Abolish Law

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.

Huh????

You are advocating anarchy?

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.

Quote:

---

Quoting jojo4

---

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.

"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.

Quote:

---

Quoting Twyce

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Quoting 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

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.

Your logic is twisted.

Quote:

---

Quoting 525601minutes

---

"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.

Quote:

---

Quoting 4eyedbuzzard

---

Your logic is twisted.

---

I see the belief that law is good as being the warped logic.

Quote:

---

Quoting 4eyedbuzzard

---

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.

---

Law IS the cause of all crime and in fact the law COMMITS all crimes. (That leads to a longer discussion, but the statement is logically provable.) "Law defines the limits of liberty" Where is the logic in that? Liberty with limits is no longer freedom.

Quote:

---

Quoting 4eyedbuzzard

---

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.

---

I don't care what some long-dead people thought about law because I have my own current beliefs on what law is and what it isn't. I need only look at the Magna Charta to see where civilization went wrong. The king's serfs were sold to a Sophist concept. The serfs thought they gained freedom but instead, an imaginary being (the rule-of-law) ownership--but it was still slavery.

Quote:

---

Quoting Twyce

---

Liberty with limits is no longer freedom.

---

"Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains." - Jean Jacques Rousseau

Quote:

---

I don't care what some long-dead people thought about law because I have my own current beliefs on what law is and what it isn't.

---

Your ideas and questions are hardly new, they've been debated throughout history. That you would choose to remain ignorant of that is your choice.

Quote:

---

I need only look at the Magna Charta to see where civilization went wrong. The king's serfs were sold to a Sophist concept. The serfs thought they gained freedom but instead, an imaginary being (the rule-of-law) ownership--but it was still slavery.

---

This notion of absolute freedom you have, it doesn't exist, it never has, and never will.

Here's your first homework assignment, Mr. Noble Savage. You wanna play philosopher, you're gonna have to read a lot of history and philosophy to be taken as anything but a disgruntled nut:

http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon.htm

Quote:

---

Quoting 4eyedbuzzard

---

Your ideas and questions are hardly new, they've been debated throughout history. That you would choose to remain ignorant of that is your choice.

---

You're presuming that you know what my ideas are--which you obviously don't.

Quote:

---

Quoting 4eyedbuzzard

---

This notion of absolute freedom you have, it doesn't exist, it never has, and never will.

---

Absolute freedom has ALWAYS existed and it ALWAYS will. The notion that a law can prevent an action is the rediculous one. Societal order keeping shouldn't be rooted on an impossible concept--as law is.

Quote:

---

Quoting Twyce

---

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.

---

well, youhad your chance and you wanted to ramble on in a manner that appears you are attempting to impress us. Sorry, not impressed.

As well, you state this :

Quote:

---

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.

---

You have ignored the fact that I said there were no laws and you ramble on as to how "the laws" frustrated this guy.

You remind me of the hippies of the 60's. "The man" was always keeping them down, man. That just ain't cool, man. "The man" was the enemy then just as he is to you now.

I think your epipheny caused you more harm than it did good. That 8 minutes seems to have really screwed up your though processes.

The guy stabbed ou because he got tired of your incoherent ramblings. Too bad there isn't a law against that so he simply gets to walk away and live his life doing what he wants to whomever he wants. but that is what you are proposing. Enjoy.

Quote:

---

Quoting 4eyedbuzzard

---

Here's your first homework assignment, Mr. Noble Savage. You wanna play philosopher, you're gonna have to read a lot of history and philosophy to be taken as anything but a disgruntled nut:

---

I've been called many things, but never a Noble Savage. :) I have a homework assignment for you too. Find a logical model of how law's theory actually functions. We can work from there to show how law doesn't work as you suppose that it does, and how that flawed theory is the TRUE CAUSE of many societal ills.

You never did address this part of my post:

Quote:

---

Quote:
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.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

I think your epipheny caused you more harm than it did good. That 8 minutes seems to have really screwed up your though processes.

---

My death experience broke my societal conditioning and allowed me to examine law for what it ACTUALLY is. If you can't debate your (and society's) stance, then how can you be so cock-sure that you're (and it is) correct?

