Can We Live Without The Rules?

This is a generalized question, and I would love others opinions on it. Do we actually need the rules? There is alot of debate on not wanting a New World Order, or big government, or even L.E.O's. But is this realistic? Can we live by an ethical code to be kind to each other, to care for one another, to not steal, or kill?

I think this is an important topic due to many around the world asking for their freedoms. If lets say tomorrow people rose up and said they no longer wanted to be ruled over, police stations closed, the white house has a for sale sign on it, churches closed, we no longer had state government, could we come together, and make things better? Or would we destroy ourselves?

Peace, NRE.

I've been to a rainbow gathering before and there is no one in charge. Everyone is the police if something bad happens. Its pretty awesome watching 20 - 30k people all get along and be happy.

reply to post by NoRegretsEver


All it takes is a handful to ruin things for the rest. Think of the sociopaths and psychopaths.

Originally posted by mayabong
I've been to a rainbow gathering before and there is no one in charge. Everyone is the police if something bad happens. Its pretty awesome watching 20 - 30k people all get along and be happy.

but sometimes when there are no rules, it's mob-rule, and witch-hunts and innocent people can be killed. Let's say someone lies and says they were raped.. what would the angry mob do? Give the accused a trial?

Well the first question I ask since you ask this to try and reaffirm yourself is: Can you? When you have ones 'in charge' that think only of themselves and co-workers and not the world in whole then no. If we get through this age and others get in charge that see the mistakes of last and they act upon it, then yes.

No. Not with the population as large as it is. There was a time when villages or small towns governed themselves, but that was long ago and with a much smaller community.

The transition would be a very troubling time, but I think that we could self-govern quite easily. If we lived in a society in which all basic human needs are taken care of, money was obsolete and capitalism had no effect on the general welfare of the populace, we take away many problems that seem to be the cause of much violence and other issues.

Sure, people are always going to make the wrong choices and some people will always have the inherent desire to control others, but rules just criminalize these bad choices. Violence will need to be dealt with, but non-violent "crime" will be minimal once money is out of the picture. Drug use is also a personal choice. No law will ever take away people's desire to use drugs.

Interesting scenario to think about!

reply to post by NoRegretsEver


I think it would be possible, but we would have to bring back some of the old school ways of doing things.

First, drop this politically correct crap. Call things as they are and quit sugar coating everything.
Second, bring back public punishment and/or public humiliation. When an offense is made, the punishment is dealt out on the courtyards front lawn so everyone can see. Humility goes a long way in correcting actions.
Third, bring back the exile concept where if someone does something "wrong" the citizens will exile the offender out of the town/county/state.

There are other things but these are the first things that come to mind.

I've seen what many people do when they think they can get away with it.

While I believe in the kindness of humans.....I also expect that given an opportunity a rather large section of people would feel free to do horrible things. And then I would need to do horrible things to protect myself, my family and my friends from them.

So yes. We need rules.

Given a free reign to do as they wilt, I doubt that I would be safe to walk down the street.

reply to post by Drezden
Most "witch hunt" mob-rule scenarios come from an issue in society that has stemmed from the very control systems that were designed to control us.

Look at our current court system. Mob rule and public perception affect the verdict as much as evidence. So it's very easy to play the "what if" game.

Originally posted by LadySkadi
No. Not with the population as large as it is. There was a time when villages or small towns governed themselves, but that was long ago and with a much smaller community.

And many of those towns ignored or allowed great evil to occur in the "mind-your-business" perspective.

I wouldn't trust most small town folks to protect me or mine if it meant so much a having to dirty their hands up, unless they had a real good reason to do so. And my personal protection, or saving my children from predators that might be friends or family of theirs, wouldn't stir their hearts.

Bad people are capable of doing great and wonderful things. And essentially good people are capable of immense evil. I've seen people accept and commit evil in merely ignoring things, or even backing up those who commit evil acts.

I trust all people most of the time do what they think is right. I also trust that people commit to beleiving that those they want to beleive and like are okay, and are willing to fight to protect their beliefs even in the face of contradictory evidence.

