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.
Gosh, you are feeling obtuse this evening...
It was clearly implied that without a 'society' per se, there is no requirement for normalising attributes and I used the extreme example of 'law' to illustrate the point. In the broadest sense, laws define a behavioural model acceptable to society, between individual citizens, also with the state and regardless of whether they are implemented as prohibitive or permissive.
Of course, laws do not stop people from doing something, they simply provide a (hopefully!) clearly definition of acceptable behaviour.
As for justice, that is an entirely subjective concept; the law tells you which roads to use to get somewhere but justice is an ambiguous reference to the distance... "Is it far?" says the townie, "Oh yeah, quite a long way..." replies the farmer.
crimes have no definition unless within the context of the law.
The concept of 'natural law' is only a product of society since by definition is applies to concepts that are generally accepted as ubiquitous and not specific to an individual's interpretation.
All of that said, I am not sure what your point was since my original contention still stands: laws are a function of society and without recognition of the existence of society embodied in a formal structure then no laws are appropriate - not even natural law which becomes part of the whim of individual human nature.
Co-operation is only achievable through normalisation, although granted, the micro does not necessarily relate to the macro. A simple example, if really want a dozen eggs and the farmer wants my expensive wristwatch in payment, as long as we agree that it is a fair exchange then everybody is happy - we have normalised the worth of our goods.
(the imposition of standards or regulations) "a committee was appointed to recommend terminological standardization"
1. Statistics: Standardization of data obtained from different sources at different periods, through peer review or comparison against the objectives of data collection.
2. Database programming: Process of reducing a complex data structure into its simplest and most stable form by eliminating redundant attributes, keys, and relationships.
3. Metallurgy: Treatment process in which a metal is heated to a particular temperature (800°C to 900°C for steels) and then cooled in a particular manner to relieve internal stresses, refine the grain size, and improve the mechanical properties.
To make normal, especially to cause to conform to a standard or norm
Since we are in a society and since it is acceptable to suggest that laws exist as a function of that society, so natural law also applies. Natural law for human beings (and even some of the animal kingdom) indicates a support for the defence of the weak.
I would suggest that an elderly citizen with no realistic method of accruing goods or monies for transaction should be classified as 'weak'.
Clearly, the rule of law favours a clearly defined structure and since charity is not definable per se, it makes sense for society to define and maintain an infrastructure for helping the weak.
1 : benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity
2 a : generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering; also : aid given to those in need b : an institution engaged in relief of the poor c : public provision for the relief of the needy
3 a : a gift for public benevolent purposes b : an institution (as a hospital) founded by such a gift
4 : lenient judgment of others
You read an awful lot of information into my previous post that simply was not there. I do not advocate 'equality of wealth' at all, quite the opposite within reasonable boundaries. As such I hardly need to defend a position that I do not advocate.
Again, you've injected much more than I actually wrote and have made many, incorrect, assumptions. Why does authority place regulators above equality? That is an odd statement.
The rule of appropriate law is the authority to which everybody must adhere.
That is a concept but agreed, in implementation people will abuse that system, however, the abuse of that system should also be defined, either by prohibition or permission. Would you prefer anarchy and the rule of natural law and all of its interpretations?
I agree to an extent, I am not a socialist although I recognise the benefit to society of some social principles - as you would expect since 'social' pertains to 'society'. In truth, capitalism cannot work either without clear regulations. As I indicated earlier, society itself may only be maintained at a macro level via the use of clearly defined laws not subject to the whim of authority.
Do you want a police force? A fire service? Who pays for that? I suppose that you do not require an army?
It is the definitions of 'basic levels' and 'needy' that require evaluation clarification, not the concept itself - implementation rather than concept!
Should the bank/bankers be criminalised? Is it criminal that, if by an action of intent, such devastation is caused to people's lives?
Of course, by my own statements, crimes are only defined by contradiction of law and I guess we do not have laws to stop individuals operating in the free market economy from billowing toxic debt across the globe.
Okay, so you've shown me stories where people help each other out. So explain to me why the economics class failed.
Humans aren't willing to help each other out.