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

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.


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.

---

Sorry jk I missed this. Unfortunately, my laptop is about to run out of battery. I'll answer this question soon.

I am debating it. I gave your supportive argument (see the apart about the constituation above). It is YOU that fails to debate. You present non-supported arguments that are merely "your beliefs". That is not debating. That is telling somebody your thoughts and you somehow believe by simply tossing those oss thoughts out there that we are going to go "Oh WOW, what have I been thinking all these years.' You are sadly mistaken if you espousing all your crap resembles a debate in any manner.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

I am debating it. I gave your supportive argument (see the apart about the constituation above). It is YOU that fails to debate. You present non-supported arguments that are merely "your beliefs". That is not debating. That is telling somebody your thoughts and you somehow believe by simply tossing those oss thoughts out there that we are going to go "Oh WOW, what have I been thinking all these years.' You are sadly mistaken if you espousing all your crap resembles a debate in any manner.

---

Perhaps I have an abrasive personality, or possibly my conviction that law is the wrong tool for providing social order tends to put people's hackles up. I'm sorry if it is either or both, but I'm absolutely certain that I'm onto something very good here. It would be nice to have an intelligent conversation with some people who are willing to gain an understanding before condemning.

No, I'm not an anarchist and I believe people need good government. I also know that police and courts will always be necessary (albiet with a different focus than they have now). However, I also firmly believe that the obvious problems in law are actually caused by the exceedingly poor theory of law. I know there is a better way. I can see it clearly. Unfortunately, it's less easy to describe, because this is new ground and to the best of my knowledge, it hasn't been previously discussed by Dostoyesky, Hume or any others. The closest might be libertarianism--but much more so.

Law is now an obsolete concept because it relies on people believing in it--almost as a religion. Few people do have faith in law anymore, the criminals don't feel constrained by it. The average person doesn't think about law at all because most actions are governed by good morals. All they/we want is for the law to restrict and punish the bad actions of others--but law doesn't stop anyone (conversely, law even assists and encourages wrongdoing).

Quote:

---

All they/we want is for the law to restrict and punish the bad actions of others--but law doesn't stop anyone (conversely, law even assists and encourages wrongdoing).

---

Again, you speak with absolutely no specificity and you do nothing to debate, which is what you said you wanted. You merely ramble and say nothing.

So, since you do not like laws that punish. What do you propose. Brownie points for being a good person that can be cashed in for a prize when you accumulate enough brownie points?


and yes, the repect for the law does prevent most people from acting in an unaccetable manner. If there were no speed limits, many many people would drive much faster.

If it were not illegal to steal, many people would be walking out of the banks with wads of cash.

Both of those laws use the threat of punishment to cause people to follow those laws but, from those laws, you have to realize that those laws are intended to protect everybody. Speed kills and it is nice that my money is relatively safe in a bank. So, the laws are not prohibitive but protective, which is what you calimed you want.

Have you read the constitutional amendments. Which ones are restrictive?

The laws stop me from committing a crime, I wouldn't want to deal with the consequences of breaking the law.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Again, you speak with absolutely no specificity and you do nothing to debate, which is what you said you wanted. You merely ramble and say nothing.

---

Fatal Errors in Law’s Theory

(Note…I’m not talking about all forms of law. I’m only referring to personal freedom limiting laws, like criminal codes and highway traffic acts.)

Flaw # 1 – Law does NOT protect people. You might think it does, but its method is self-serving. Law ONLY protects it’s own sanctity.

Flaw # 2 – The rule-of-law has no logical right to rule. An individual has no right to set rules or another’s behavior, or to mete out punishments. A nation derives it’s rights of governance from the combined donations of it’s citizens, but a zero right to rule even multiplied by millions is still none. The resulting problem is that people feel resentment towards the non-condonable slavery of the law and many do commit crimes simply as statements of freedom. The solution is to apply society’s reaction to wrongs onto the effect and not the action. A person does have the right of self-defense and the nation would similarly have the indisputable right to support that with ‘protections’. (No, law does NOT protect people: law’s object is only protecting its own sanctity.)

