Law is Not Determinative

[determinatio]

Those people speak the same language you, which normal humans do not. Normal humans speak and write like this, using words the general public can easily understand and follow.

See the difference?

Of course you don't, you're just here to troll and spew verbal diarrhea to try to look smart.

People like PhD's are normal human beings who have simply worked exceedingly hard to study very difficult precepts. You exhibit yourself to be relatively ignorant, by your narrowmindedness. You are so very unlettered that you know nothing of polemical dialectical interchange which, to your limited thought-capacity, is "trolling", while, all the while you are spreading/trolling discord here by your anally-oriented reference to "verbal diarrhea". You are, actually, just a plain stupid person who has invested no time in pursuing an education, and, above all, you are meanly stupid and pitifully backward...
I am not merely trying to appear to be smart before you lot of bullying grammar school mentalities, I am not that petty, that needful. I am simply putting forward a theoretical destruction of the notion of law, which inane law infinitely stupid persons alike your self unquestioningly and absurdly swallow whole.

[Harold99]

Determinatio,
What is your interest in the law? Have you been falsely convicted of a crime in the past and now hold a grudge? Are you curious how effective laws are in curbing people's behavior? Do you wonder how govt can impose laws upon the people? I don't get your interest in this subject. Something must have motivated your interest in this.

Personally, I think laws are not taken very seriously by law enforcement or those that dance in the court system (judges, lawyers and juries). They are just fodder for argument, facts to ignore and tools to get over on people. Us citizens take laws much more seriously than those that enforce them. I learned this first hand recently and will never forget what I witnessed...twice.

[PayrolGuy]

Determinatio,
What is your interest in the law? Have you been falsely convicted of a crime in the past and now hold a grudge?

He wrote earlier in one of his other threads that he didn't want to pay a trash tax of some sort.

[Harold99]

He wrote earlier in one of his other threads that he didn't want to pay a trash tax of some sort.

Really? Trash tax is the best deal any city offers. From someone who visits transfer stations regularly, having the city come out and pick up your trash for about $5 per large can...and they supply the can, what is there to complain about?

He ought to try paying property tax in Southern CA. Easily $8K - $15K/year.

[PayrolGuy]

Really? Trash tax is the best deal any city offers. From someone who visits transfer stations regularly, having the city come out and pick up your trash for about $5 per large can...and they supply the can, what is there to complain about?

He ought to try paying property tax in Souther CA. Easily $8K - $15K/year.

Yes really.

[determinatio]

Determinatio,
What is your interest in the law? Have you been falsely convicted of a crime in the past and now hold a grudge? Are you curious how effective laws are in curbing people's behavior? Do you wonder how govt can impose laws upon the people? I don't get your interest in this subject. Something must have motivated your interest in this.

Personally, I think laws are not taken very seriously by law enforcement or those that dance in the court system (judges, lawyers and juries). They are just fodder for argument, facts to ignore and tools to get over on people. Us citizens take laws much more seriously than those that enforce them. I learned this first hand recently and will never forget what I witnessed...twice.

No I have not been falsely convicted of a crime. My interest is academic and sociological, regarding how best to honestly do civilization. Law is unintentionally dishonest and dishonorable via its false claim to be determinative of human conduct. When I came to understand J.P. Sartre's accurate theory of the mode of origin of a human act and, thus recognized the mistaken presupposition entertained by jurisprudence, that language of law per se is determinative, I saw a chance to do original theoretical work in theory of civilization.
It is not the language of law which curbs behavior, it is the attendant barbaric punishment and theft of life which constitutes that punishment, which is the only tool legality has going for itself, whereby jurisprudence kills murderers, wherein there is no substantial difference between the two, not that I favor murder.

Your observation that jurisprudents do not take law seriously in both very interesting and amazing. I think that what ticks me off is the nauseating self-righteousness prosecutor/policeman/magistrate exhibit, as if they have absolutely the very last word on what is proper human conduct, and, it is sick that they deem themselves to be paradigm examples of ongoing right conduct, while, all the while, their notion of themselves as doing justice via law is, from my perspective, wholly absurd, for, they are an ilk of criminal themselves, by shitting on other human beings for a living when, actually, law is not an ontologically honest approach to managing human misconduct. I have written regarding an alternative approach wherein civilization is based upon our ontological structure as human beings, instead of constantly going against that structure via law. To take our human ontological structure as a pattern for doing civilization is what I am suggesting, and, law is not actually efficient for doing an ontologically oriented civilization, (which is what the Bill of Rights originally set-forward), because, law is a given state of affairs, and, the future does not arise on the basis of what already is (law), rather, the future arises of that basis of what is not. Human freedom is the fact that all determination is negation, and, via law, we cannot ultimately either understand or do freedom.

[Taxing Matters]

It is not the language of law which curbs behavior, it is the attendant barbaric punishment and theft of life which constitutes that punishment, which is the only tool legality has going for itself, whereby jurisprudence kills murderers, wherein there is no substantial difference between the two, not that I favor murder.

That's the most straightforward version of your position that you have put here. Stripped of the overly verbose style you usually employ (which makes your posts less readable than you apparently appreciate) you have provided something useful to discuss. You claimed earlier you could not possibly state your case in ordinary language, yet I submit the part quoted above proves you can — should you choose to do so.

