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.
The question we must ask ourselves is this – is there a way to ensure people and property are protected that does not rely on destroying property rights in the process of offering this protection?
Is there a voluntary way to ensure justice is administered, in a just fashion, that does not rely the victim being victimized twice?
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...
As perverse as it sounds, gangs and cartels are necessarily no different than police departments and criminal court systems in terms of the functions they serve.
Originally posted by Mike_A
I would argue that the law exists to influence our behaviour by providing a number of incentives and disincentives for engaging in specific behaviours. If it succeeds in doing this then it has worked.
Secondly the OP makes the claim that laws generally make the problems that they are intended to address larger. I just don’t see any evidence to support this;
My 'rights' encompass any action I decide to undertake that is not harming another person or damaging their property.
Of course laws don't actually "solve" anything
I remain sceptical that laws generally make the problems they are meant to address worse.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Originally posted by Xiamara
Not this guy again, with the anarchy. If you want anarchy fine, I say it lasts not even a week laws are in place as a preventative. It causes fear and fear keeps people in line, anarchy creates chaos and disorganization. I'm not going to argue further since its pointless.
Anarchy is peace.
The State is chaos.
Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by mnemeth1
I argued, among other things, that there is evidence that laws do work; the title of your thread is “Laws do not work”. I’m fairly sure that the merit of that argument has significant consequences on your own!
The dispute over whether selling drugs is the largest illegal form of income and the comment on vigilantism were minor aspects of my post that took up just 118 words out of 998.
So don’t bullsh*t me or the forum about why you’re not replying because it’s obvious to all that you are just trying to weasel your way out of having to confront genuine criticism. Yours are the actions of an intellectual coward and nothing more; and it is now crystal clear that you never had any intention of discussing anything and posted this for no better reason than to receive an ego boost from like minded people who you thought would no doubt come to congratulate you on your enlightened insight.
Well done, you’ve got the stars but lost the credibility.
By and large, most laws don’t even reduce the problems they were created to address