Flaw # 3 - No matter how you try to downplay this repugnant fact, LAW IS SLAVERY (and everyone hates it for that).

Flaw # 4 – A law asks to be treated as if it exists but it really doesn’t. A law is only a concept residing in a duped mind, because (see Flaw # 2 – Law has no right to rule.)

Flaw # 5 – The theory of law creates an imaginary barrier around each person and it assigns acts as having occurred only to that illusionary object. IE. A person was stabbed but the court is only concerned with what happened to the intangible law as the knife passed through the law. The resulting problems from this are many but the worst is that it provides a handy method of circumventing the conscience. IE. “I’m stabbing this person, but my action only hurting the inanimate and unfeeling law.”

Flaw # 6 – Law paints targets on innocent victims. Since laws are made and owned by the authority, malcontents with enmity against ‘the man’ are able to make an attack or statement against the state. IE. The victims of Virginia Tech were killed simply for the killer to make his anti-society statement. Without a law of murder to break, the murders wouldn’t have occurred.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

So, since you do not like laws that punish. What do you propose.

---

Solving Flaws AND Keeping True Order

Remedy for Flaw # 1 – Remove prohibitions from actions and place society’s response onto the effects of actions instead—by installing ‘protections’. EI. The act of murder no longer is illegal, BUT society will put a murderer in protective custody to protect other potential victims. This is to the same general effect as ‘punishing’ for ‘the crime of murder’, but it is based on justice ACTUALLY protecting people.

Remedy for Flaw # 2 – Law has no right to rule, but each person does have the right of self-defense. When each citizen lends this right to the government, then justice DOES have the right to protect the people.

Remedy for Flaw # 3 – Protective justice would do what even Lincoln didn’t accomplish in freeing all slaves. Eliminating law would finally end feudal serfdom.

Remedy for Flaw # 4 – Law requires universal acceptance to survive. All people have to think that law applies to them. What will happen when there are more people (like me) who say “Law exists only in your mind: it does not have power in mine.” To make laws apply to us (me), you have to break my human right of having my own beliefs. (Note—I don’t consider myself ‘above the law’: law doesn’t exist in any space respective to me.)

Remedy for Flaw # 5 – Protective justice eliminates the necessity for an imaginary being (a law). Instead, the police/courts are dealing with what actually happened to the victim. (Fuller Explanation—Visualize the law of ‘assault’ as a cocoon of saran wrap around your body. If I poke you in the eye, the law sees me as bending the plastic into your eye and it charges me with damage I did to the bubble. How did your eye get hurt? Did my finger push the other side of the law into it? Doesn’t that mean the assault law assaulted you.)

Remedy for Flaw # 6 – Protective justice removes the target. Flaw # 6 is probably the biggest reason why I call law a ‘crime against humanity’. Every time a Columbine or Virginia Tech happens, when a malcontent commits a politically motivated vandalism, and each crime that any person commits just to spite authority, the rule-of-law has been directly responsible for the wrong happening to an innocent person. Law is heinous!

Quote:

---

Flaw # 1 – Law does NOT protect people. You might think it does, but its method is self-serving. Law ONLY protects it’s own sanctity.

---

Huh? Example: it is illegal to rob a bank. Due to that, those that respect the laws will not rob a bank. If it were not illegal to rob a bank, I suggest there would be many more bank robberies.

Quote:

---

Flaw # 2 – The rule-of-law has no logical right to rule. An individual has no right to set rules or another’s behavior, or to mete out punishments. A nation derives it’s rights of governance from the combined donations of it’s citizens, but a zero right to rule even multiplied by millions is still none. The resulting problem is that people feel resentment towards the non-condonable slavery of the law and many do commit crimes simply as statements of freedom. The solution is to apply society’s reaction to wrongs onto the effect and not the action. A person does have the right of self-defense and the nation would similarly have the indisputable right to support that with ‘protections’. (No, law does NOT protect people: law’s object is only protecting its own sanctity.)

---

You are right, an individual does not have the rights to make a law BUT the government we put inplaec does have that right.

