Author of Shiva's Messenger

[Landslide]

NO, what I've suggested is that particular motivation would be gone. there are some others that would also be gone or alieviated, so 'crime' rates would instantly drop somewhat.

Ok, I agree. That particular motivation would be gone, but would it have such a huge impact on crime rates? I have no idea of what percentage of the total crime rates corresponds to "against government and law" crimes, but I have a feeling is a very small one.

As to the impacts it would have on other types of crime, I'm not convinced it would end or alleviate them.

Current justice isn't a perfect system--Why should we have to settle for law's incompetance? Especially when there is a nearly perfect new version sitting in the design room.

I also think the current justice system is not a perfect one, but I still don't see how this nearly perfect new version of yours works or what is it that makes it nearly perfect...

 

[nyse]

I have no idea of what percentage of the total crime rates corresponds to "against government and law" crimes,.

ALL of them! The law is structured to make ALL crimes against the government and the law--so it factors into each and every crime committed.

Ok, I agree. That particular motivation would be gone, but would it have such a huge impact on crime rates? I have no idea of what percentage of the total crime rates corresponds to "against government and law" crimes, but I have a feeling is a very small one.

As to the impacts it would have on other types of crime, I'm not convinced it would end or alleviate them.




I also think the current justice system is not a perfect one, but I still don't see how this nearly perfect new version of yours works or what is it that makes it nearly perfect...

...And you probably never will, because the grapes seem sour to your eyes.

As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is over. I don't need to waste my time trying to explain something to those who refuse to open their ears to hear it.

 

[Landslide]

As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is over. I don't need to waste my time trying to explain something to those who refuse to open their ears to hear it.

Good! I was going to say the same thing...

And as far as I'm concerned I couldn't have done more to try and understand your point of view, but you just don't seem to be capable to explain it in an understandable way...

 

[nyse]

And as far as I'm concerned I couldn't have done more to try and understand your point of view, but you just don't seem to be capable to explain it in an understandable way...

That is only too true! I wish I could figure out how to explain the concept better. It shouldn't be that difficult to understand. I suppose I'll continue to seem as a fruitcake until I find how to make it clear.

Reading back on this thread, I think the problem with your missed comprehention is that you're seemingly unwilling to question the law at the point where it goes wrong. You have to look at the very kernel of what law is, and what we want justice to do.

Presumably, you want laws to protect us from wrongdoers. However, the law isn't targeted to do that. The law only protects itself by creating a supposed body (the law) and protecting that. All wrongdoing is deemed to have hurt the law--not people. With that philosophy, the law has nulified the best possible crime prevention tool, which is the human conscience.

Further, the law is based on prohibitions and we should've learned in the 20's that forbidding people from doing something (alcohol) actually increased the consumption. The same holds true with the law. Restricting people's actions can CAUSE the wrong by someone doing something in defiance of the law (as in Virginia Tech).

So to fix the problems in the law, the root of justice needs an overdue adjustment. Instead of prohibiting, we should be protecting. For example, instead of the action of 'murder' being illegal, the police should be apprehending someone who has caused the effect of harm (by killing someone). Society's response is nearly the same, in that the 'murderer' goes to jail, but instead of in 'punishment', it's to protect the next potential victim(s). You may claim the law already does this--but it inadvertently does so in a backhanded and clumsy methodology that is slavery based--and CAUSING many problems.

 

[beer good]

Restricting people's actions can CAUSE the wrong by someone doing something in defiance of the law (as in Virginia Tech).

You keep bringing that up. May I ask how long you knew Seung-Hui Cho personally to be able to speak with such authority on his motivations?

But let's say you're right, and that Seung-Hui Cho wasn't at all mentally unstable and irrational, but made a rational and thought-through decision to do this as a political act explicitly to protest the "slavery" of rule of law (which seems to be contradicted by his press release, but..) In that case, you might be right; abolishing the rule of law could have stopped HIM. John Hinckley shot Ronald Reagan to impress Jodie Foster; should we also get rid of all copies of Taxi Driver? OJ Simpson killed his ex-wife and her lover out of jealousy; should we stop people from falling in love? Every single criminal will have his or her own reasons for doing what they do; as nice as it would be, it's impossible to get rid of all of the conceivable motivations for people to hurt each other. Yes, the current system is flawed to hell, but...

Instead of prohibiting, we should be protecting.

You keep saying that too, but you're yet to present a single example on how to "protect" people from random criminal... sorry, unwanted violent or otherwise objectionable acts without introducing either some sort of police state or using ouija boards to see into the future. And when you say that...

For example, instead of the action of 'murder' being illegal, the police should be apprehending someone who has caused the effect of harm (by killing someone). Society's response is nearly the same, in that the 'murderer' goes to jail, but instead of in 'punishment', it's to protect the next potential victim(s). You may claim the law already does this--but it inadvertently does so in a backhanded and clumsy methodology that is slavery based--and CAUSING many problems.

