It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420
reply to post by KingDoey
 



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...


Don't think so baby, you'll still be in that Jap hatch back.

It's your laws that give those evil drug dealers their Aston Martins. Without laws they would only be able to fetch a similar price for their goods as other things they could have grown on their land (like tomatoes) or made in their lab. You should reread the OP in regards to the black market your laws create. Your laws fund gangs, gang violence and their gold plated pimp stick lifestyles. It's no secret that drug dealers are in favor of prohibition.

It's also pretty sad that you're not intelligent enough to determine for yourself what is moral and what is immoral and must leave your thinking to the honest politicians. (If you think "popping people out the window" is morally justifiable that's even sadder.)





Do you really think that if there were no laws you would be an honest person? Don't tell me about morals. All you have to do is watch the news everyday to see how humans p*ss morals up the wall.

I used to have a different mindset but whats the point anymore it gets thrown back in your face!

If i could legally do something that was previously against the law why wouldn't I? Curiousity to try things is in human nature. It is only the consequence of being punished that stops me, and millions of others who think like me from doing (most of) these things now...

If you could do WHATEVER you wanted without being punished by the law then why wouldn't you? If there were no laws you would HAVE to be illegal just to survive.

Also, do you really think a world without Laws would be filled with peaceful do gooders?! Look at the state of the world now WITH laws!!

All I am saying is think about it from this perspective, in essence Laws do work because they prevent descent into total chaos.

Good evening
edit on 21-12-2010 by KingDoey because: Added more




posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by KingDoey
 



Do you really think that if there were no laws you would be an honest person? Don't tell me about morals.


To be quite honest with you, I really only obey their law when it is convenient to do so (for example, purchasing mandatory motor vehicle registration allows me to park in public without being towed away). I'm intelligent and free enough to live by my own moral code and really resent that other men would like to violently enforce how I should spend the little time I have on this planet. I'm telling you about morals because it's the truth and it's how I live. I could care less about their law, but I'm not going around raping and pillaging. I would never intentionally harm another person in any way unless in self defense. If there were suddenly no laws I'd go on living almost the exact same way, just a little bit freer.


All you have to do is watch the news everyday to see how humans p*ss morals up the wall.


And yet the law is doing nothing to prevent this. I would argue that most people's behaviour is more affected by whatever morals they have than whatever the law is. The only thing the law is good for is punishment, not prevention. As in the murder example in the OP, I believe there are better ways to achieve justice.


I used to have a different mindset but whats the point anymore it gets thrown back in your face!


I'm sorry you feel that way. I believe there's a lot more good in the world than bad, but it's only the bad that makes for interesting headlines.


If i could legally do something that was previously against the law why wouldn't I?


If the law the only thing stopping you then maybe you should just go for it. Fortunately governments are extremely inefficient at enforcing their law and a little bit of intelligence goes a long way at keeping yourself safe from their violent enforcers.


Curiousity to try things is in human nature.


As is empathy. I don't believe you, or any human adult with a fully developed and healthy brain would actually want to harm people to any serious extent. It's hard-wired into us and we would never have reached this level of evolution if it wasn't. In any case, choosing to obey the law is a choice governed by a persons moral code. If a person has so few morals that he would rape, steal or murder, obeying the law probably isn't that high up on his moral code either. This is pretty much the reason why laws fail at prevention. All they really do is inconvenience honest people who believe in obeying the law (but have never questioned it).


It is only the consequence of being punished that stops me, and millions of others who think like me from doing (most of) these things now...


If someone has no morals and fear of punishment as prevention is really what it comes down to, I can guarantee you that your punishment for intentionally bringing harm to someone in a world without laws would be more severe than the current justice system.


Also, do you really think a world without Laws would be filled with peaceful do gooders?! Look at the state of the world now WITH laws!!