And you are correct that a law by itself without any power to punish those who violate the law would not do much to affect human behavior. People would not, for example, pay taxes if there were no adverse consequences whatsoever for not paying them. They pay the taxes because the consequences for not doing so are worse. And so it goes with much else in the law — it is not the law itself (separated from the punishment) that motivates people to comply. They do so because the law is backed by the power of the state to punish violators. There are some things that most people would do without law simply based on their own moral outlook. Most would not murder, rape, or steal, for example, even without a law that prohibits it because their own moral sense says that it is wrong to do so. But without law and the punishment to back it up we would have some people running amok murdering, raping, and stealing with no organized way to stop it. And without our legal system there are many things that most people would not do on their own that are beneficial to society.

Yet you say you have an alternative way to structure society that would be more effective than our current system to get people to do those things, to act in a way that we want them to act to make the society that we wish to have. So far I've not seen you offer that alternative. So what alternative structure do you think would work better, and can you describe it in the same straightforward way you did in the part I quoted above?

[PayrolGuy]

There is a short version, TM. There are a lot of people that would be dead if killing them wasn't against the law.

There is a somewhat longer version in my post in #20.

[determinatio]

That's the most straightforward version of your position that you have put here. Stripped of the overly verbose style you usually employ (which makes your posts less readable than you apparently appreciate) you have provided something useful to discuss. You claimed earlier you could not possibly state your case in ordinary language, yet I submit the part quoted above proves you can — should you choose to do so.

And you are correct that a law by itself without any power to punish those who violate the law would not do much to affect human behavior. People would not, for example, pay taxes if there were no adverse consequences whatsoever for not paying them. They pay the taxes because the consequences for not doing so are worse. And so it goes with much else in the law — it is not the law itself (separated from the punishment) that motivates people to comply. They do so because the law is backed by the power of the state to punish violators. There are some things that most people would do without law simply based on their own moral outlook. Most would not murder, rape, or steal, for example, even without a law that prohibits it because their own moral sense says that it is wrong to do so. But without law and the punishment to back it up we would have some people running amok murdering, raping, and stealing with no organized way to stop it. And without our legal system there are many things that most people would not do on their own that are beneficial to society.

Yet you say you have an alternative way to structure society that would be more effective than our current system to get people to do those things, to act in a way that we want them to act to make the society that we wish to have. So far I've not seen you offer that alternative. So what alternative structure do you think would work better, and can you describe it in the same straightforward way you did in the part I quoted above?

Well, taxing matters, I appreciate your kind words. This series of threads entitled Law is Not Determinative began as an attempt to satisfy members' demands for what they consider a simpler and clearer writing of the original OP, but ran into as much or more abuse and hatred! So, I stopped the attempt. Why write for monstrous dummies?

And, I appreciate your agreement that language of law itself is not an efficient active agent among men, thus, in fact, there is actually no law or rule of law, at bottom there is only violence. Yes, most people exercise their inherent sense of right and do not murder rape or steal. Acting in accordance with law is for the most part simply doing nothing. However, you could very well be mistaken that there would be chaos in the absence of a law based upon violent punishments wherein freedom, money, and life is taken from human beings by a language of law which itself, suffers from foible in the sense that it, as a given state of affairs, is not actually an agent determining the conduct of men, for ll determination is negative and law is a positive existing given published thing. Thomas Paine, the American patriot who wrote Common Sense, reports that immediately after the American Revolution, when there was no law, all was domestically tranquil, for everyone was under he necessity that commerce be permitted to function normally.
Yes, I have written an alternative mode of American civilization, and, no, it probably is not currently cast in language which you would consider understandable, and, it is a writing which cannot be considered a complete and final proposal, for I believe that it will require extensive dialectical interchange between thinkers before a civilization based on our ontological structure could be attempted, in contradistinction to our current approach via attempting to outlaw everything commonly human. We humans are ontologically structured such that civilization can function absent misconduct....perhaps RJR, who, for some reason felt compelled to find and read everything I have written on the web, can tell us if and where he saw my theory of ontological civilization as it now stands.

[Taxing Matters]

Thomas Paine, the American patriot who wrote Common Sense, reports that immediately after the American Revolution, when there was no law, all was domestically tranquil, for everyone was under he necessity that commerce be permitted to function normally.

It is not the case that immediately following American Revolution that there was no law. There was. Each state had its own law, as they still do, which they continued to apply and enforce. Most criminal law in the U.S. has been, and continues to be, state and local law, after all. Thus there always was law prohibiting and punishing murder, rape, theft and all the other variety of crimes that were then found in the common law. What we did not have right away was law from a national government regulating commerce as England had done for us before the Revolution.

Yes, I have written an alternative mode of American civilization, and, no, it probably is not currently cast in language which you would consider understandable, and, it is a writing which cannot be considered a complete and final proposal, for I believe that it will require extensive dialectical interchange between thinkers before a civilization based on our ontological structure could be attempted, in contradistinction to our current approach via attempting to outlaw everything commonly human.

Then I submit that, your criticism of the current mode of regulating society via law notwithstanding, we currently have nothing better to replace it. Should you come up with a better way to do it, by all means share it when it is complete. You or someone else will need to be able to explain it in plain language if you expect all of society go along with it and adopt it.