The purpose of Law

[Girlysprite]

Aerzia, are you an anarchist? Your statements sound like it.

world with laws which are sometimes in the way, or a world without laws at all where rights of the strongest rules. I'd rather have the world with laws, imperfect as they and their process of enforcement may be.

[Rwandrall]

Laws are an attempt to control that which cannot be controlled. People don't kill others because it isn't worth it to them already... having a law stating that you cannot is redundant and useless. It is a kindness to inform the weak of what you might do should they do something that you do not like... it is an idiocy to believe that because you might do something in response they will not do it.

Yeah...that's not true at all. In the slightest.

Take the FDA. Laws have established that if you do not show on your product what it contains, or lie about it, you get a fine. Do you really think that before that law was passed companies didn't put shit into their products anyways, so the law was redundant ? Bullshit !

How about torts ? Do you really think that if there weren't laws, someone that out of negligence caused someone to lose an arm would simply pay for their treatments out of kindness...?

And then of course there's the complicated law matters. Things that a simple reasonableness test cannot resolve alone.

Laws against murder are rarely a deterrent, i'll give you that one. Because people who kill don't do it reasonably. But that's the exception, not the rule. Do you really think that if stealing was legal, its numbers wouldn't rise at all ? Yeah...no. Law is a powerful deterrent without which society couldn't function.

[Napoléon]

I thought laws existed to punish those who break them. Some may act as a deterrent but that's merely a side effect of the punishment which comes from breaking the law.

[Girlysprite]

Aren't we getting sidetracked here?

[Violet]

Aerzia, are you an anarchist? Your statements sound like it.

I am.

world with laws which are sometimes in the way, or a world without laws at all where rights of the strongest rules. I'd rather have the world with laws, imperfect as they and their process of enforcement may be.

Laws are never in the way, only lawmakers. Laws or no laws: the strong will voraciously prey upon the weak always.

A false sense of security might feel better... for a while. And then the Klackon Bio Terminate your homeworld after the Meklar Stack of Doom annihilates every fringe world you've ever colonized and the Mrrshan offer you a tribute of Nuclear Engines to add insult to the injury.

Fucking erratic personalities...

---

Laws are an attempt to control that which cannot be controlled. People don't kill others because it isn't worth it to them already... having a law stating that you cannot is redundant and useless. It is a kindness to inform the weak of what you might do should they do something that you do not like... it is an idiocy to believe that because you might do something in response they will not do it.

Yeah...that's not true at all. In the slightest.

Take the FDA. Laws have established that if you do not show on your product what it contains, or lie about it, you get a fine. Do you really think that before that law was passed companies didn't put shit into their products anyways, so the law was redundant ? Bullshit !

Nobody respects laws. Companies respect force. Laws are nigh instantly forgotten when the force behind them disappears.

The FDA isn't there today because it is the law. The FDA is there today because Teddy said "fuck you" to certain barbaric practices of food companies in the United States, and laid the ground rules of 'do this or I will shut your shit down'.

Badass Teddy. He carried a big stick.

How about torts ? Do you really think that if there weren't laws, someone that out of negligence caused someone to lose an arm would simply pay for their treatments out of kindness...?

Not at all. Do you really think that because there are laws people do this?

The legal system is a quaint word for coercion.

And then of course there's the complicated law matters. Things that a simple reasonableness test cannot resolve alone.

Things that are ultimately decided by the rich people that 'don't exist'. But the facade is certainly entertaining.

Laws against murder are rarely a deterrent, i'll give you that one. Because people who kill don't do it reasonably. But that's the exception, not the rule. Do you really think that if stealing was legal, its numbers wouldn't rise at all ? Yeah...no. Law is a powerful deterrent without which society couldn't function.

Piracy

---

I thought laws existed to punish those who break them. Some may act as a deterrent but that's merely a side effect of the punishment which comes from breaking the law.

It is all a formality and that is all. They'd do it to you without the laws too.

And then they'd make laws to justify themselves

[Anymouse]

Laws are never in the way, only lawmakers. Laws or no laws: the strong will voraciously prey upon the weak always.

So if someone broke into your home and stole your computer, you would not go to the police (the government's strongmen in your view), but go try and take it back yourself. If you were not strong enough to take it back, you don't deserve it? Then go buy another for someone else to take? In a way that might work, as when everyone who wants to take your computer has done so, the next one should be safe.

I never really understood the position of an anarchist any more than Christianity. The system posited by Karl Marx should theoretically end in anarchy, but of course won't. While many, maybe most people are generally good-natured, it only takes one strong one to make a government. At the very instant someone exercises power over someone else (even if only by strength of arms or skill), anarchy becomes government. Thus, anarchy cannot truly be said to exist, any more than any other religion that people aspire to but cannot achieve.

And the strong taking from the weak is government, not anarchy. Government of the strong.

[Violet]

Laws are never in the way, only lawmakers. Laws or no laws: the strong will voraciously prey upon the weak always.