So how exactly would your solution be any different in practice? If you still want people who commit crimes (or whatever you want to call them) to be arrested and put in custody by the police (or whatever agency you would use), how is this anything but a difference in nomenclature? Doesn't the current system tick both boxes - when you put someone in jail, it's both a) for punishment and b) to keep him or her away from the rest of society?

People don't commit crimes because they are illegal. If they did, most criminals wouldn't go to such lengths to hide their actions. Crimes are illegal because people commit them.

 

[nyse]

Yes, the current system is flawed to hell, but...

The information that I want to discuss comes after where you left off at but...

 

[nyse]

But let's say you're right, and that Seung-Hui Cho wasn't at all mentally unstable and irrational, but made a rational and thought-through decision to do this as a political act explicitly to protest the "slavery" of rule of law.

I didn't suggest he was anything but a wack job. I'm saying that the law enabled him to transfer his aggression against the society at large, onto random people instead. This doesn't take any rational leap of genious because everyone know that a crime is against the state. Let me ask you this--When you break a speed limit--why are you really doing it? Are you truly in that much of a hurry--or is it your way of venting frustration over the system. "They can't tell me what to do--see--I'm breaking their law."

You keep saying that too, but you're yet to present a single example on how to "protect" people from random criminal... sorry, unwanted violent or otherwise objectionable acts without introducing either some sort of police state or using ouija boards to see into the future. And when you say that...

Doesn't the current system tick both boxes - when you put someone in jail, it's both a) for punishment and b) to keep him or her away from the rest of society?

There is only one tick box. The sentence (fine or jail) is ONLY for breaking the state's prohibition. You (and almost everyone else) mentally tack on that bit about keeping him or her away from the rest of society--(to make your slavery to the law more palatable?)

So how exactly would your solution be any different in practice? If you still want people who commit crimes (or whatever you want to call them) to be arrested and put in custody by the police (or whatever agency you would use), how is this anything but a difference in nomenclature?

If it is only nonenclature, then why should changing the wording of law's theory be a big deal. But, if it's more than that, as I know that it is, then isn't it worth thinking it through to find out?

 

[beer good]

I didn't suggest he was anything but a wack job. I'm saying that the law enabled him to transfer his aggression against the society at large, onto random people instead. This doesn't take any rational leap of genious because everyone know that a crime is against the state. Let me ask you this--When you break a speed limit--why are you really doing it? Are you truly in that much of a hurry--or is it your way of venting frustration over the system. "They can't tell me what to do--see--I'm breaking their law."

Because I'm in a hurry (or think I am). Or to keep the same speed as everyone around me. Or, OK, because driving fast is a lot of fun - it's a rush. Breaking the law just for the sake of it? Not even in the top 5. I honestly think you're assuming too much about the way people think about their actions. People who rob stores mostly do it because they need money. People who beat or rape their spouses mostly do it to assert their power over that person. People who kill others mostly do it because they for some reason want that specific person dead. Etc etc etc. As fucked up as we are as a species, most people don't really see others merely as avatars of The State whom it is OK to hurt to make a point.

Are there political crimes? Absolutely; it's called terrorism. (One of the best examples of it would be the wave of German and Italian terrorist groups in the 70s, whose explicitly stated idea was to bring down the government by forcing it to crack down on terrorist groups so hard that the rest of the population would be outraged.) In most functioning societies, it's a remarkably rare crime compared to all others.

There is only one tick box. The sentence (fine or jail) is ONLY for breaking the state's prohibition. You (and almost everyone else) mentally tack on that bit about keeping him or her away from the rest of society--(to make your slavery to the law more palatable?)

But they are kept away from the rest of society, no? Or do prisons not have walls where you live? And they are often made to pay damages to the people hurt by their crimes (not to the state), no? And I'm not a slave, thank you very much.

If it is only nonenclature, then why should changing the wording of law's theory be a big deal. But, if it's more than that, as I know that it is, then isn't it worth thinking it through to find out?

So, again; how is it more?

 

[nyse]

Because I'm in a hurry (or think I am). Or to keep the same speed as everyone around me. Or, OK, because driving fast is a lot of fun - it's a rush. Breaking the law just for the sake of it? Not even in the top 5. I honestly think you're assuming too much about the way people think about their actions. People who rob stores mostly do it because they need money. People who beat or rape their spouses mostly do it to assert their power over that person. People who kill others mostly do it because they for some reason want that specific person dead. Etc etc etc. As fucked up as we are as a species, most people don't really see others merely as avatars of The State whom it is OK to hurt to make a point.

Assume you're correct in MOST cases, then a better thought out societal system could still deal effectively with those. But with many cases (Virginia Tech for one and a large percentage of vandalism for another), the commission would be prevented by having no direct route of speaking against the authority by breaking its laws. So a modification of the legal theory actually stops some crime. How much? I can't surmise but I suspect it is MUCH more than you think. However, even stopping SOME is a good thing, when the rest isn't worsened and nor is societies ability to deal with it impaired.