Quote:

---

Flaw # 3 - No matter how you try to downplay this repugnant fact, LAW IS SLAVERY (and everyone hates it for that).

---

How so. Law does not make you do anything. It spells out things you cannot do.

Quote:

---

Flaw # 4 – A law asks to be treated as if it exists but it really doesn’t. A law is only a concept residing in a duped mind, because (see Flaw # 2 – Law has no right to rule.)

---

A law exists because the masses have decided we want laws to protect our rights. Remember my question about the Constitution?

Quote:

---

Flaw # 5 – The theory of law creates an imaginary barrier around each person and it assigns acts as having occurred only to that illusionary object. IE. A person was stabbed but the court is only concerned with what happened to the intangible law as the knife passed through the law. The resulting problems from this are many but the worst is that it provides a handy method of circumventing the conscience. IE. “I’m stabbing this person, but my action only hurting the inanimate and unfeeling law.”

---

This makes absolutely no sense. Stabbing a person (i.e. injuring the person) is the criminal act. The law against injuring that person is the protection (along with the police and the courts that enforce those laws) you seem to have ignored.

Quote:

---

Flaw # 6 – Law paints targets on innocent victims. Since laws are made and owned by the authority, malcontents with enmity against ‘the man’ are able to make an attack or statement against the state. IE. The victims of Virginia Tech were killed simply for the killer to make his anti-society statement. Without a law of murder to break, the murders wouldn’t have occurred.

---

Like I said before, erase all laws and nothing would be illegal. That does not mean we would be safe, secure or happy. Remember the old addage; a rose by any other name would smell as sweet? Whether it is illegal or merely immmoral to kill another, it is still wrong. Murder will always be murder whether it is illegal or not. The fact that it is illegal tends to cause those that do not want to sit their butts in jail or be executed from committing murder. The law also allows our government to remove those that we do not want to interact with within our society due to there injurious actions against others. If there were no laws, then the killers would be allowed to continue to run free and kill at will. That is how the laws protect us.

Again, you have failed to debate me. You have failed to list laws that you believe would act as you desire rather than the laws we currently have in place. Still, you have failed to show me how the US Constitution limits the rights and actions of our citizens.

You seem to wander about through this thread with non-specific statements and no support of your position. You continue this diatribe with absolutely no support of your position and not corrective direction. You seem to believe your attempts at philosophy are somehow so deep that you want others to be in awe of your understanding of the world. Well, it does not come across as that. It merely appears to be a rant with no direction and no real understanding of the topic at hand.

There was another poster on here awhile back that was as clueless about life as you seem to be. Maybe somebody will recall his name so the two of you can discuss various subjects and try to impress each other because I believe you have failed to make any positive impressions here. He spoke as imprecise as you.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Huh? Example: it is illegal to rob a bank. Due to that, those that respect the laws will not rob a bank. If it were not illegal to rob a bank, I suggest there would be many more bank robberies.

---

It isn't 'illegal' to rob a bank. It is 'illegal' to break the law against bank robbery. Until you can understand the destinction between the two, you're consigned to live and think in the little slave box that you're assigned to.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

You are right, an individual does not have the rights to make a law BUT the government we put inplaec does have that right.

---

I've explained how the government's LACK of right in this respect is because individuals don't have the right to collect into the government coffers. Now you're the one not offering any rationale for you statement. HOW DOES THE GOVERNMENT ACQUIRE THIS 'RIGHT'?

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

How so. Law does not make you do anything. It spells out things you cannot do.

---

For one, it makes you pay taxes, as a slave to the landlord. I know that people don't like the slave lable, but suck it up buttercup, a serf is what you will be until we are free from laws.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

This makes absolutely no sense. Stabbing a person (i.e. injuring the person) is the criminal act. The law against injuring that person is the protection (along with the police and the courts that enforce those laws) you seem to have ignored.

---

My basic concept, that utterly elludes you, is that the law doesn't even try to protect anyone but itself. Every action that it prohibits, is one that it deems to be against itself. IE the crime of murder is not against the murder victim--it is against the law. Law doesn't care that a person died--except that the corpse is proof that the imaginary law recieved some obscure breakage.