Exactly, look at the world now with laws. They do nothing but inconvenience the honest man. I'm under no illusion that the world would suddenly become a utopia, all it would do is give moral people far greater freedom and allow them happier lives.





edit on 22-12-2010 by Azp420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Laws are are made cause they don't find a good solution on the matter.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 



No I’m not joking, the OP said that laws generally made the problem that they were intended to solve larger. Although you can find some examples of this I am arguing the “generally” aspect of the statement; do laws against murder increase the number of murders? Do local parking laws make parking worse? Do patent laws make protecting ideas more difficult? etc etc


Most pre-crime laws (laws in place to attempt to stop people from potentially committing real crime at a later point) make the problem they were intended to solve larger (or create new problems).

Law's like those against murder have no effect on the number of murders (see my reasoning in my previous post). I do believe the law makes a bad situation worse for the victim's family however. Interestingly, I would argue that in my area parking laws make the problem of parking worse. The time restrictions in place are so ridiculous that they are practical for very few people to use. As a result the vast majority of these spaces remain empty throughout the day as everyone is forced to look elsewhere (and create parking problems elsewhere while a huge amount of prime parking real estate goes unused).

Pre-crime laws is the state treating us all like imbeciles. A man arrives at a red light at 3am. He looks both ways and sees not a vehicle in sight so proceeds through the intersection. An unmarked police vehicle behind him spots this and pulls him over. He is punished to the fullest extent of the law because he could have harmed someone by going through the red light, even though he also travels through numerous intersections which don't have traffic lights and require him to look both ways in a similar manor which could result in him harming someone. The man emotionally shares his reasoning with the friendly law enforcer who responds with a threat to have the man kidnapped at gunpoint and held in a cage against his will.

All the money spent enforcing, punishing and investigating pre-crime could do a lot of good elsewhere.


It’s all well and good taking the big sexy things like anti-drug laws


The reason for the majority of crime in America.



edit on 22-12-2010 by Azp420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 03:23 AM
link   
'A crime is to provoke conflict'

When I first started on this thread you sounded very disillusioned mnemeth1, so many problems and it sounded like throw more money at with the term 'market based justice'. I did not watch the video before (pretty busy) so this aspect got taken out of context. 'Supply and demand based justice' is more accurate but with the other issues going on pretty close. For those who are busy, the 30 min to 1 hour section has the meat. First 30 min identifies a lot of the conflicts going, the last 30 min is Q & A. It does introduce a new paradigm shift and addresses a lot of the issues, not all but more universal in context.

For the physical sciences laws are vital. They accurately define the relationships and incorporate strict procedures for delicate and intricate matters. For the social sciences it is more based on guidelines and codes, a lot of this work is in the grey area and until physics behind is understood it has been the best way through.

The introduction of a basic universal law that all entities (individuals, industry, nations, ect) must abide is good. From there it can spread out through all the different cultures and help get to the point when addressing conflict. I support the removal of victimless crime from the system. Guns, drugs, sex, ect are cultural issues that each community will work through. Independent arbitration is very good, the courts once had it but has gotten messy over the years.

Also, I found the issues of state indemnity very interesting. The role of the state is to look after the population, manage risk. This is what insurance companies do. Hmmm...
edit on 22-12-2010 by kwakakev because: added state indemnity...



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 05:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Azp420
 



Most pre-crime laws (laws in place to attempt to stop people from potentially committing real crime at a later point) make the problem they were intended to solve larger (or create new problems).


But where is the evidence for this?


Law's like those against murder have no effect on the number of murders (see my reasoning in my previous post).


Can you repost, I can’t see where you’ve shown your reasoning for this.


I do believe the law makes a bad situation worse for the victim's family however.


In what way?

It’s also the case that the victim is not the only consideration and there needs to be a balance between satisfying the needs of the victim and those of society which are not always compatible.


Interestingly, I would argue that in my area parking laws make the problem of parking worse.


Then that’s a badly drafted law, but that is a matter of implementation; the law itself has worked in that it has stopped a certain behaviour.

Although it may have caused a problem in your area it doesn’t mean that similar laws are always inappropriate.


