Law Is Bullying Taken To The Extreme

[jk]

Concise.

lmao

[cyjeff]

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.

[cyjeff]

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....

[jk]

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 have a suspicion none of us will be getting rich from that proposal and it has nothing to do with the illegality of it.

Don't give up your day job, Russ hasn't.

[cyjeff]

I have a suspicion none of us will be getting rich from that proposal and it has nothing to do with the illegality of it.

Don't give up your day job, Russ hasn't.

But, but....

it is number 3208000 on amazon...

Which means Russ and his mommy both got copies.

[Twyce]

First, you want to talk about fncking stupid.

Ok. Let's compare the misinterpretations from this most current flame, against what I actually said. Perhaps my greatest stupidity is found in my optimism that someone here will actually interpret it the exacty way that I said/mean it.

YOU are the one on a US law board arguing the value of the legal system to a bunch of Americans. You are a stoopid f'ing canuck that has a totally different legal system.

Wrong. Canada, France, and even Somalia has the same law theory that you do. Note that I cited France, whose law is grounded on the Napoleonic Code, and Somalia, which seems to exist in a state of near anarchy because their law enforcement isn't equipped to handle their crime level. Every law sysyem in the current world contains the same logic error. National interpretations of the 'rule-of-law' principles isn't where the problem begins--it is in the 'rule-of-law' theory itself.

OUR legal system does not affect YOU. .... You have no rights here.

Again you are wrong on both these counts. Crime caused by law's flawed underpinnings affects everyone and this is a universal human problem--like global warming is too. I possess the same god-given 'rights' whether I'm in the U.S., Canada, or Tibet: the difference is only how the local 'rule-of-law' authorities choose to ignor/abuse those (mine, yours and everyone's) inherent and intrinsic rights.

If you have something of value to discuss, inteliigently and well defined, I am sure you will easily engage somebody in an intelligent conversation, The problem is you cannot define your position.

From my perspective, the problem is that people I try to engage can't seem to grasp what I'm saying--and then they fly off the handle because they've misinterpreted. For example...

You calim laws are "bad" but then you go on to say you have an idea for a "law" that is better. Well, if laws are bad, then your laws are bad as well.

Were you to search back and look at what I've written, you would find there is nowhere that I've suggested replacing 'law' with 'law'. I tried calling them 'protective' or 'reactive' justice, but you're still missing the main differences between that and 'law'. I'll freely admit that this does get frustrating for me too, because I find it so simple and straight forward to understand.

If you could actually define your position rather than simply bitching about our laws without without any truly cohesive explanation, you might not sound like...

I have an elevator that doesn't go up to the top floor? Perhaps you might actually try to listen to my position instead of just trying to make me out as a 'loonie'. Should I try once again?

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.

[Twyce]

So the problem isn't law... it is who makes them and under what premise.

To me, I don't see a dime's worth of difference.

The problem isn't who makes them and under what premise...the basic problem IS the illogical theory of law itself.

If you flip that dime, it makes a heads or tails difference.

[4eyedbuzzard]

...I'm dead certain that a justice system without laws WILL solve the violence and crime that are plagueing society...

Oooooohhhhh. Now I get it. A justice system without laws. Why didn't you just say so in the first place. I get it now. If there is no law against murder, there won't be a crime, because...because... there is no law!

F**K, I'm stupid.

[Twyce]

But I love the law.

When/if you find yourself wrongly (or even rightly) accused of something, will it love you and treat you humanely?

[Twyce]

Oooooohhhhh. Now I get it. A justice system without laws. Why didn't you just say so in the first place. I get it now. If there is no law against murder, there won't be a crime, because...because... there is no law!

F**K, I'm stupid.

I wouldn't call you stupid because you have spotted the semantics. No 'law' does equate to no 'crime'. Again though you've ignorred the rest to quickly voice your mistaken impression. A system of human justice DOES need to recognize that wrongs WILL happen and they DO need to be addressed--regardless of what name you give to 'crime'.