So if someone broke into your home and stole your computer, you would not go to the police (the government's strongmen in your view), but go try and take it back yourself. If you were not strong enough to take it back, you don't deserve it? Then go buy another for someone else to take? In a way that might work, as when everyone who wants to take your computer has done so, the next one should be safe.

Unlike many: i do not rely upon someone else to look after my things.

Perhaps you would like to take things from me. I'll go call up some of the people from high school and college. You should talk to them about how that ended up

I never really understood the position of an anarchist any more than Christianity. The system posited by Karl Marx should theoretically end in anarchy, but of course won't. While many, maybe most people are generally good-natured, it only takes one strong one to make a government. At the very instant someone exercises power over someone else (even if only by strength of arms or skill), anarchy becomes government. Thus, anarchy cannot truly be said to exist, any more than any other religion that people aspire to but cannot achieve.

Unlike "anarchistic" people that present such as a government... my anarchy is solely personal. While other people usually follow their own 'rules': I don't even have these rules to follow. Even my morality bends entirely to suit the circumstances as I see fit

Anarchy exists when either there are no rules or the rules presented are not followed. Anarchy is an enemy to law only in not following law.

And the strong taking from the weak is government, not anarchy. Government of the strong.

Anarchy is government: the 'lucky' will always rule. Government cannot be escaped. Even when one is the government: how can they escape themselves?

[Rwandrall]

Laws are never in the way, only lawmakers. Laws or no laws: the strong will voraciously prey upon the weak always.

Your statement is wrong. A system where even the strong have to bow down and respect some rules to limit their powers is a better system than the one you seem to think exists. The reason the FDA holds this power is because it is given by the State, which in turn answers to the people: if they don't do their job and enforce those rules, they don't get re-elected, which is against their goals.

It's not a perfect system, but saying the strong "voraciously prey on the weak" is simply wrong in our society.

Nobody respects laws. Companies respect force. Laws are nigh instantly forgotten when the force behind them disappears.

A law is defined by its means of enforcement, the law and the force behind it are symbiotic. Thing is, the force behind the law has no power without the existence of the law.

The FDA isn't there today because it is the law. The FDA is there today because Teddy said "fuck you" to certain barbaric practices of food companies in the United States, and laid the ground rules of 'do this or I will shut your shit down'.

Those "grounds rules" you talked about ? They are laws.

Not at all. Do you really think that because there are laws people do this?

The legal system is a quaint word for coercion.

If you consider that holding people accountable for their actions is coercion, then yes it is coercion. So ?

Things that are ultimately decided by the rich people that 'don't exist'. But the facade is certainly entertaining.

You obviously have no faith in the legal system, but i can tell you it works pretty well. Not perfect, of course, but saying companies make the law is simply wrong.

Piracy

---

And weed, speeding, prohibition and others. Under your line of thinking making gay marriage the law would be useless since gay people already get married ! right ? riiiight ?

Law is a gigantic body, it's not as simple as black and white.

It is all a formality and that is all. They'd do it to you without the laws too.

No, they would not. Under your line of thinking everyone is the same, everyone behaves the same, no matter the laws. Problem is, reality disagrees with you. In Saudi Arabia, women cannot drive. Well under your line of thinking they would drive all the time anyways...well they don't.

Laws have another purpose: changing the norms. This is why every state legalizing gay marriage is a big deal: laws are a reflection of the moral principles of the country, and both influence each other.

---

Unlike many: i do not rely upon someone else to look after my things.

Perhaps you would like to take things from me. I'll go call up some of the people from high school and college. You should talk to them about how that ended up

Yeah...That's not reality. If someone puts you in a wheelchair, or burns your car, you're not going to punch them in the face until they pay your treatment. You're going to go to Court. You can believe that this is the way you can lead your life, but i can assure you, you depend on the law system just as much as everyone else, because that is the society we live in, a society under the rule of law.

Unlike "anarchistic" people that present such as a government... my anarchy is solely personal. While other people usually follow their own 'rules': I don't even have these rules to follow. Even my morality bends entirely to suit the circumstances as I see fit

I do not believe that is true You bend to the rules of society and its morality just like everyone else, because otherwise you would compromise your own well-being. That is what laws are for.

[Epimethean]

"That's not reality. If someone puts you in a wheelchair, or burns your car, you're not going to punch them in the face until they pay your treatment. You're going to go to Court. You can believe that this is the way you can lead your life, but i can assure you, you depend on the law system just as much as everyone else, because that is the society we live in, a society under the rule of law."

Unless you shoot them as they try.

[Rwandrall]

Although i know its a joke, it can make a good point: who needs the law where you can just exercise it yourself ?

Yeah but if you take justice into your own hands, where's the limit ? Would you shoot them if they stole your car ? What if its your scooter ? What if its your bike ? What if it's your shoes ? What if it's a leaf from a tree on your property ? What if they breathe the air that's on your property ?

That's also why laws are there, to put limits and try to apply fairness.