Pre-crime laws is the state treating us all like imbeciles. A man arrives at a red light at 3am. He looks both ways and sees not a vehicle in sight so proceeds through the intersection.


With respect that’s a contrived and emotionally charged example. Keeping with the driving theme, breaking a speed limit is an immediately victimless crime however driving at 40mph in a 20mph area increases the likelihood of there being a victim as the increased speed reduces reaction time and increases breaking distance.

Or what about planning laws? Should it be ok for someone to modify their house in any way they see fit regardless of whether it is safe or unsafe? What happens many years down the line when the original owner is long gone and the house collapses?

If a law can decrease the occurrence of these behaviours then they are worthwhile.

There’s a debate to be had over every law but I don’t think the case has been adequately made that there must be an immediate victim.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 




There’s a debate to be had over every law but I don’t think the case has been adequately made that there must be an immediate victim.


Agreed. It is complex and risk management is part of it. Scientific review and study is going to been needed to sort out what the risk and overall cost / benefit to the sustainability of community. The drug issues are just one example of this.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 07:22 AM
link   
Laws do work, BUT ONLY if there is majority support of it, for we live in a civilised world, and only through sharing can we progress. We are not animals living in jungles, to each its own.

If laws were to only benefit one section, one strata of society, while the rest are made to suffer for it, then chaos and anarchy will reign that only the fear of ultimate violence can put to rest. That's how Authoritarianism and dictatorships came about.

The laws against crime DO work. With hard option of armed enforcement and soft option of education, murders and other crime laws are and will continue to be reduced as mankind progress, so long as such crimes are properly defined with no loopholes or ambiguity, as well as the support of the People.

Laws came from the People. The only laws that do not work and meant to be challenged by all free men are those that came from tyrants, dictators and shadow authoritarians who created laws for others but none for themselves.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 07:40 AM
link   
There are many problems with the just the sheer numbers of laws today. Most are completely unnecessary and should be labeled as societal niceties rather than laws. Of course, the more laws there are, the more money can be squeezed from people for the slightest infraction.
Moving on from them we get to the real meat of the law system. What we are seeing more and more though is that an elitist class, and even those they pay to enforce those laws on the lowly subjects, seem to be above the law. How many times do we now see even government enforcement departments accused of, and in most cases guilty of, criminal activity in hiding and covering up of crimes by those elitists? Hell, they even go so far as to quickly cobble together retrospective laws to give immunity to high level crimes committed by industrial and banking elites.
The whole idea of a level playing field, with the laws of the land being upheld in equal measure, no matter the social standing of the accused is, quite frankly, laughable! Or it would be were it not so blatant and infuriating.

So, laws can and should work, but need to be enforced by entities without any political affiliation or influence, something that we just do not have today. When political interference from the highest levels is able quash criminal investigations, or even prevent them from even starting, then we know the system is broke. As such, there should be no expectation that the ordinary man in the street should abide by those same rules flouted by the rich and powerful.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Archangelelijah
 





....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.....


I am sorry I just can not let that naive assumption stand.

True laws, those against murder, bodily harm (includes rape) and theft, including fraud and criminal trespass (poison in your well from neighboring industry) should exist and be enforced.

However those basic law have been swamped by "protectionist" laws and regulations that allow the elite to get away with murder literally. These laws and regs are not meant to PROTECT the citizen or the environment, they are meant to PROTECT the market share of the big corporations. They are just disguised to look good so the Progressives will clamor to have them enacted. This is done through the corporate owned propaganda outlet, the mass media.

Here is an example of what I mean:

Food Borne illness is a great example of this propaganda in action. The final act in this "play" has just been staged with the passage of S-510 the Food Safety Farce HACCP red tape will now strangle the organic farming/local food movement leaving the entire food industry in the hands of the Ag Cartel.