Quote:

---

It isn't 'illegal' to rob a bank. It is 'illegal' to break the law against bank robbery. Until you can understand the destinction between the two, you're consigned to live and think in the little slave box that you're assigned to.

---

semantics. It is illegal to rob a bank and it is illegal to break the law that states it is illegal to rob a bank. It is you that cannot see your failure here, not I. Illegal does not neccessarily mean a US government based restriction. It is against all forms of law to take from another that which does not belong to them; the laws of rightousenss, the laws of morality, the laws of respect. Would you feel better if we called them precepts or canons?

Quote:

---

I've explained how the government's LACK of right in this respect is because individuals don't have the right to collect into the government coffers. Now you're the one not offering any rationale for you statement. HOW DOES THE GOVERNMENT ACQUIRE THIS 'RIGHT'?

---

No you have not. We (as citizens) have given our government the right to make laws and enforsce them.

Quote:

---

For one, it makes you pay taxes, as a slave to the landlord. I know that people don't like the slave lable, but suck it up buttercup, a serf is what you will be until we are free from laws.

---

No, it does not make you pay taxes. You do have a choice. If you have a problem with paying taxes, I would prefer if you do not use my fire department, my police departement, my highways, my educational establishments, and any other benefit we enjoy as a benefit of paying taxes. If you do not like paying the taxes we do, then I am sure there is some country somewhere in the world that would be glad to have you. As well, if you have a problem with the laws in our country, again, you can find another that is more to your liking. You will not be missed.

Quote:

---

My basic concept, that utterly elludes you, is that the law doesn't even try to protect anyone but itself. Every action that it prohibits, is one that it deems to be against itself. IE the crime of murder is not against the murder victim--it is against the law. Law doesn't care that a person died--except that the corpse is proof that the imaginary law recieved some obscure breakage.

---

Murder is not against the victim? You seem to have ignored my last post; you know, the rose, the smell....

Your attempt at philosophy is a failure. You make up your truth and are attempting to make others believe you are somehow some great mind.

Get over yourself and get a job. This line of work is not suited to you.

Actually, I think he has found his calling as a fictional writer.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Again, you have failed to debate me. You have failed to list laws that you believe would act as you desire rather than the laws we currently have in place. Still, you have failed to show me how the US Constitution limits the rights and actions of our citizens.

---

Can you list even one 'gift' from your constitution (or ours because I live in Canada) that wasn't already yours before the constitution 'gave' it to you? I can tell you of some rights I have that the government has ommitted mention of. For one, I have the right not to kill foriegn people, but the government might want to conscript me for an army to fight for ideals that I don't believe in--so they haven't offered the right not to kill.

Quote:

---

Quoting 4eyedbuzzard

---

"Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains." - Jean Jacques Rousseau

http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon.htm

---

"Man is born free: then constitutions take freedom away, under the guise of enshrining it." - Russell Twyce

Quote:

---

Can you list even one 'gift' from your constitution (or ours because I live in Canada) that wasn't already yours before the constitution 'gave' it to you? I can tell you of some rights I have that the government has ommitted mention of. For one, I have the right not to kill foriegn people, but the government might want to conscript me for an army to fight for ideals that I don't believe in--so they haven't offered the right not to kill.

---

That is your problem. You want to waffle between the laws restricting you or being prohibitive and over to your rights. I present you with laws that are protective and you alter your attack and come from the "natural rights" position. If you cannot stay on track, this will become a useless discussion. But, to answer you; the constitution does not "give" you anything. It enumerates your natural rights (although some would say not all of them) and by doing so, protects those rights. The laws neither grant rights nor remove them. It attempts to prevent anybody from trying to prevent you from exercising your rights.

and as always, you can refuse to kill. It is your choice. One would think that since you have recieved so much from your government that you would be willing to defend that government. Apparently you believe everything in life if free. It isn't. If you do not want what your government provides you, then rebuke your government and go it without use of any governmentally provided benefits.