Every single person on this board knows someone who has done bad things, and know people who they like who have protected those people. Even gone to the mattresses against the victims of those people.

I love you all. And I trust that all of you will act like humans. And humans do some horrifying things to make themselves be in "the right."

Originally posted by SirMike
reply to post by NoRegretsEver

 

All it takes is a handful to ruin things for the rest. Think of the sociopaths and psychopaths.

The worst of which are currently ruling us...

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
The transition would be a very troubling time, but I think that we could self-govern quite easily. If we lived in a society in which all basic human needs are taken care of, money was obsolete and capitalism had no effect on the general welfare of the populace, we take away many problems that seem to be the cause of much violence and other issues.

Sure, people are always going to make the wrong choices and some people will always have the inherent desire to control others, but rules just criminalize these bad choices. Violence will need to be dealt with, but non-violent "crime" will be minimal once money is out of the picture. Drug use is also a personal choice. No law will ever take away people's desire to use drugs.

Interesting scenario to think about!

You know, there are two ways of viewing human nature: we are products of our environment or we are products of our genetics. Is human nature malleable and nothing more than a “cultural construct” and we are born good but turned bad by the world around us … or are our essential human attributes built-in, unchangeable, and naturally occurring. While I don’t think anyone believes we are 100% one or the other, the preponderance of major social movements over the past few centuries seems believe in a 90/10 or a 10/90 view of this question.

If you believe that we are more a product of our environment, then you believe that by changing our environment we can change how we interact with each other on a fundamental level. Or to your question: yes, we could live without “the rules” if this worldview is correct.

If you believe that we are more a product of our innate nature, then you believe we have characteristics that cannot be fundamentally changed by our environments. If this is the case, then we cannot live without “the rules”.

Many movements in history have attempted to change people by radically changing their environment. I leave to you the perception of their successes or failures.

Sure, in fact, that will be one of the most significant steps we can take as a race. Putting our foot down and immediately reducing the laws to the simplest terms would of course make the world a better place. Drug laws are the most glaring offense...

Live and let live...that is the dream.

Originally posted by LadySkadi
No. Not with the population as large as it is. There was a time when villages or small towns governed themselves, but that was long ago and with a much smaller community.

Agreed. And not only the population but society as it is today is desensitized to a lot of mainstream morals. For all the moral guidance I was taught in school, "Do unto others...", "Love thy neighbor..., "Wait your turn", "Share!",
when you get out into the real world those lessons go straight out the window.
As much as we've been taught about the importance of being compassionate to those in need, tolerant and accepting of other cultures, religions, etc, we can't forget that human beings at the very core will do anything to survive.

I don't consider myself a violent person, but I pity anyone who would threaten or harm my loved ones in a world without rules.

There is a reason for the rules. You don't have to like all of them, (like the one that says that priests who rape children don't have to go to jail because they answer to a higher power "above the law") and obviously there are some flaws. But I think the chaos that you see all over the media now, would be far worse without rules.

But that's just one Earthlings opinion

reply to post by NoRegretsEver


*sighs truth is part of the population would be lost due to people behaving how they really would when sensing lawlesness. Part of the population would retreat and thrive probably the ones to make it w/o rules. Others would attempt to rule vaccume left and get killed trying so. But after a few years not even decades I think some type of skill trading system will emerge.

On a large scale, I believe it is near impossible.

But on a small scale, I believe that it very much is possible.
Well, I suppose not completely without rules. I think in order to make "it" work, we need at least these ideas or "guidelines".

1. The Golden Rule
This one is obvious. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

2. "Lagom"
Lagom is a Swedish term that liberally translates to "just the right amount" or "enough for everybody".
Some people would describe it as "Enough is as good as a feast". In a way it is similar to the Golden Mean. Lagom is about living in moderation and respecting others needs and desires, in a way that maximizes the happiness and quality of life for everybody.

I found a quote that, I think, sums it up nicely:
"It's the idea that for everything there is the perfect amount: The perfect, and best, amount of food, space, laughter and sadness."