This is the first Act of the Play:
Under Pres. Clinton, Cargill and Monsanto had great influence. Our food safety laws in the USA were replaced by HACCP in 1996. This allows Corporations to self inspect, government labs were shut and Government Inspectors were reduced to looking at paperwork and NOT looking for food borne illness. Legislators overlook serious flaw in USDA’s HACCP food-safety system—while promoting its adoption by FDA

The bovine fecal material (causing the food borne illness) finally hit the fan with much publicity by the news media - blaming farmers of course


In 2002, Munsell told the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that his small meat grinding operation had been receiving E. coli-positive beef from ConAgra's massive plant in Greeley

Instead of investigating, the USDA (run by Corporate cronyism) shut down Munsell and swept everything under the rug. A reporter from a big New York paper interviewed Munsell but at the last minute the OWNER of the paper killed the story (e-mail from John)

On December 2004 Mr. Stan Painter,Chairman, National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals, received reports from union members that SRM regulations are not uniformly enforced. Painter wrote to the Assistant FSIS Administrator for Field Operation about the enforcement problem. USDA responsed by placed Painter on disciplinary investigation status and contacts the USDA Office of Inspector General about filing criminal charges.

December 2004 Freedom of Information Act requests

August 2005 Over 1000 non-compliance reports – weighing some 16 pounds -- were turned over

"The FSIS investigation has been completed and the allegations concerning improper enforcement ofSRM regulations were not substantiated...."

(see end of post for full quote)

Apr 17, 2008 Testimony:Mr. Stan Painter, Chairman, National Joint Council of Food Inspection .


It (the recall of Hallmark/Westland Meat) highlights one of the problems that we have attempted to raise with the agency ever since 1996 when the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) inspection system was put in place. There seems to be too much reliance on an honor system for the industry to police itself. While the USDA investigation is still on going at Hallmark/Westland, a couple of facts have emerged that point to a system that can be gamed by those who want to break the law. It (HACCP) shifted the responsibility for food safety over to the companies .
domesticpolicy.oversight.house.gov...



This is a transcript of the USDA patting Stan Painter and John Munsell on the head before blowing them off: www.fsis.usda.gov...

This is the Senate hearing where Stan Painter is ripped to shreds


...Question. Is USDA’s investigation of union president Stan Painter retaliatory?
Answer. USDA’s investigation into the validity of allegations that Specified Risk
Material (SRM) regulations are not being effectively carried out or properly enforced
was conducted solely to ensure the safety of our Nation’s food supply.

Question. Stan Painter, the president of the food inspectors union, set forth a se-
ries of concerns about SRM removal in a letter to the agency in early December.
I understand that FSIS has responded to the letter by launching a personal inves-
tigation of Mr. Painter. In January, for example, FSIS flew Mr. Painter to Wash-
ington DC and questioned him for 3 hours, to try to get him to divulge the sources
of his information. However, FSIS has a database of non-compliance reports, which
should document instances in which inspectors have reported non-compliance with
SRM removal.

Why has FSIS chosen to investigate Mr. Painter personally instead of addressing
the questions and concerns raised by his letter?

Answer. In a December 8, 2004, letter, the chairman of the National Joint Council
of Food Inspection Locals made unsubstantiated and non-specific allegations that
FSIS is not properly enforcing regulations requiring the removal of Specified Risk
Materials (SRMs) from beef products. Because of the serious nature of the allega-
tions contained in Mr. Painter’s Letter, FSIS immediately initiated an inquiry into
those allegations which included an informal interview of the union chairman. Dur-
ing that interview, Mr. Painter refused to provide specific information to support the
letter’s allegations. That inquiry subsequently resulted in a formal investigation by
FSIS to determine the validity of the allegations. As part of that investigation, Mr.
Painter was formally interviewed on two occasions in January. The FSIS investiga-
tion has been completed and the allegations concerning improper enforcement of
SRM regulations were not substantiated.....

www.access.gpo.gov...



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


If you drive 90 through a 25 mile per hour school zone while kids are present, the police will charge you with reckless endangerment. They may or may not ALSO charge you with violating the speed limit.