Quote:

---

"Man is born free: then constitutions take freedom away, under the guise of enshrining it." - Russell Twyce

---

Uh, no, I just explained why this statement is incorrect.

You need to stay on track. If you want to speak of law, then do so. If you want to speak of rights, then do so.
The law does not restrict your rights anymore than neccessary so you do not infringe upon anothers rights. It is a balance but you seem to think you are entitled to more than anybody else. That is exactly what the laws are intending to prevent.

Quote:

---

Remedy for Flaw # 1 – Remove prohibitions from actions and place society’s response onto the effects of actions instead—by installing ‘protections’. EI. The act of murder no longer is illegal, BUT society will put a murderer in protective custody to protect other potential victims. This is to the same general effect as ‘punishing’ for ‘the crime of murder’, but it is based on justice ACTUALLY protecting people.

---

Uh, that is what we currently do with murderers. You can call it whatever you want but our laws currently provide for this exact action.

Quote:

---

Remedy for Flaw # 2 – Law has no right to rule, but each person does have the right of self-defense. When each citizen lends this right to the government, then justice DOES have the right to protect the people.

---

A non-statement

Quote:

---

Remedy for Flaw # 3 – Protective justice would do what even Lincoln didn’t accomplish in freeing all slaves. Eliminating law would finally end feudal serfdom.

---

No, eliminating law would be anarchy. It would have nothing to do with feudalism. It would be more like the movie "Escape from New York".

Quote:

---

Remedy for Flaw # 4 – Law requires universal acceptance to survive. All people have to think that law applies to them. What will happen when there are more people (like me) who say “Law exists only in your mind: it does not have power in mine.” To make laws apply to us (me), you have to break my human right of having my own beliefs. (Note—I don’t consider myself ‘above the law’: law doesn’t exist in any space respective to me.)

---

No. We have people that believe the laws do not apply to them now. We typically call them "prisoners".

Quote:

---

Remedy for Flaw # 5 – Protective justice eliminates the necessity for an imaginary being (a law). Instead, the police/courts are dealing with what actually happened to the victim. (Fuller Explanation—Visualize the law of ‘assault’ as a cocoon of saran wrap around your body. If I poke you in the eye, the law sees me as bending the plastic into your eye and it charges me with damage I did to the bubble. How did your eye get hurt? Did my finger push the other side of the law into it? Doesn’t that mean the assault law assaulted you.)

---

You are totally ignoring something. The criminal law is the bubble, fine. Those that break that law are punished to urge them to not do that again. Then we have the civil laws that are designed to recompense those that were actually injured. Both are intended to be deterrents to cause the person to not break the law again but the second also attempts to replace what the injured has lost.

Quote:

---

Remedy for Flaw # 6 – Protective justice removes the target. Flaw # 6 is probably the biggest reason why I call law a ‘crime against humanity’. Every time a Columbine or Virginia Tech happens, when a malcontent commits a politically motivated vandalism, and each crime that any person commits just to spite authority, the rule-of-law has been directly responsible for the wrong happening to an innocent person. Law is heinous!

---

You have such a screwed up perspective that I doubt you will ever understand that you are supporting those killers in their actions.

You need to understand that there will always be somebody that will not respect and follow the laws of the gevernment. That is why we punish them. That does not mean the laws in any way caused their actions. Their own demented mind and the total lack of repect for anothers rights is what caused them to kill. They have substituted themselves for the true laws and have judged those they have killed yet you somehow support thier actions when they themselves are acting in a manner exactly like what you complain about. Get your stories straight.


With this, I will end my input in this thread. It serves no purpose for me. Arguing with a person that has such a perversion concerning law and personal rights only causes me to wonder if I am speaking to the next Ted Kasczinski or David Koresh.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

No you have not. We (as citizens) have given our government the right to make laws and enforsce them.

---

How did you legally steal the deed to my freedom, that you supposedly then fenced to the government?

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

With this, I will end my input in this thread. It serves no purpose for me. Arguing with a person that has such a perversion concerning law and personal rights only causes me to wonder if I am speaking to the next Ted Kasczinski or David Koresh.

