no exploitation if there were no law, i believe there would be more.

i look look at law as a contract between the exploited and the exploiter, the trick is in achieving a balance of benefits IMO. it isn't ideal, by any means, but it is necessary because of the nature of man.

this might be pessimistic but i believe it is borne out in reality.

[edit on 7/8/09 by pieman]

Originally posted by piemanbut where you believe that there would be no exploitation if there were no law, i believe there would be more.

I do not believe that without law the 5% would suddenly become saints. What I do believe is that in the absence of law as it is statistics and rates would remain relatively unchanged.

In special circumstances like densely populated urban areas with levels of organized 'gang' activity there would be a point at which the 95% would have to decide whether or not to tolerate, succumb to or exterminate the 5%. For them there could be a brief but drastic uptick in criminal activity but if dealt with swiftly the post-uptick period should prove to be more crime-free than under the current system of arrest, brief detainment, release.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
In special circumstances like densely populated urban areas with levels of organized 'gang' activity there would be a point at which the 95% would have to decide whether or not to tolerate, succumb to or exterminate the 5%.

followed by that 3% that don't quite agree with the remaining 92%, inevitably they'll be a problem, and then there are those who's life styles you find a little distasteful......

it just won't work, people will do almost any horrible thing so long as they can justify it to themselves.....some even like it.

check out the milgram obedience experiment, it's not directly applicable but it does show that people are not as morally guided as we would like to think.

reply to post by pieman


They do any horrible thing to each other now. It's value to deter or prevent is nonexistent.

My biggest objection is that an individual or individuals who have no desire to harm, violate or even really interact with others are subjected to some artificial control which serves no purpose in their lives save to constrain liberty.

An individual who poses no threat to anyone, who is even immensely helpful and valuable to the community around him can have his life irrevocably altered because he distilled some of his corn and grew some pot or has his grandfather's rifle hanging on the wall of a shed that was built without board approval.

For the greater useless laws like those against murder, rape, assault, etc... they don't really oppress anyone just as they do not deter anyone from committing the crime. Telling me I cant murder alters my life in no way since I do not plan to murder. Telling a murderer he cannot murder doesnt alter his life in any way because he's going to murder regardless. The only way such laws affect me are monetarily due the outrageous cost of maintaining the useless system. Freedom-wise whether there was some law or not against rape doesn't affect me in the least.

Freedom-wise the typical individuals life is affected by consumption laws regarding what one can and cannot own or can and cannot create or can and cannot consume and land use laws governing ones private property.

Both god and law can be replaced by "do unto others..." and with better results. Perhaps it's not feasible for a large and densely packed population to behave itself but for many of the rural communities across America it's more than possible. What does 'lawlessness' matter when there's 5,000 people in town and everyone knows everyone? Most of the time it doesnt. Except for when it's pushed down from the federal level that the guy on the 80 acre farm go to prison for 20 years because he had a pot plant out back.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
What does 'lawlessness' matter when there's 5,000 people in town and everyone knows everyone? Most of the time it doesnt.

people get by, as i said, in the easiest way possible. in a small town it is easier to get along with your neighbors most of the time, fair enough, but for about 4 or 5% of the people, the lack of any predetermined sanction or any apparatus by which to track them down might tip the scales from "easier to get by getting along" to "screw 'em, they can't stop me". just human nature.

once you understand that laws are needed you can start to think of them as a contract. in my eyes, consumption laws are not good. they clearly exist to punish one side of the agreement and should be struck off as soon as possible.

land use laws should be a local issue, it you're slap bang in the middle of your own 500 acres i don't see how you shouldn't do what you like but if you're living cheek by jowl with your neighbor, i think they should be considered.

it's a complex balance, which is why the system is complex. just tearing up the law books and starting again is not an option that appeals to me.