Speed limit laws are not necessary, only laws that punish reckless endangerment are necessary.

Likewise, drunk driving laws are not necessary. Only if a drunk is recklessly endangering a person by their actions should they be charged, and that charge should be reckless endangerment, not drunk driving.

It is entirely possible to drive under the influence of alcohol and not recklessly endanger other people.

The crime of reckless endangerment has a victim that can be demonstrated in a court room. The police must demonstrate someone who was directly endangered by the persons actions in order for the crime to stick.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Britguy
 




As such, there should be no expectation that the ordinary man in the street should abide by those same rules flouted by the rich and powerful.


We are individually defined by our actions, self determination. We all keep secrets, some more than others and for many reasons. Some are able to live by their word better than others, it still has meaning even if our leaders lack such courage, fortitude, integrity or capability.

Unless you know about operating a multinational organisation and the pressures involved it is not your place to step in. I can understand you are angry, get informed and push for action but do not become like them in the process. Unless you have the support of your peers and no other option exercising this prerogative will just add to the list of items needing acute care.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 




drunk driving laws are not necessary


I almost died a while ago from a drink driving accident while blind maggot drunk. A couple of drinks are ok but there are many individual factors involved. For a while I would not drive if I could not walk a straight line. Now I stick under the 0.05 BAH guidelines, would still feel competent driving up to around 0.08. Many factors, many studies, many cultures, many discussions.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Sorry Mnemeth1, do you really think I’m going to take the time to read or reply to anything you have to say? You’re mistaken, you had your chance.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 


If the actions undertaken effect the environment, they do effect another' rights.

Remember, the fact that to have a crime, one must have a victim. Now, you bringing into the argument that NON entities, or NON persons is frivolous to the EXTREME.

It is one of the arguments of the ecological extremists.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Sorry Mnemeth1, do you really think I’m going to take the time to read or reply to anything you have to say? You’re mistaken, you had your chance.




Logic is offensive.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   

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...


If this is true, then the real problem is the rhetorical you, and your propensity for immoral behavior.

Most people, short of sociopaths, do not wish to act immoral. People want to feel good about themselves.

I think what the OP writes is intriguing, and brings up many good points. The primary one being that our laws do nothing but victimize us, as citizens. And we cheer on the lawmakers every step of the way.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Then again nothing you have to say can be described as logical



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 




You bringing into the argument that NON entities, or NON persons is frivolous to the EXTREME.


What is a human, a collection of cells that work independently but also together. Some also say it has a spirit. What is a nation, a collection of people that work independent and together. Some also say this has a spirit too. The UN has cells, peoples, nations and probably many spirits all working independently and together. All these entities have power and responsibility. Uncontrolled power is dangerous, reckless and needs some form of order to operate in. This is only one small piece of the universe and there are many types of entities. We need to find some common ground if we are to live together.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 





If you drive 90 through a 25 mile per hour school zone while kids are present, the police will charge you with reckless endangerment....


I certainly understand where you are coming from there are just TOO many laws. The situation we have now in the USA, with everything regulated six ways to Sunday, dilutes the effectiveness of ALL laws. It overloads the cops and the courts. It also allows legal grudge matches or protectionism by corporations as I showed above. When everyone is guilty then you no longer have a nation of laws.

For example My semi truck & trailer were stolen.
I KNOW who stole the truck. I KNOW the company the guy drove the truck for. I have the Prepass check points and dates that SHOW the truck was on the road in many states and I have the bill with dates from the wrecker service that I had to pay storage fees to to get the truck back (The truck was several states away on those dates)

Therefore I have verifiable PROOF of theft and fraud against not only the driver but the two companies he was in collaboration with.

Outcome - six years have gone by, I caught the guy not once but THREE times by the cops were too busy to pick him up, FINALLY he was picked up and the best the DA can do is maybe 2 months probation!!!!
Mind you this is not the first but the FOURTH offense including an attempted murder charge!

Yet as a farmer I may be libel for ten years in prison for growing food!



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join