But they are kept away from the rest of society, no? Or do prisons not have walls where you live? And they are often made to pay damages to the people hurt by their crimes (not to the state), no?

No, that is only your erroniously presumed theory (supplemented by the state's softening the edge of serfdom with a semblance of correction). All state castigation is only for having broken a law and recieving punishment for that offence.

And I'm not a slave, thank you very much.

I agree. You were born free and slavery is really an impossible concept because none can be utterly enslaved while you have power over your own mind and body--but you allow the law to treat you as one. A squirrel doesn't have to pay a jaywalking ticket for running across an empty street and neither should you. Now, if your dashing out causes a driver to swerve into a parked car, then you should be cited and have to make restitution for the effect of your free action.

So, again; how is it more?

Obviously, I'm still the shits at explaining this. I'll try one more time.

I’m not suggesting wholesale changes. Rather, I’m seeking ways of taking the concepts of serfdom out of our society. With a revision in the root premise of justice and governance, many of society’s ills become solvable.

1. Taxation. Currently, the government asserts that it has the right to steal money from citizens—it really doesn’t because people are (or should be) free. However, business and corporations are entities created by laws and they ARE our servants, so government does have the right to tax them--on our behalf. Instead of collecting income tax, the government could call it an employment tax instead, and let employers account for the revenues—instead of the citizens. The same money is raised but the tax agents swing their attentions away from family finances and scrutinize corporate books instead. (They would actually be public servants and might’ve seen things like Enron developing.)

2. Justice. Currently, the laws are based on rules and punishments. Where people are concerned, the better way is with protections and corrections. Example—The ‘crime’ of vandalism is against the state with fines or time owed to the law--it should be versus a property owner with restitution due to the harmed person.

3. Policing. Now, the police are tasked with ‘upholding the law’. That duty largely equates to alienating the public by filling ticket quotas with marginal offences and by using increasingly brutal tactics to hammer reluctant slaves into the shackles. The police job description should be to ‘serve and protect the people. To accomplish this, the theory of public order needs to be amended to reflect TRUE reality. People are NOT serfs anymore and we needn't be treated as such anymore.


Final note--if you could understand the root concept of what I'm talking about, then the rest of what I've said would make better sense to you.

 

[nyse]

I honestly think you're assuming too much about the way people think about their actions.

As fucked up as we are as a species, most people don't really see others merely as avatars of The State whom it is OK to hurt to make a point.

You are vastly discounting the power of your subconscious mind over your waking actions. Your mouth is saying you're not a slave--but your inside self knows very well that you are treated as a serf and I'm sure this often manifests in your words and deeds. Can you REALLY determine why you toss a gum wrapper out the car window--when you know that it's against the law. If you TRULY believed in law, then you wouldn't do it--ergo, if it wasn't against the law, then maybe you wouldn't litter.

 

[beer good]

But with many cases (Virginia Tech for one and a large percentage of vandalism for another), the commission would be prevented by having no direct route of speaking against the authority by breaking its laws.

Again, how do you know that that was Cho's intent - especially since his press release states otherwise, and you admit that he was a, quote, "wack job"? And furthermore...

So a modification of the legal theory actually stops some crime.

...but only assuming that criminals actually think that deeply and analytically about it, and would be content with the changes you suggest.

No, that is only your erroniously presumed theory (supplemented by the state's softening the edge of serfdom with a semblance of correction). All state castigation is only for having broken a law and recieving punishment for that offence.

Sorry, which part is an erroneously presumed theory - that prisons have walls and locked doors, or that courts can order people to pay damages to those they've victimized?

A squirrel doesn't have to pay a jaywalking ticket for running across an empty street and neither should you.

I'm sorry... WHAT?

As someone once put it, "no taxation without representation." I live in something called a democracy. The people elect the lawmakers (who, yes, are somewhat corrupt, but usually can't be bought with acorns). One of the first things you notice about a parliament is that most of its members - like the voters - are more or less human, and that animals such as squirrels are vastly underrepresented. This is definitely something that could be looked into, and I myself am planning to vote for the Tax The Squirrels Party as soon as squirrels get the right to vote - I'm pretty sure the soulless, bushy-tailed little buggers have funds we can only dream of. Until then, sadly, squirrels are not subject to or beneficiaries of human laws and regulations. You'll note, for instance, that squirrels don't receive any sort of censure (whether punitive or correctional) from the state if they happen to kill other members of their species, so why should any human have to? (There was that case back in the middle ages, though, when the Catholic church sued a family of rats. As I recall, the rats lost everything; I don't recall whether they were given adequate legal counsel.)

By the way, I don't have to pay jaywalking tickets for running across empty streets. Not a punishable offense here.

1. Taxation. Instead of collecting income tax, the government could call it an employment tax instead, and let employers account for the revenues—instead of the citizens.

