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, what are laws?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Let us breakdown society shall we? Let us say there was just one person, would there be a need for a written codification of law? Of course not, there would only be the one person, that person could not and would not break a law against themselves, would he or she? Now, let us say there are two people on Earth or some such entity. What would you have to do, would you need 1.2 million sets of laws to maintain society? Let us up that to 10 people, how about 1,000 people, how about 1 million people, how about 1 billion people?

Think about it, what is the difference between 2 and trillions, should you not make the codification of those laws simple? Should you not make it clear? Should you not make it so simple that anyone could understand the law?

Think about it a moment, in the US, there is a tenet that not understanding or knowing the law, is no excuse. It is known as ignorance of the law, is no excuse. We have to remember as a society, that no matter how many people there are, that law is the basis of society. You cannot have society without law. There are rules that must be followed. Just as mathematics, physics and other components of science, the rules of society follow certain unbreakable truths.

Understand, the more complex a system, the easier that system breaks down. That is a truth, a fact, a thesis. Natural law is a system that was created 1000s of years ago. This system was quite symplistic, do no harm and do not infringe on the inherent rights of another. You had to determine what those inherent rights were though.

What are inherent rights? They have been defined numerous times as those rights that you were inherently given, the instant you existed. Therefore, you had the right to exist. Since you had the right to exist, you then had the right to protect yourself from harm. You had the right to self preservation.

Since you had the right to exist, you must therefore have the right to liberty or freedom, because if you did not have that right, someone could take that right away, life I mean. Since you also had that right to life, that life must mean something, you must have the ability to create, to labor for what you want. Therefore, you have the right to Life, Liberty and something.......... That something is the third law, the right to your own property. Property as defined as what you create or that what you sustain. You have the right to keep what you create!

Just trying a little free thought here, would like a little input at this time.

The last thing I would like to add to the discussion, in any society, law is meant to do one thing, stop one person from harming another. Crime therefore needs a victim and the victim cannot be society.




posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   
The only thing I have to say about laws has already been said by Pythagoras. It's in my signature. I think it's pretty simple really. Some people can't handle freedom, some can.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   


Let us breakdown society shall we? Let us say there was just one person, would there be a need for a written codification of law? Of course not, there would only be the one person, that person could not and would not break a law against themselves, would he or she?


i do it all
the time bra





What are inherent rights? They have been defined numerous times as those rights that you were inherently given, the instant you existed. Therefore, you had the right to exist. Since you had the right to exist, you then had the right to protect yourself from harm. You had the right to self preservation.


I think the Romans
@ 1 time Taxed U
just for existing...

edit on 4/12/2012 by spoonbender because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeroReady
 


Well, you are maintaining the the first thing I brought up, law where only you are relevant. Well not entirely but you are missing the point or avoiding it on purpose.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by spoonbender
 


You are humorous, I was trying something a little deeper though.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   
No-one asked me if I agree with all these absurd laws we have in the US.

"Legally" I may be wrong, but I don't give a rat's a**. I believe the vast majority of these laws are ridiculous. So I do what I want. I have yet to interfere with other people's rights to exist, so I think we're cool.

I guess that makes me a criminal.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by watchitburn
 


Come on, you agree to all those laws, like if you go to San Diego and you throw frisbees or footballs on the beach you can be arrested! You were supposed to know that you are not allowed to do such dangerous things!



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   


reply to post by spoonbender You are humorous, I was trying something a little deeper though.



aren't they
only laws
if you get caught
breaking them...

was that the kinda
deep ya going for

edit on 4/12/2012 by spoonbender because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by LIGHTvsDARK
 


Indeed, frisbee is the most dangerous of all sports. The original Bloodsport if you will.

What would we do if we didn't have the Nanny state to take care of us.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by spoonbender
 


If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears, did it make a sound.
If a citizen smokes a weed and no one sees, did that citizen break a law?



