The funny part, for me, is that anyone that complains about the "repressive" legal system wants it removed and replaced with something THEY want.
So the problem isn't law... it is who makes them and under what premise.
Everyone wants rules... they just want THEIR rules.
To me, I don't see a dime's worth of difference.
And Rusty, before you say it, you do want rules. You would want someone that would steal your stuff, pee on your car and molest your collie to pay for the crimes... but to want punishment, you have to first define improper behavior and then assign penalties for violation thereof.
Again, no difference in the current system except that you ain't a part of it. That is just fine with me.
I got an idea.
Let's all take Rusty's book and change the title and make it our own. We will actually steal his ideas, thoughts and make our own money off of them.
The good news is that he won't sue us.
Let's see... a man who was on the grassy knoll has a secret son....
I am not an attorney and any advice is not to be construed as legal advice. You might even want to ignore my advice. Actually, there are plenty of real attorneys that you might want to ignore as well.
Suppose that a legislature passed the following law. "If people jump up, they must not come down." (I realize that law is absurd--it is purposly so for example). The normally 'law-abiding' citizens couldn't adhere to that law, because gravity would make them break it. My point is that ALL laws are similarly absurd: legislatures pass them in good faith (obstensively to protect people) and the 'rule-of-law' claims they apply to everyone, but the stronger law of 'freewill' allows some people (mainly criminals) to break them. I'm reminded of the game of tic-tac-toe, where the only way to win--is not to play. The only way to make laws that really apply equally to everyone--is to have no laws at all.
"That is ANARCHY!" (I've anticipated your reply.) No, it is utter lawwlessness and it is ultimate equality because all are absolutely compelled to obey: they can't break something that does not exist. From that base of utter compliance to the non-law, we can build a true method of protecting people from wrongful actions.
Imagine that keepng good social order is like a game of billiards. You want to push people into the pockets, so your law-makers act like a pool cue in passing laws to strike the balls into the lawful directions. What I call protective justice tries in a different way: it reshapes the table so that any free-action ball movements must generally bounce towards a pocket--or be held motionless (harmlessly) at the rails.
Obviously, each nation could/should have protections based on their own values. For example, you don't want to allow murder so you tell your people that justice will protect people from that. A person who kills another is not deemed to have broken a law (restrictive law doesn't exist to break), but he has breached another person's right to live and the justice system will prevent reoccurrence by confinement.
I wonder if this latest attempt will prove any more fruitfull than the others have been. Even if it doesn't, I'll still keep trying--because it is important and I'm dead certain that a justice system without laws WILL solve the violence and crime that are plagueing society. Law doesn't seem able to even make a dent in it--as we all can see, they are on the increase.