So, the problem here, and especially in this thread, is that many people seem to be of the mindset that everyone should support themselves and that no one should take responsibility for anyone else.
you fail to explain how it is this wealth will be created, and how it is everyone will maintain such wealth. Some people save money, others squander it. Would you, in your co-operative society of forced equality, criminalize the squandering of wealth? Just where will you draw the line?
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by SugarCube
Of course socialism has been debated for a millennium, for that is the only place for socialism; in debate. In the world of practicality socialism can not work without regulators imposing their regulations.
...Socialism has no concern with how wealth is created, only that it be spread evenly...
The law you are referring to can only work when that body of law is a collection of laws that protect the rights of the individual.
All other rules dictating usage of roads are not law, but merely legislation
justice is the act of being just or fair
you claim your non-ideological equality of wealth is necessary
Uh-huh. Tell that to the virus that invades your body. Try explaining to a bear in hibernation in its cave the concept that all property is theft, or explain to a black widow spider that there are normalized rules of co-operation, see how far that gets you. Natural law extends well beyond the production of "society", and you give "society" too much credit.
So too are the inalienable rights of people
Governments were formed to establish justice
Laws are discovered not invented
The black market functions through co-operation. Would you call the black market a system of normalization?
Surely if "normalization" is to be given any credence at all, then a standard definition of the word would be in order, don't you think?
Equality becomes what you declare equality to be
Defense of the weak requires declaring someone weak in order to defend them. What of the strong? Do they not deserve defense as well?
I would suggest you are a little too obsessed with declaring other people weak. We help who needs help regardless of their strengths or weaknesses
Is that what you are advocating, regulatory agencies that impose rules on people as to what they can and cannot do, and how much they can and cannot make?
If a regulator is to have any authority over those being regulated then necessarily those being regulated are not on an equal par with the regulator
Appropriate law? How about everyone adhere to law
The system you are advocating is being implemented
Your games of semantics do nothing to define what it is you claim requires definition
Originally posted by UsernameCory
Seems to miss real world examples like Canada that had actually did well during the economic crisis dispite having neighboured the poor performer of the US.
Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by MysterE
In general, socialism is self defeating, as your illustration shows.
However, unabashed capitalism also results in devastation of wealth for the vast majority of people. All you need to do, to prove that, is play a game of Monopoly. Eventually, one player ends up with all the money, all the houses and hotels, and everyone else goes bankrupt. That is analogous to the situation that the US is very close to.
Having said that, I abhor socialism, as it does destroy incentive, and also degrades human dignity. Both systems, unabashed socialism and unabashed capitalism are destructive.
Originally posted by Annee
Even though I "lean" Socialist - - - I'm intelligent and logical enough to know it can only work in small groups where ALL are in agreement.
Unless "we" are going to have engineered reproduction ensuring ALL offspring are superior equal beings - - Capitalism is not realistic either - - and will always eventually become Corporate Fascism like we have today.
We need something New - - that incorporates what works from past experiences to include ALL humans.
Yup, definitely obtuse this afternoon...
I am referring to law in a general sense, clearly there are many sub divisions, contract law, publishing law, etc., however, when you write, "the law that you are referring to" it obfuscates the simple point I am making.
Law is not self-evident.
Testimony is irrelevant
'due process of law' means to assess a charge of a crime which by default may be construed as an act contrasting with prohibited/permitted behaviour defined by law in the generic sense.
therefore, laws have to be defined and the ideal is to make them immutable within the context of achieving the protection of society.
Law must protect individuals, of course, but it must also protect legal entities and the state itself (e.g. trying to defraud a company or treason). The rules in place to protect an individual must also be balanced against the need to maintain a functional society. Testimony is irrelevant, that simply accords an account of circumstances and events to a scenario whereby the legitimacy of the situation has been called into question by virtue of breaking prohibition or exceeding permission.
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Laws are necessary to define freedoms, whether directly or indirectly, by omission or by expression - 'due process of law' means to assess a charge of a crime which by default may be construed as an act contrasting with prohibited/permitted behaviour defined by law in the generic sense.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.