It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Laws Do Not Work

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:24 PM
reply to post by DINSTAAR

Thats not an alternative to a legal system, To state so is laughable and has allready been proven as a non-viable (current) option.
Burned? Nah, You just should have actually watched, Then studied the points made in the video,

edit on 19/12/10 by TedHodgson because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:42 PM
reply to post by Hefficide

For all their pitfalls and shortcomings, they do protect us from surreptitious and questionable grabs for power made by those who would scorn law as a means of gaining power.

Laws help certain people grab power while preventing others from gaining any power themselves. Laws take power away from the masses and give control to despots.

You contradict yourself greatly here, mnemeth. And you betray a glimpse into the workings of your mind.

I would have to agree with this statement. It seems the OP needs to clarify his position. To arrest someone is to uphold a law. That and also clarify positions on Natural and Positive Laws.

reply to post by TedHodgson

Yes, burned.

Thats not an alternative to a legal system, To state so is laughable and has allready been proven as a non-viable (current) option.

I have read a few books by Hans-Hermann Hoppe and have actually watched the video. Also, the first alternative to the system we have now is to stop running toward the ledge. Stop hitting, stealing, and killing. I am not going to put myself in a position to try and predict exactly how this will work (that, itself, would be a case for a dictatorship or technocracy) because I am a corporeal human. I exist inside of time but the future holds great promise especially with all the Jumping Jesus and transhuman evolution. Man will require more freedom and peace will result.

I will give you credit for the paranthetic 'current'. I will agree. As stated above, I think it will be a process that will coincide with a technological revolution the likes of which not even Sci Fi writers can dream. You can't change a system based on violence over night, not at least without creating another system of violence, but you can change your own behavior. Stop hitting, stop stealing, and stop killing.

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:46 PM
reply to post by DINSTAAR

I think it is important to point out that the only type of person who would object to my proposal is someone who directly benefits from the violent chaos created by the State.

Illegal drug dealers would object to legalizing drugs.

People who take more than they give from the tax system would object to making theft illegal.

People who make a living at imprisoning other people or building prisons would object to making non-crime legal.

etc.. etc.. etc..

Those who object make it known to all of us that they are the beneficiaries of violence themselves.

edit on 19-12-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:48 PM
Great post. I've been thinking the same the past couple of years. Laws strip people of moral values, so that it is OK to do something just because it is legal, even if it is morally wrong. And vice versa - some people won't do something illegal, even if it was morally right. It takes responsibility off the shoulders of the individual to think for their selves.

However, I don't think we should just get rid of all laws overnight. That would be chaotic.
I just think there are too many petty laws that don't benefit anyone. You could probably whittle it down to about 50 laws that were in place to protect people.

Have you ever asked yourself this? How can one man tell another man what to do? Why is one man's opinion right, and the other wrong?

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:50 PM

Originally posted by DINSTAAR
reply to post by TedHodgson

Yes, burned.

But i dont want to be burned

Yeah the rest our your post really does help comprehend that the Proposed system cannot currently be impemented However in an ideal situation it would and could work, But at the moment the world is not in a position to accept the system as a viable replacement for the currently used legal system.
Yes when we stop killing etc it can be implemented but when that level of peace is acheived any number of legal systems could be implemented, But have you ever seen "Demolition man" ?

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 04:08 PM
reply to post by TedHodgson

Demolition Man was terrible but made me strangely crave taco bell.

However in an ideal situation it would and could work

Is this not what kings and clergy said of democracy and republics? The fact is, as we evolve (at exponential rate mind you) and technology frees us from paradigms of antiquity, peace without a state as we know it will be the most stable and orderly solution. The state will render itself irrelevant. Man will cease to be subjugated under tyrants.

Imagine what the founders of our republic would have done with the internet. Imagine archaic documents like the Magna Carta and its colonial cousin for a 21st centruy human.... Human 2.0.

When the whole of information and knowledge doubles at a rate of once or twice a year (while gaining momentum.. this Jumping Jesus Phenomenon) and this information is so easily available for all people of all skin color, nationality, and blood type... how is it logical to follow rules thought up hundred of years ago (and hundreds of Jesus) while clutching to the bleak notion that we must inherently be ruled by other people. People, not so different from ourselves.

I, personally, think it is utopian to believe that a small group of humans has the forsight, knowledge, and sense of justice to effectively rule. It is a pipe dream. History proves this.

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 04:08 PM
Slaves in a field discuss the consequences of one of their own running away.

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 04:16 PM
reply to post by DINSTAAR

Thats Odd it made me want a Rat Burger

A star for the rest of your post Because
1. Id have to really grind my balls to find something to disagree with on it.
2. Thered be no point in disagreeing with it, How could i critisize such brillaint literacy skills

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 05:39 PM
I'd like to edit my OP to say

"Because laws are completely incapable of solving the underlying problem they were created to address, just laws necessarily can ONLY PUNISH, NEVER PREVENT, CRIME. For example, if in order to prevent murder, the State were to lock everyone in rubber rooms, the act of locking people in rubber rooms without warrant is itself a crime. Any law that attempts to prevent crime necessarily destroys liberty, and is therefore itself a crime. Thus, we must have an extremely clear definition of what constitutes "a crime."

Instead of:

"Because laws are completely incapable of solving the underlying problem they were created to address, they necessarily can ONLY PUNISH, NEVER PREVENT, CRIME. Thus, we must have an extremely clear definition of what constitutes “a crime.”

This 4 hour window stuff is for the birds.

I wish they would remove the post lock.