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by watchitburn
 


I am hoping for the robot society, created with the black robots. We should be all stuffed into a rubber room for our own good.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by LIGHTvsDARK
reply to post by spoonbender
 


If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears, did it make a sound.
If a citizen smokes a weed and no one sees, did that citizen break a law?


it depends
if a pesky arse
Drone is hovering round


don't tit



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by LIGHTvsDARK
 


Laws are something that inhibit me from being free. They still don't stop me from being free. It's not like i want to hang out naked with a 40 in my hand spray painting art all over town, but sometimes i do- and it would be cool if they could just leave me alone when i do that.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Laws exist to shape the sociology of the people within it. It's used to groom certain behaviors in and out of your populace.

Laws are there to sometimes protect other times hinder. You don't do certain behaviors, so laws are a preventative at their core. A societal defense. Behavior isn't like, so law is legislated against it.

Funny how laws don't pop up until someone does it
.

Then you got crap like what's trying to be floated down s--- creek again in those various other "laws" internet censorship laws that couldn't get passed with spaa (i think its that) and you have good ol oppression.

A good question though. Keep asking those.
edit on 12-4-2012 by cenpuppie because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 07:01 AM
link   
"Man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all." — Aristotle.

I think there is far too much legislation in modern times and think humanity would benefit if the majority of these were broken down and reduced to be more concise. We don't need thousands, even hundreds of laws.

Nevertheless, basic laws and boundaries are needed to ensure the safety and well-being of the overall population. You simply cannot have a happy cohesive society if natural law is the only law adhered to.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost

Nevertheless, basic laws and boundaries are needed to ensure the safety and well-being of the overall population. You simply cannot have a happy cohesive society if natural law is the only law adhered to.


So then I can live my day knowing that no one will harm me? No one will steal from me? No one will trespass against me? Of course not.

So then laws do not ensure anything and therefore fail their purpose.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Laws act as a deterrent. When people hear of other people breaking the law and then see them face punishment for their crimes, this conditions them not to take part in the behaviour that got that person punished.

How many more murders, thefts and rapes do you think would occur if there were no laws against these crimes? Laws do not magically erase crime, but they do act as a strong deterent not to take part in certain undesirable behaviours.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 


That's a bit of a strawman. We dont know how many more of anything there would be if any at all and we may never know given how much force irrational fear wields over people.

I can say that there is no deterrent quality to any law or punishment with near absolute certainty.

Most people are decent people. Casting aside nonsensical victimless violations such as moral or prohibitionary or non-compliance crimes the worlds population by a wide margin is decent. Even in the glorious land of Somalia most people are not pillaging murdering psychopaths.

People who commit real crimes. Crimes that violate life, liberty or property. Crimes with victims. Don't care about consequence for any number of reasons. One, it's a crime of passion or a heat of the moment crime. No thought given to consequence. Two, the offender is insane and incapable of understanding consequence or siply does not care that there is a consequence. And three, the offender believes he will get away with it.

Compound that reality with instances of wrongful conviction and you've basically nullified any deterrent qualities that may have existed.

If we are to believe that law and punishment is a deterrent than it would have to be much more swift and very public. Yet the system is not at all. People sit for months or years waiting for their trials which are then rarely publicized. In an age of 24 hour news cycles and perpetual access in every home there are still people who honestly dont know a thing is illegal.

As the system currently stands there is no deterrent factor.

Take the excuse of ignorance. Or the non-excuse as it were. Forcing that ignorance is no excuse identifies the problem that people are in fact ignorant. If you made a law against using green crayons yet didnt tell me straight to my face that green crayons are now illegal how am I not going to be ignorant of that law? I have no reason to believe that green crayons could be illegal. After all they harm no one in person property or liberty. Shouldnt I be operating under the assumption of liberty? We are in a free country, right? Yet the use of a green crayon is illegal and should I be seen using one I will be punished. No deterrent quality and the very real excuse of ignorance cannot be used by default.

There are pages and pages of green crayon laws on the books. Laws which are violated everyday that any rational human operating under the assumption of liberty would never imagine are laws in the first place yet ignorance is not an excuse.
edit on 13-4-2012 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
That's a bit of a strawman. We dont know how many more of anything there would be if any at all and we may never know given how much force irrational fear wields over people.


How do you interpret it as a strawman? It's not about placing irrational fear into the heads of the population, it's about establishing which behaviour is considered undesirable.