---

So go girl, I won't miss your Jurasic era mentality. Have you wondered why Teds and Davids and other sociopaths (perhaps the better term is lawopaths) arise? Is it because they are on the extreamist fringe of a rising groundswell of public opinion? Have you noted the declining respect for the law that people on the street exhibit? Do they cheer for the police as they write a speeding ticket, or do they scoff that 'it must be near to quota day'? Perhaps jk, you should take your head from the sand and look around. The future of mankind is freedom from the oppression of an archaic law concept.

Look, I'm the first one to protest about the government getting involved in the PERSONAL lives of the citizens. The role of government needs to be far more limited than it is today. The only thing they need to do is make sure their rights are protected and their private information is to remain private. The government has no right to strip away our personal liberties, and keep an eye on our every movement. Things like the "Patriot" act make me sick. Everybody who voted for it needs to be removed from office. They broke their oath to uphold the constitution.

That being said, I would not support getting rid of the entire government. The do serve some purpose.

Quote:

---

How did you legally steal the deed to my freedom, that you supposedly then fenced to the government?

---

There is no such thing as freedom. There are simply differing degrees of liberty.

Just as you have no freedom to select your parents, neither do you have the freedom to select the society or sovereign you are born unto. Some things just are. Once an adult, you have the liberty to go elsewhere, but no suitable destination is ever guaranteed to exist. If you choose to stay and not obey the exising laws of society you become an outlaw, and become subject to the will of that society by way of its laws.

Under natural law, a man has the right to any thing. The problem arises when more than two men occupy the same planet. Your liberty then ends at my nose. Most of us agree upon that. That agreement leads to a social contract. By our will we empower government and enact laws to better ensure and protect our agreed upon limited liberty by penalizing and/or removing those who do not comply.

What gives us the right to "steal your freedom"? Our collective will. You may call it slavery or anything else you choose. But you are trying to claim something that doesn't exist(freedom).

There is only one way to achieve absolute freedom, and that is death.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

There was another poster on here awhile back that was as clueless about life as you seem to be. Maybe somebody will recall his name so the two of you can discuss various subjects and try to impress each other because I believe you have failed to make any positive impressions here. He spoke as imprecise as you.

---

Perhaps your brain is just so stuffed with obsolete rhetoric that you can't stretch it around a new concept.

Quote:

---

Quoting 4eyedbuzzard

---

There is no such thing as freedom. There are simply differing degrees of liberty.

---

That may be true in the fuedal serfdom of today, but what I can envision through protective justice IS freedom and it's achievable. I'm an optimist and I believe people will throw off the illogical tyranny of law. Communism fell through the will of the people and law will also fail. Don't you think that discussing the successor system might ease the inevitable transition.

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

That being said, I would not support getting rid of the entire government. The do serve some purpose.

---

Where have I suggested collapsing the whole government? Of course people need an administration and we also need justice/police. The change to protective justice only requires the revision of the underlaying theory and amending job descriptions/duties to match.

Quote:

---

Quoting Twyce

---

Have you wondered why Teds and Davids and other sociopaths (perhaps the better term is lawopaths) arise? .

---

I see Twyce appears to be on a first name basis with the named criminals.

Just for the (twisted) fun of it, here is an excerpt from another website:http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~mcafee/Bin/sb.html. It seems many of the attributes can be seen in Twyce's personality. Some of this is determined from reviewing his websites and other sites not controlled by him.

Quote:

---

<H3>Profile of the Sociopath

---

Quote:

---

This website summarizes some of the common features of descriptions of the behavior of sociopaths.

• Glibness and Superficial Charm
• Manipulative and Conning
  They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.
• Grandiose Sense of Self
  Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."
• Pathological Lying
  Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.
• Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
  A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
• Shallow Emotions
  When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.
• Incapacity for Love
• Need for Stimulation
  Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.
• Callousness/Lack of Empathy
  Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.
• Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
  Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.
• Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
  Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.
• Irresponsibility/Unreliability
  Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.
• Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
  Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.
• Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
  Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.
• Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
  Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.

---

</H3>

HHmmmm! I wonder........