And the companies would then either
a) raise their prices and pass on the increased cost to the consumers who end up paying for it anyway, or
b) lay off employees to cut costs, or
c) move to some other country which doesn't tax companies.
That's much better, yeah.

2. Justice. Currently, the laws are based on rules and punishments. Where people are concerned, the better way is with protections and corrections. Example—The ‘crime’ of vandalism is against the state with fines or time owed to the law--it should be versus a property owner with restitution due to the harmed person.

Well, I don't know about you, but where I live a) prisoners do get a chance at rehabilitation while they're serving their sentence, and b) see above re: courts having the authority to order criminals to pay restitution to those they've hurt. It's the law.

3. Policing. The police job description should be to ‘serve and protect the people. To accomplish this, the theory of public order needs to be amended to reflect TRUE reality. People are NOT serfs anymore and we needn't be treated as such anymore.

So, again, assuming you still want the police to "protect" people from things like theft and physical harm, how would you have the police act any different in practice? Examples? Should they say "Drop the gun, please" more? I'm not always a huge fan of the police, but it's not like their job is exactly easy.

You are vastly discounting the power of your subconscious mind over your waking actions. Your mouth is saying you're not a slave--but your inside self knows very well that you are treated as a serf and I'm sure this often manifests in your words and deeds. Can you REALLY determine why you toss a gum wrapper out the car window--when you know that it's against the law. If you TRULY believed in law, then you wouldn't do it--ergo, if it wasn't against the law, then maybe you wouldn't litter.

Two possible answers, pick one:
1) No, my inside doesn't know that. And yes, of course I can determine that. And believe me, if I were to protest a specific law, I wouldn't do it by tossing gum wrappers out of a window. I'm not 3 years old.
2) Sorry, massa say me no unnerstand dem big words.

 

[nyse]

Again, how do you know that that was Cho's intent - especially since his press release states otherwise, and you admit that he was a, quote, "wack job"?

When I asked why you exceed the speed limit, you gave me five reasons. But you didn't tell me WHY you feel it's your right to break the speed limit. Did you consider yourself above the law at that point? Did you think the limit was set too low for the conditions and were you protesting?

You and most everyone believe the law is to moderate other people's behavior, because you don't need it. The truth is that none of us need laws to tell us how to behave. Our consciences tell us that, then sometimes we override those. Unfortunately, law provides an easy path to push aside the conscience. I fully stand behind what I've said all along. The 'rule of law' is the ROOT CAUSE of much crime.

Sorry, which part is an erroneously presumed theory -

You're trying to debate in favor of law, but have you ever really thought about the theory that law works on? Let me describe it.

A man rapes a woman. She suffers harm but that's not what the law really cares about. The law operates on a premise that it is an invisible wall between the perpetrator and the victim. The offense is only for having broken the law against rape. It negates the crime fighting ability of the human conscience by putting the harm onto an inanimate thing--the law, instead of keeping the perception of harm on the living victim where the conscience would object more strenuously. That is really a stupid system.

Why you speed is the same reason that a rapist rapes--you don't feel restrained by an imaginary concept and your subconscious mind is able to override your guilty feelings about it.

If you can suppose for a moment that my theory might have some merit, then expand on it. If a mind can use an inanimate law as a crutch to facilitate transcending the conscience, then if a prohibiting law didn't exist, the wrong might not be as easily done. Use your speeding as an example, would you drive excessively fast, without a valid cause, if you didn't have a law to help you condone it to yourself?

The above doesn't mean that a mechanism for justice shouldn't exist. Everyone here seems to think that I'm against 'law and order', but those two words don't fit together like 'peanut-butter and jelly'. I'm entirely for 'order', but vehemently against 'law' as a vehicle for obtaining it. Law is a feudal concept and it's long past time we outgrow it.

If laws didn't exist as laws, the wrongs would be treated for what they really are. For example, your speeding wouldn't be an offence 'against the law'. Instead, it would be an endangerment of the living public. The police would still ticket you, but the court would deal with it for what it truly was and attempt correction (not punishment) in a realistic way.

As someone once put it, "no taxation without representation." I live in something called a democracy. The people elect the lawmakers

Unfortunately it isn't actually what it's 'called'. What you live in is really an 'elected party dictatorship'. That's the same government style as WWII Germany. The Nazi party committed atrocities that the German people had to bear the brunt of. (However, you probably don't want to admit that so you'll mentally repress it.)

The Republican party has committed atrocities in Afghanistan and Iraq but the American people (soldiers and civilians) shoulder the burden. I'll bet that Osama bin Lauden is dead in a bombed Afghan cave, but George W. Bush still needs him to offer up as a Goldstein type illusive enemy. (See Orwell's 1984).

When party politics is finally banned and ridings elect people to represent them first, then you would live in a Democracy. Americans (and other western nations) are supposedly trying to bring 'the rule of law' and 'democracy' to invaded countries. In fact, they're attempting to install the 'rule of lords' and 'puppet' party governments. Is it any wonder they are resisting the serfdom and subservience? How about trying out a truly free democracy here. Maybe the folk over there might want to emulate it.