I can say that there is no deterrent quality to any law or punishment with near absolute certainty.


Of course not with absolute certainty. But there are behaviours that show a strong negative correlation when they become laws. For example, which country do you think has a lower percentage of those who litter, the USA or Singapore? Do you really think the reason Singapore has far fewer people littering is because they care more about the environment?


Most people are decent people. Casting aside nonsensical victimless violations such as moral or prohibitionary or non-compliance crimes the worlds population by a wide margin is decent. Even in the glorious land of Somalia most people are not pillaging murdering psychopaths.


And what percentage of people would you say are not decent? Is it high enough to negatively impact the welfare of the those who are decent? The fact is that even decent people will commit crimes if they believe it serves their best interests to do so.


People who commit real crimes. Crimes that violate life, liberty or property. Crimes with victims. Don't care about consequence for any number of reasons. One, it's a crime of passion or a heat of the moment crime. No thought given to consequence. Two, the offender is insane and incapable of understanding consequence or siply does not care that there is a consequence. And three, the offender believes he will get away with it.


I disagree. Those things you listed are exceptions and do not fit the scenario of most crimes that are committed.


Compound that reality with instances of wrongful conviction and you've basically nullified any deterrent qualities that may have existed.


Wrongful conviction will happen from time to time, this is an unfortunate result of human nature (people make mistakes). But it has nothing to do with the argument at hand.


If we are to believe that law and punishment is a deterrent than it would have to be much more swift and very public. Yet the system is not at all. People sit for months or years waiting for their trials which are then rarely publicized. In an age of 24 hour news cycles and perpetual access in every home there are still people who honestly dont know a thing is illegal.


This is a problem with the judicial system that I agree needs improvement. However, this does not nullify the argument that laws act as a deterrent.


As the system currently stands there is no deterrent factor.


There are problems with the system that need to be fixed, this cannot be denied. That there are problems in the system does not nullify the argument that laws act as a deterrent, though.


Take the excuse of ignorance. Or the non-excuse as it were. Forcing that ignorance is no excuse identifies the problem that people are in fact ignorant. If you made a law against using green crayons yet didnt tell me straight to my face that green crayons are now illegal how am I not going to be ignorant of that law? I have no reason to believe that green crayons could be illegal. After all they harm no one in person property or liberty. Shouldnt I be operating under the assumption of liberty? We are in a free country, right? Yet the use of a green crayon is illegal and should I be seen using one I will be punished. No deterrent quality and the very real excuse of ignorance cannot be used by default.


As I already stated, there are definitely laws that infringe on one's rights and freedoms and those laws should not be legislated. What you are describing is a communication problem between those who pass laws and those who must adhere to them.


There are pages and pages of green crayon laws on the books. Laws which are violated everyday that any rational human operating under the assumption of liberty would never imagine are laws in the first place yet ignorance is not an excuse.


I agree with you, but this - once again - does not undermine the argument that laws act as a deterrent.
edit on 13/4/2012 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 

Well, if you honestly believe deterrents work there's nothing I can do about that. I'd expect any citations I'd bother to bring up will either be ignored or met with citations of your own making for a pointless "statistical war."

I've seen plenty of idiots touch hot surfaces after explicit warnings and even after being burned before, plenty of drivers stacking up 20+ DUI's, plenty of first-time and long-term recidivist offenders commit the same crimes over and over knowing full well the consequences that await them and spent hours upon hours over the past 10 years in lectures and pouring over studies that all lead me to conclude that deterrence is a pipe dream. A knee-jerk fantasy to pacify a paranoid public and win brownie points for politicians.

I know it seems counter-intuitive. Everyone is afraid of freedom. Common sense tells us rules make us safe and threats of punishment keep people in line. But it's not true.

People will either harm others or they wont. No amount of punishment will change that short of immediate execution. Even then all that action would deter is repeat offenses.

I'll concede that many variables are in play. There is no simple if-then punishment-deterrence correlation that says definitively "yes" or "no" it does or does not work for every individual on the planet.

I'm just not willing to accept the mistakes, costs (financial, and to liberty) that come with fighting an unwinnable fight.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join