3. Live And Let Die
It's easy. Someone doesn't pray to the same god as you do? Let him. Someone doesn't live the same lifestyle as you? It's so easy, and still people don't get it. Yes, there are restrictions to this. Human sacrifice, for example. But problems that would require restrictions on this rule would not exist if people would live in accordance with the Golden Rule.

It might be a little optimistic, but I think creating a community based on these guidelines would definitely be worth a try.

I think you could say eventually it'd come to a new balance for society and culture if there were no rules.

Carlin said something to the effect of, "I think I have the right to kill you, but if I get in your way, you have the right to kill me. You can't get a more fair deal than that." Not saying that's right but was sure funny when he said that.

Life would be a lot more interesting though without so many regulations. We'd actually have to pay attention to our environment rather than spending hours on ATS looking at all that is exterior to us.

Let's say you could kill someone, and the killer wouldn't go to jail or get any other punishment, wouldn't that enforce a certain standard for people? They'd sure try a lot harder to fit a certain standard. We'd probably be more human and experience our humanity more than we do currently. The problem with this "idea" is that the general populous couldn't be used in the way they are currently, where the rich and powerful gain way too much. Those "rules" and laws serve to create wealth for themselves, while subjugating the majority. If you were Bill Gates, how would you then act? Give more to charity as a sort of insurance? Would be interesting.

Would make for a good TV show

Oh, now that I think about it, there was sort of a TV show made. Kid Nation. I thought it was really interesting.

Do not forget the number one rule: a finite amount of resources on earth, for an infinite amount of need. Whomever controls the resources, makes the rules. This was true in the past, is true now and will be true in the future; regardless of the size of the population. How this issue is resolved may vary depending on the locale and communities involved, but it will be a driving force.

reply to post by NoRegretsEver

Do we actually need the rules?

Yes.... Some rules are there for a good reason. And some are not. And some are totally useless. And some oppress individually or as a whole. There is no one guide line for everything, and really there is no one golden rule that will make everything perfect.

There is alot of debate on not wanting a New World Order, or big government, or even L.E.O's. But is this realistic?

Yes...The NWO, big government, or L.E.O's or anything else represent the realities of those that represent them, and it is very realistic, to take them realistically, as they are. The alternative is to stick your head in the sand, and wait to see what happens, but it would be kind of hard to see what happens, with your head in the sand. So it is very realistic to look at all things.

Can we live by an ethical code to be kind to each other, to care for one another, to not steal, or kill?

No.... All you can do is try, but many will fail, and many wouldn't even try, so then once again the rules are there for a reason.

I think this is an important topic due to many around the world asking for their freedoms. If lets say tomorrow people rose up and said they no longer wanted to be ruled over, police stations closed, the white house has a for sale sign on it, churches closed, we no longer had state government, could we come together, and make things better?

People are people, and the history speaks for itself, what you see is the logical conclusion to what they all wanted and strive'd for. It really is, what it is, nothing more, nothing less. And as I am sure this site or any thing were people come together really shows. Is that there is no such thing as coming together of everybody on any common thing, at least not indefinitely. And even in the groups that have supposedly come together, there is some turmoil just beyond the surface always just waiting to pop out.

So how about this question, have you even witnessed a coming together indefinitely on any subject in this site, that make you think we all would come together in anything really? I have seen people argue about the meaning of what a simple word like "freedom" is, and were still arguing about that, and many other things, and will in all likelihood continue to argue and not agree about simple things like that for a while. So really how can we come together to make things better in a huge worldly scale, when we cant even agree what a simple concept or word means in a chat room. So in essence and reality, "could we come together" is not "one question", but "many questions" interwoven into one scope and paradigm.

Or would we destroy ourselves?

See the first quote I responded to. "Do we actually need rules?" And i think the goal would be to have the least amount of rules that are necessary, and that would work in the greatest scope. So really go through the list of all the rules in the world, and the ones that you are positive don't work and don't do nothing, or are stifling and useless, or even used to keep you or others down, then you get rid of it, and so on. Till you reach the minimum that would be best and required. An impossible task really, and one that only time can solve.