And the companies would then either
a) raise their prices and pass on the increased cost to the consumers who end up paying for it anyway, or
b) lay off employees to cut costs, or
c) move to some other country which doesn't tax companies.
That's much better, yeah.

Perhaps I stated my opinion with room for ambiguity. No, I'm not for wrecking the economy. I'll try to clarify.

The government would say--"we are restructuring the tax system to remove the outdated concept of serfdom. Your wages will be rolled back to your current take-home pay but you'll no longer have to report to the revenue department. The current tax portion of your pay will now be the company's obligation. Your work is still earning the money on behalf of your country but it's handled smarter. Payroll departments generally submit the remittance anyways. Tax agents who were previously wasting time and being intrusive in poking into your family finances, will now be scrutinizing business much closer. While doing so, they are now the people's friends, in spotting unscrupulous corporate practices."

...but only assuming that criminals actually think that deeply and analytically about it, and would be content with the changes you suggest.

The strength of my conviction on this subject stems from my firm belief that society grossly underestimates both the vigor of the conscience and the intelligence of the sub-conscious. My personal belief is that these are part of our souls and connected to God. Hence, the conscience only tells us good things and the subconscious mind sees only the literal truth. If correct, this gives even stupid people access to an awesome wisdom source and it means the law is squandering some incredibly powerful tools.

However, for nonbelievers, the intellect of the subconscious mind has been recognized and proven—in fact, subliminal advertising that targeted the subconscious was banned for being too effective. (I know it’s still being used but more subtly and insidiously than crudely inserted stills in movies and fuzzy images hidden in ice cubes.)

 

[beer good]

When I asked why you exceed the speed limit, you gave me five reasons. But you didn't tell me WHY you feel it's your right to break the speed limit.

Simple: it's not my right, and if stopped by the police I'll pay the fine. However, I occasionally do it (within reason) in situations where I in good conscience judge that I'm not hurting anyone by doing so. If I break the law "Don't kill" or "Don't steal" I'm hurting others, so I dont' break that law. Am I proud of this? No. This is my own - possibly flawed - distinction, but I'm irrational that way. People are irrational. People don't always think through the complete judicial, medicinal, mechanical, philosophical, moral or ethical consequences of their actions, and any system that assumes that we do won't work. You might argue that this proves that laws are unnecessary; the fact that some idiots would gladly speed in situations where they WOULD end up hurting others would indicate otherwise. Also, speaking of driving - if you leave it up to the conscience of every single person which side of the road they're supposed to be driving on, I wouldn't get in a car again anytime soon since every city would look like Mad Max. And I don't see many people driving on the left-hand side in right-hand side countries simply to protest the law, either. Drunk driving would be another example where people in general obviously cannot be trusted to use their own judgement. More on that below.

You're trying to debate in favor of law

And you completely ignored my question. Are dangerous prisoners kept apart from the rest of the population today, yes or no? Does the current prison system in most Western countries include chances at rehabilitation, yes or no? Are courts authorized to order criminals to pay damages to their victims, yes or no? And how is this not protecting and correcting?

but have you ever really thought about the theory that law works on? Let me describe it...

...and then you repeat the same thing you've been saying all along, and I still don't buy it. For starters, whose theory is that, exactly? What is it based on?I mean, if all laws ever written are based upon it, it's got to be a fairly well-known one, but I can't really think of the name right now.

You're making statements regarding what "the law" cares about (a law can't care, it's a piece of paper) and that "the offense is only for having broken the law", which I say is nonsense; the laws are there to ensure that society works without turning into either anarchy or completely arbitrary dictatorship. In fact, let me quote from the first page of our constitution:

All public power (...) proceeds from the people. [D]emocracy is founded on the free formation of opinion and on universal and equal suffrage. It shall be realised through a representative and parliamentary polity and through local self-government. Public power shall be exercised under the law. Public power shall be exercised with respect for the equal worth of all and the liberty and dignity of the private person. The personal, economic and cultural welfare of the private person shall be fundamental aims of public activity. (...) The public institutions shall promote the ideals of democracy as guidelines in all sectors of society and protect the private and family lives of private persons.

Funnily enough, people still break the laws that the parliament makes under these oh-so-ideal-sounding guidelines. I'm sure you'll argue that this is all just so many empty words; so how would you, in practice, change the way order is kept? Feel free to decide whether you want to answer that when you've read this post.

Use your speeding as an example, would you drive excessively fast, without a valid cause, if you didn't have a law to help you condone it to yourself?

Depends on what you mean by excessive. But I've driven on Autobahns in Germany, where they have no speed limit. I didn't drive slower, no - considering the speed everyone else kept, that would have been suicide. You want me to dig out the comparitive studies on traffic accidents in countries with legal speed limits as opposed to those without, or countries with laws limiting how much alcohol one is allowed to drink before getting in a car? They're really quite clear.