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 08:12 PM
would you rather have all laws enforced or so tightly controled that no allowance is left for any individual, where if no or some leeway given as per say to how these laws are now in force, where it's still a road of personal choice that is allowed to make in abiding or breaking of such rules with the only consequence of being caught as one of penalty for that individual. all laws are only rules that can be broken, but they still serve the majority and are in use for deterance, for freedom and protection , not as law in mandatory extermination of self or will in breaking. these laws do protect the innocent which without would see all freedom vanish from a society of innocent to one of grave morality where all are guilty of chaos and anarchy as another form of law in disreguard to human value and decency of life itself for all concerned.

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 09:11 PM

Originally posted by KingDoey
Laws don't solve problems no you are correct in saying that.

However, surely you would agree that laws reduce them?

If i could rob somewhere for money or batter someone who p*sses me off I would. The only thing that stops me 9 times out of 10 is that fact that I may get charged and/or fined/sent to prison.

They are a deterrent to the majority of people. Thats all they are.

If there were no laws I would be a drug toting pimp ridin dirty in an Aston Martin popping people out of the window. As it stands I would probably get life imprisonment for that...

In that case"pimp" under "no laws"you could expect return fire from neighborhood watch."vigilantism " would rise if folks weren't hunted down by the police and tried for murder for killing those that clearly need it.
you would play nice or else because now law abiding folks won't become "vigilantes out of fear of arrest..
edit on 19-12-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 09:25 PM
Laws are made by kings, but only apply to peasants. They made the laws to protect their own wealth and well being plain and simple. We have to follow the law, they do not.

posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 12:23 AM
reply to post by mnemeth1

Everything you said is true.


Everything you said is true because humans have free wills.

The only way to make laws work, you must remove human will from the equation.

Think about network layer protocols. It solves all the problems because network components don't have free will. They follow the laws created for them.

posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 01:04 AM
reply to post by mnemeth1

Well, I read Hoppe's paper on Private Law and I do not think this is the answer. This is not a defense of the status quo, but this idea of Privitizing law and having protection insurance sounds kind of crazy.

Through buying protection-insurance, everyone would share in the common goal of striving to reduce conflict and enhance security.

That is highly optimistic!

I'm pretty tired and may have missed it in the paper, but does he ever address people that can't afford or choose not to have protection insurance? Or did he mention this in the video?

posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 01:23 AM
reply to post by mnemeth1

Anarchy as you see it cannot exist. You have this assumption that anarchy consists of an environment where people mind their own but it doesn't work that way. We are technically living in anarchy right now, a system of anarchy which allows people to do whatever the hell they want, including forming an established society and forcing or enslaving other people to abide by laws.

Anarchy allows for essentially all the systems to exist. Your anarchy requires some kind of controls to prevent any established society or community to inact laws over unwilling participants, which is not anarchy.

posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 02:11 AM
reply to post by TedHodgson

Laws are there to assist the innocent and convict the guilty! Yes, laws are not perfect and never will be in this lifetime but they got mankind too where we are now.

While ever we are living nothing is perfect and never will be. There will always be a positive and a negative in everything we do or attempt to do.

The main thing is laws are there do make us all realise what is right and what is wrong! They help citizens of all societys to continue in good fortune.

posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 02:13 AM
reply to post by yadda333

That is highly optimistic!

Is it not highly optimistic to assume that a small group of people, given a monopoly of the legitimate use of force, can effectively rule the rest of humanity?

I don't understand how someone who believes such a system to work can even make this judgement.

posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 02:13 AM
reply to post by mnemeth1

Love heals all. A loving society is the needle in the haystack. Giving is so beautifull even if a small thing. People suffer to much thinking if we are going to make it or not. Jesus is the savior of all. Lord, let it be! Merry christmas.

posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 02:34 AM
Brilliantly written! Bravo! Did you write that? If not who is the Author?

And to those asking what is the alternative Hello the video is about a private law system.

Society for centuries has enforced natural law without all the trappings of government and law enforcement today's society is brainwashed into believing that without it we descend in to utter chaos.

Geeze people at least be willing to explore outside the box a little instead of knee jerking it...

posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 03:45 AM
IMO you are *mostly* correct.. ever hear of "the spirit of the law"?.. Vs "the letter of the law"?

According to the "letter", indeed.. laws fail. But per "the spirit", laws CAN BE very successful.

If you've ever slowed down for, or "rolled through", a stop sign at 5 MPH and gone on your way safely.. you "obeyed" the "spirit" of the stop sign law... which was, ostensibly anyway, enacted to keep people from darting through intersections absent any order that could result in collisions, injuries etc..

The "letter of the law", you violated, which states you "shall" come to a full & complete stop before the "limit line", crosswalk, or intersection "entrance".. usually an imaginary prolongation of the curb line or pole the stop sign is mounted on.

But as we all know, you can be well within the spirit of the law by safely & slowly rolling through an intersection... and still get a ticket for your efforts to harm / endanger no one. Unfortunately there is no room for common sense or "spirit" of whatever crap when it comes to a motor officer.. those dudes would cite their own mom on mothers day. They're programed to believe scratching out chickenspackle citations makes the roads safer... generating income for 'the man' is just a punishment of virtue, law and order.. lol

Being retired from "the force", I wanted to comment on this statement as being SPOT ON:
"Do police have any financial incentive actually solve the murder in the first place? No, they do not."

I encourage EVERYONE to call their local gendarme and ask a simple question:
"Do you have more homicide detectives, or parking control / traffic officers?"

After that if anyone ever bothers to look into it, they might find their dept spends more man hours on money earners like traffic related "duties"... than solving murders. DUI, or "sobriety" check points make money.. "homoscide checkpoints" don't.
22450. (a) The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the
entrance to, or within, an intersection shall stop at a limit line,
if marked, otherwise before entering the crosswalk on the near side
of the intersection.
If there is no limit line or crosswalk, the driver shall stop at
the entrance to the intersecting roadway.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in