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.
Laws, laws, laws! That's the problem and the joke. We don't require so many and we all know it, yet we find ourselves living under more and more. Sure, we require some laws or else we'd have anarchy, so rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater I'd like to just take a look at laws and bring to your mind what I mean when I say they are the problem.
Who makes laws? People. And in a democratic society who makes laws? The people (supposedly). And since laws are nothing more than universally accepted decrees by people how does one go about making a law that is accepted by the majority?
Originally posted by derfreebie
reply to post by HillbillyHippie1
Good Post, and thanks for the non-rant, HIlly! Here's yer star!
I believe there's a quote that ends "Simplify, simplify" makes
so much sense. I believe we don't have to resort to a book burning
in order to get the country back, quite the opposite. All that stuff is
necessary to the infrastructure, as long as who's interpreting the law
has THE PEOPLE's interest as the prime motive. All corruption begins
with selfishness, and that's the diffference between a politician and a
statesman. Might be the whole reason behind that nine percent
approval rating of Congress maybe?
How about this for starters-- term limits, NO PAY NO PENSION, and
when you're done being a public servant, you go home and back to work.
I believe while a person represents me in Washington DC or my state
capital the individual deserves THE SAME WAGE he made before
getting elected, free room and board in the roach hotel, and in total
inverse to the concept now, SPIT THE SUCKER BACK OUT.
And that bottle o'shine's gotta have great polish to it by now... hoo-ee.
Originally posted by 1littlewolf
This will sound quite strange, but just think about it for a while everybody before dismissing it completely.
Laws will be necessary until humans have evolved to the point where we can read each other's minds.
For instance, one has a natural right to protest, but an arguement could be made that one also has a natural right to pop them in the mouth for saying something they do not wish to hear (their own form of protest against the protester).
Actually, natural rights mean zip if a Creator is taken out of the equation, for one could just claim they have a natural right to survive and eliminate the competition to make their survival easier, if love or God is taken out of the equation, and some don't believe in God (myself not included), so what is a natural law to them? In the end that is pure anarchy when you really think about it, meaning there really are no true natural laws regarding human rights, at least without belief in a Creator and a few other fundamental principles.
So I try not to go to natural law and natural rights anymore - just my personal thing. I do not go so far as to say that all is subjective, as some would, but it is 100% fact that societies and civilizations are based on a social contract between people - an understanding if you will - and that is all there is to it. Where one chooses to believe that understanding comes from is up to them.
Originally posted by filosophia
This is why dmocracy doesnt work, 51% rules 49%. I have some issue with your view that if there was anarchy the crazy and evil would rule society THEY ALREADY DO thanks to government subsidy. Eliminate government you eliminate crazy control freaks. Case in point, we have more laws than we can count on a million hands, yet on new years eve retards fire guns in the air and every year someone gets hurt. The cops hide out until the smoke clears. So anarchy happens with or without government. Government can not prevent suffering so all it does is make things worse.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
An argument could be made, and has been made for the development and use of nuclear weapons. This doesn't make that argument sound.
All law is simple, true, universal, and absolute. In regards to rights, that which I do that causes no harm; I do by right, and any harm another attempts to bring to me, my loved ones, helpless strangers who need defending, or my property will be met by my natural right to defend. Thus, outside of defense, that which causes harm is not a right.
Rights are not predicated on any belief system, they are self evident just as all law is.
It is 100% horse manure that societies and civilizations are based upon a social contract between people. Contracts are binding instruments where all parties involved have made specific agreements and all parties have reasonable expectations of delivery of those agreements. The bogus propaganda of "social contracts" has nothing at all to do with the law of contracts and this so called "social contract" does not in anyway function as an actual contract. It is nothing more than empty rhetoric designed as a meme to convince people that they have some contractual obligation to surrender their own sovereignty.