Everyone here seems to think that I'm against 'law and order', but those two words don't fit together like 'peanut-butter and jelly'.

Phew. I hate PB&J almost as much as I hate squirrels.

If laws didn't exist as laws, the wrongs would be treated for what they really are. For example, your speeding wouldn't be an offence 'against the law'. Instead, it would be an endangerment of the living public. The police would still ticket you, but the court would deal with it for what it truly was and attempt correction (not punishment) in a realistic way.

I'm still don't see how that's different. In most countries, that crime (!) is indeed called something along the lines of "reckless endangerment". And how is one ticket from the police a "punishment", and another identical ticket from the same police officer a "correction"? And what would you call the rule by which the court decides whether or not my speeding was a danger to the public, and how much I'm to pay?

I live in something called a democracy.

Unfortunately it isn't actually what it's 'called'. What you live in is really an 'elected party dictatorship'.

The fact that you personally call it that doesn't mean that's what it is, any more than it becomes a pumpkin pie if I call it a pumpkin pie. Mmmm... pie.

The Republican party has committed atrocities in Afghanistan and Iraq but the American people (soldiers and civilians) shoulder the burden. I'll bet that Osama bin Lauden is dead in a bombed Afghan cave, but George W. Bush still needs him to offer up as a Goldstein type illusive enemy. (See Orwell's 1984).

Agreed. What does that have to do with anything? I'm not American. You people voted for him.

When party politics is finally banned and ridings elect people to represent them first, then you would live in a Democracy.

You mean a system like the one in the UK, which as far as I know still uses laws, taxes and police? And "banned"... certainly you're not proposing a law telling people with whom they may or may not share opinions?

The government would say--"we are restructuring the tax system to remove the outdated concept of serfdom. Your wages will be rolled back to your current take-home pay but you'll no longer have to report to the revenue department. The current tax portion of your pay will now be the company's obligation. Your work is still earning the money on behalf of your country but it's handled smarter. Payroll departments generally submit the remittance anyways. Tax agents who were previously wasting time and being intrusive in poking into your family finances, will now be scrutinizing business much closer. While doing so, they are now the people's friends, in spotting unscrupulous corporate practices."

Basic accounting lesson: costs, expenses and expenditures are not the same thing. The expenditure - ie the actual payment of cash from the company to the state - would remain the same, correct. (At least in countries which use this preliminary tax system; not all do.) However, the cost of the taxes would be shifted from the employee to the employer. True, ideally their costs for labour would decrease by the same amount, but something tells me that people aren't going to be too happy with a 20-30 % pay cut, even IF the actual cash they receive is the same. Also, imagine the incentives for companies to cut that cost - for instance, by hiring people "off the books" without declaring that they're paying them - which I suppose is good for them, but less so for the state depending on their money. On a whole, professional accountants are a lot better at hiding money than private citizens are. (Also... are you really sure that people will feel LESS like serfs if they're told something as patronising and "trust us to handle your money"-ish as what you write here?)

The strength of my conviction on this subject stems from my firm belief that society grossly underestimates both the vigor of the conscience and the intelligence of the sub-conscious. My personal belief is that these are part of our souls and connected to God. Hence, the conscience only tells us good things and the subconscious mind sees only the literal truth.

I disagree, but good for you. I take it, then, that God didn't really have to hand Moses those stone tablets with laws on them, and that Jesus was wasting everyone's time on the Mount, since everyone still had that whole "don't kill, blessed are the peacemakers" stuff in their souls? Of course, that still leaves open the question of why people keep going against their supposedly god-given good conscience and have been doing so since the dawn of time (long before the technology for subliminal messages existed, btw).

And finally,

Why you speed is the same reason that a rapist rapes

From the bottom of my heart: **** you. If you're unable to see the fundamental difference between doing 130 on a 110 stretch and brutally violating and traumatizing another human being, you're as psycho as Cho. Good day to you.

 

[PipPirrip]

If you can suppose for a moment that my theory might have some merit, then expand on it. If a mind can use an inanimate law as a crutch to facilitate transcending the conscience, then if a prohibiting law didn't exist, the wrong might not be as easily done. Use your speeding as an example, would you drive excessively fast, without a valid cause, if you didn't have a law to help you condone it to yourself?

Hi,
In my case, the simple answer to this is Yes. I drive faster on an unlimited auto-bahn than on a 70 mph limited UK motorway.

If laws didn't exist as laws, the wrongs would be treated for what they really are. For example, your speeding wouldn't be an offence 'against the law'. Instead, it would be an endangerment of the living public. The police would still ticket you, but the court would deal with it for what it truly was and attempt correction (not punishment) in a realistic way.

I’m not sure how this works. You have previously indicated that restitution should be made to the injured party. Who is this “living public” to whom restitution should be made? Does a fine get distributed amongst people on the road when someone is pulled over? For that matter, how do you define endangerment? If X’s behaviour may cause injury to Y then is that endangerment?
If person Y was endangered, but not actually injured, do they have a complaint against X?
Presumably if there is no one on the road, then driver X can’t be ticketed for endangerment regardless of their speed (extending the squirrel analogy). But can driver X be ticketed if they unknowingly endanger Y?

