Abolish Law

[Twyce]

I've come to the realization that law is the CAUSE of crime and many of our social problems as well. There is no baby in law's foul bathwater: we need to dump it and start clean.

[jojo4]

Huh????

You are advocating anarchy?

[jk]

Ya, that sounds great. If we had no laws, the crime rate would be 0.

The guy standing next to you could turn to you and drive a knife through your heart and kill you but we wouldn;t have to worry about prosecuting him because....... he didn't break the law.

Ya, great idea.

[Twyce]

Huh????

You are advocating anarchy?

How does anarchy (no government) equate to abolishing law? My issue is with the manner that 'law' fails to do (or even attempt) what we want and need it to do. I promote the idea of replacing prohibitive law with protective justice.

[525601minutes]

"anarchy
noun
a state of lawlessness"

Have you ever read Crime and Punishment (Russian: Преступление и наказание) by Dostoevsky? The protagonist tries his hand at living your theory, by killing another person who is evil. Great book if you can get thru the whole thing - might change your opinion on why laws are needed.

[jk]

How does anarchy (no government) equate to abolishing law? My issue is with the manner that 'law' fails to do (or even attempt) what we want and need it to do. .

well, let's see...if we abolished laws, how could there be any government? One purpose of our laws is to form and support a government so, if you abolish laws, you do abolich government.

I promote the idea of replacing prohibitive law with protective justice.

Ok, I'll bite;

give examples of what you mean.

btw; the idea of our government and our freedoms is that each individual has the right to do absolutley anything they want, as long as it does not infringe upon anothers rights. So, with that in mind, how can you say our laws are prohibitive and not protective. That is what the Constitution is centered on, individual rights. Nearly every amendment to the Consititution is not prohibitive, it is protective.

[4eyedbuzzard]

I've come to the realization that law is the CAUSE of crime and many of our social problems as well. There is no baby in law's foul bathwater: we need to dump it and start clean.

Law is not the cause of crime, rather law is the reaction to crime, enacted by societies to maintain order so that the rights of each individual can be protected, and a society of individuals can prosper. Law defines the limits of liberty, and by doing so, protects a sustainable degree of liberty for individual citizens.

You might also wish to read Rousseau, Hobbs, Locke, Hume, Kant and others on the nature of social contacts, societies, governments, and economies before throwing out the bathwater you find so foul. Yeah, it's got a little soap scum and a bit of a ring around the tub, but it's better than almost all of the other social experiments mankind has tried.

[Twyce]

The guy standing next to you could turn to you and drive a knife through your heart and kill you but we wouldn;t have to worry about prosecuting him because....... he didn't break the law.

As opposed to his stabbing me now--where the law doesn't give a rat's butt what he did to me--it is only offended by having the formless wisp of itself having been broken. In court, my corpse is only a silent witness, and my fatal wound is just evidence of how damage was supposedly done to a flawed ideal.

The better question though, is 'why was I stabbed'? I didn't know the man, so he didn't have personal enmity against me. Instead, he was probably frustrated by life as a serf to law, and he stabbed at the law. I was just the living target he needed to strike at the law versus murder. If the law hadn't painted a big bull's eye on my belly, I would still be unharmed.

[4eyedbuzzard]

Your logic is twisted.

[Twyce]

"anarchy
noun
a state of lawlessness"

Anarchy wouldn't be created by true state of 'lawlessness'. Anarchy would ensue only where laws still exist, but where they are not enforced. There is a huge difference and the dictionary definition is misleading.