The government would say--"we are restructuring the tax system to remove the outdated concept of serfdom. Your wages will be rolled back to your current take-home pay but you'll no longer have to report to the revenue department. The current tax portion of your pay will now be the company's obligation. Your work is still earning the money on behalf of your country but it's handled smarter.

A few queries here. Firstly, I don’t report to the revenue department. Never have done (20+ years in employment). What difference would your proposal make to me?

Secondly, you proposal looks an awful lot more like a feudal system than the current system does. You have companies employing people, and paying a tax to the crown. How does that differ from a land-owner employing serfs and paying duties to the crown?

In your system, and using your terminology, a self-employed worker would be both freed (as his employee) and a slave (as his employer). Does that make him better off or not?

As the electorate is not directly taxed under your system, what is to prevent the government altering the tax rate as it sees fit? For that matter who do you feel the government will beholden to? The electorate or the companies that pay taxes?

Do you see no place in a taxation system for wealth redistribution? No case for tax credits? Would you replace such systems with a dole? Or parish charity?

 

[nyse]

And finally,

From the bottom of my heart: **** you. If you're unable to see the fundamental difference between doing 130 on a 110 stretch and brutally violating and traumatizing another human being, you're as psycho as Cho. Good day to you.

Your misconception of what I last responded again stems from the fact that you haven't grasped my root concept. This is my fault because I've expanded into my rationales and extensions too soon. If I could show you where the ignition switch is, you could envision the smoother running engine--as I do.

Forget about the tax issue for right now and focus only on the law. In fact, let's single out one law to intricately look at. I'll choose rape.

Current law--Instead of dealing with the actual sexual assault, the law takes the view that only it was hurt. The case isn't Ms Rapee versus Mr Rapist, but rather the law versus Mr Rapist. The 'crime' wasn't the act: it was only in breaking the state's prohibition against the action.

My proposed justice--The state takes the neutralist stance, by staying that it won't prohibit people from doing anything--but that it will protect a person's right to safety. Mr Rapist has shown his disregard for Ms Rapee's personal rights and courts will look at the actual events to determine if Mr. Rapist should be restrained from hurting other women.

The result is probably the same, with Mr. Rapist put behind bars but his god given (or squirrel's) right to free actions hasn't been compromised by a monarchist philosophy. Ms. Rapee is also vindicated because the court dealt directly with what Mr. Rapist did to her, not just on what he did to the state's law.

The difference in the two approaches may seem slight, but in fact, it's huge. It sets justice on a solid footing because it’s not dealing only with what happened to a concept (the law).

Compare this to Virginia Tech. The government is no longer a presumed barrier between Cho and his victims. His action against the people is only against them, so where is his possibility of making a political statement by killing them? It's not there anymore.

Did this clarify? If not, then there’s not much point in my discussing it with you further.

 

[nyse]

Hi,
In my case, the simple answer to this is Yes. I drive faster on an unlimited auto-bahn than on a 70 mph limited UK motorway.

Would you still after the novelty wore off? Or, is a 70 mph limited UK motorway to slow for some conditions?

I’m not sure how this works. You have previously indicated that restitution should be made to the injured party. Who is this “living public” to whom restitution should be made? Does a fine get distributed amongst people on the road when someone is pulled over? For that matter, how do you define endangerment? If X’s behaviour may cause injury to Y then is that endangerment?
If person Y was endangered, but not actually injured, do they have a complaint against X?
Presumably if there is no one on the road, then driver X can’t be ticketed for endangerment regardless of their speed (extending the squirrel analogy). But can driver X be ticketed if they unknowingly endanger Y?

There is no fine. How does a dollar amount suitably address the issue of dangerous driving? A ticket only intitutes a court process. The verdict should equate to the problem and perhaps the debt owed should be moving lawns or doing laundry for disabled accident victims. How about assigning really bad drivers the task of helping ambulance attendants stuff body bags?

Firstly, I don’t report to the revenue department. Never have done (20+ years in employment). What difference would your proposal make to me?

You would own your nation, instead of the other way around.

Secondly, you proposal looks an awful lot more like a feudal system than the current system does. You have companies employing people, and paying a tax to the crown. How does that differ from a land-owner employing serfs and paying duties to the crown?

People own companies, just as people own cars. They are tools and we need employ them to do our bidding. In my proposal, people would also own the government and use it as a tool to tax the revenue generating abilities of the companies.

As the electorate is not directly taxed under your system, what is to prevent the government altering the tax rate as it sees fit? For that matter who do you feel the government will beholden to? The electorate or the companies that pay taxes?

A party government owes it's first allegiance to the sponsors who fill it's coffers. A democracy would have each representative serving the interests of his riding.

Do you see no place in a taxation system for wealth redistribution? No case for tax credits? Would you replace such systems with a dole? Or parish charity?

Tax credits are a built-in corruption: they allow a party to use the nation's wealth to buy votes. Certainly a government should make allowances for it's less fortunate but in a non-partizan manner.

 

[PipPirrip]

nyse,

I was going to construct a reply to your last message. But frankly, you didn't address a single question I raised.

I would happily debate this with you, but if you are just going to ignore questions and reply with inane sound-bites I'll give it a miss.

 

[Landslide]

Current law--Instead of dealing with the actual sexual assault, the law takes the view that only it was hurt. The case isn't Ms Rapee versus Mr Rapist, but rather the law versus Mr Rapist. The 'crime' wasn't the act: it was only in breaking the state's prohibition against the action.

My proposed justice--The state takes the neutralist stance, by staying that it won't prohibit people from doing anything--but that it will protect a person's right to safety. Mr Rapist has shown his disregard for Ms Rapee's personal rights and courts will look at the actual events to determine if Mr. Rapist should be restrained from hurting other women.

The result is probably the same, with Mr. Rapist put behind bars but his god given (or squirrel's) right to free actions hasn't been compromised by a monarchist philosophy. Ms. Rapee is also vindicated because the court dealt directly with what Mr. Rapist did to her, not just on what he did to the state's law.

The difference in the two approaches may seem slight, but in fact, it's huge. It sets justice on a solid footing because it’s not dealing only with what happened to a concept (the law).

I said I wasn't going to participate in this thread anymore, but this last post has me wondering. If there is no law, then how do you justify that what Mr. Rapist did was wrong and justifies his restraint from hurting other women (by being put behind bars)?

I guess what I would like you to answer is: Without law, how do you define where does one's right to free action ends?

 

[Zolipara]

nyse,

I was going to construct a reply to your last message. But frankly, you didn't address a single question I raised.

I would happily debate this with you, but if you are just going to ignore questions and reply with inane sound-bites I'll give it a miss.

You cant argue with religion.

 

[nyse]

I guess what I would like you to answer is: Without law, how do you define where does one's right to free action ends?

It ends where it negatively affects someone else.

I don't know how many more different ways I can explain this material: it starts with acknowledging the base premise that slavery is the worst wrong.
*Law itself is a crime against humanity.
*Law is based on a feudal serf concept of the nation owning the people.
*Law is only a (flawed) concept and it has no power to prevent wrongs.
*Law has no intrinsic right to rule or punish, it only has a self-granted power--backed up with armed might. (Like an occupation force.)
*Law negates the crime-fighting prowess of the human conscience. (In other words, the law is its own worst enemy.)
*Law is causing or exacerbating more societal ill than it is solving.
*Law doesn't protect people: it only seeks to preserve its own sanctity.
*Law is like a religion that people try to believe in as true--even when it doesn't hold up logically as so. (The rule-of-law must be true, because it says so in the law=the bible must be the word of God, because it says so in the bible.)
*The statue of 'Lady Justice' represents law. She holds a sword because innocent and guilty alike are wounded by any contact with her. The scales are to measure the gold that buys her verdicts. She is blindfolded because she is ashamed of what she is and people are similarly hoodwinked by con jobs perpetrated under her greedy auspices.

I'm not the only person who is disillusioned with law--many people are. Some of the rising police violence is due to officers feeling that people don’t respect either law or law enforcement anymore. They’re right: many don’t. You have each have expressed dissatisfaction with aspects of the law, but you can't seem to bring yourself to admit that the wrongful system is in itself the problem. At some point, the rule-of-law will fail utterly, because it is unfit to rule. Unless people have discussed and prepared an alternative--there may be anarchy.

Instead of laws, the government can pass 'protections'. Those approach order keeping from a much better (non-slavery-based) direction. Instead of saying "murder is against the law", justice would say "we will protect people from being murdered, by restraining and attempting to rehabilitate those inclined to murderous acts" (or some such wording).

That means if someone kills, the authority will put him where he can't do it again (just as now). It also means that justice can detain a deranged ex-spouse or stalker before they kill. (Law must wait until it's been broken before it can act.) Victimless crimes would disappear and an elected 'party' couldn't inflict their minority morals on the majority.

I'm perfectly willing to discuss the theory and benefits of protection based justice, but I'm not going to keep explaining the fundamentals to people while having them mock me on principles that they don't (or can’t dare to) understand. If you can pull aside your societal blinkers to see your slavery as the serfdom it is, then maybe you could see that real emancipation could be on the near horizon.

I’m not a legal genius: I’m just a guy who has seen through the multi-quadrillion dollar hoax that the Sophists perpetrated on civilization—many generations ago. The founding principles of law have ALWAYS been foremost about money. That’s not good enough anymore. I’d like to discuss how the justice system could be set right while not rending the fabric of society. To talk intelligently, you need to have a basic understanding and an ability to remove the rose-tinted propaganda goggles.