nyse, I’m very sorry to say that you will never make it to formulate a thing we call “theory” if you continue doing this; you keep saying law is bad and why and you don’t--really, you just
don’t--present a new system to replace law with. So your ideas are nothing more then a complain. You will never get the credit for writing something many have already say, which is that law is bad. So unfortunately this thread, which were supposed to be one of the most interesting I’ve ever seen, is becoming kind of annoying. A disappointing thing, really. You always say the same thing you’ve repeated in other previous posts, but using different words. You do not justify what you say and you did not design a new system to replace law with, as we are going to see.
Punishment is what we need to STOP doing. We can't punish because we have no devine authority to set restrictions on actions. Instead, justice should protecting the many members of society by confining the few and trying to rehabilitate them.
Here is the repetition of your ideas. There’s nothing bad in starting your post making an abstract of your ideals, but once you do not add new arguments it’s then worthless.
So lets skip to the system to replace law with you’ve proposed:
So for your question, the system creates itself rooted on the solid foundation that we set for it. Tort law is a proven model to emulate. There the court actually is a nuetral third party between the two sides of a contractual dispute.
So, because we want our civil justice to work similarly, we need to have a member or members of the protected people seated on the other side of the court. For example...
A community group has ratified the previous 'laws', as protections they want and that includes the school zone speed limit. The police catch a speeder and they issue him with a citation--it's not a demand for bribe money to the greedy government, but rather a summons to attend court. The police quickly investigate by noting the time, road conditions and other contributing info. The court sees the case...
The comunity group says why they feel the limit is just, and the speeder states why he felt justified in exceeding the guideline. The judge balances the threat versus the speeder's rights and measures are applied. Perhaps the judge will order that under the circumstances, only a warning need be applied, but it might be harsher and what the neighborhood people think appropriate--not a monetary fine, but maybe a requirement to help at a school crossing until he realizes what his speed could've cost. If he refuses, then a different form of action may be required, up to and including having his vehicle impounded or jail.
The process of doing justice would evolve as courts started doing the job right and even the rehabilitation measures would be refined as the system found what worked best--in each different area.
Maybe though, a percentage of speeders would've just stopped speeding with the change in justice--because there was now no law to flount.
There is nothing new about it.
If such system were implanted, law would not be abolished. I explained in the other post what “law” means and you know that law is not called law only because it’s written somewhere. I’m not going to repeat it. You’ve just ignored this legal concept to make the statement above. All that organization would require is the law to be changed, not to be abolished. So I think now you have realized that to “abolish law” is an achievement maybe as hard as it seems impossible. This is something you had the intellectual basis to understand, since you’ve read many posts by me and by the other people from the forums that also disagree with you.
And if I say there is nothing new about such “new” system of yours, it’s because--in addition to the fact that it would not require the abolition of the law, but the production of new laws, as I said above--you have not created a mode to avoid the actual legal situation that you complain so much.
You’ve said “So, because we want our civil justice to work similarly, we need to have a member or members of the protected people seated on the other side of the court”. I presume that with “protected people” you mean those who were never condemned for any crime, the free people. OK. Let’s continue. In the actual world we live, these so called “members of the protected people” are the judges and the jury. They were created with the same intention that inspires you to create this system with “members of the protected people” presiding the trials.
I was surprised when you said that in this new system of yours, “A community group has ratified the previous 'laws', as protections they want and that includes the school zone speed limit”. In the actual world we live, law
already is created by the people as protections they want. The only difference in your proposal is that instead of the people creating the law as a whole state, district or city, the law would be created by a minor number of people, that you call “a community group”. So what difference do you think it would make? By the way, actually it's the people that creates the law, but in an indirect way: they choose their representatives in the parliament so they create the law observing the people’s will. That’s what should happen in theory, but of course it doesn’t happen always,
due to political and sociological factors--like the practice of lobbies by some and means of mass ideological manipulation by others, etc.--but
not due to the law itself. The law is not the problem, it was created by the people and if the law is bad, it’s because the people was not successful in creating (directly or indirectly) a law that would work for their interests, not for the interest of others. So this “community groups” thing would make no difference. If you split the Vancouver population in many small groups, called “community groups” or whatever else, to put in practice this new system of yours, nothing would be improved concerning the justice. Just like as a huge amount of individuals are susceptible to fail in creating good laws for their interests because of such issues I’ve exampled, a smaller “community group” is by the same reason susceptible to fail, due to the same issues, which could be characterized as within or outside this small group. I don’t understand why you think it would be something new if “The process of doing justice would evolve as courts started doing the job right and even the rehabilitation measures would be refined as the system found what worked best--in each different area.”. This already happens and the only difference between the reality and such proposal of yours is the scale the legislative process would cover. All you would be doing was to split the legislative competence.
Nothing would really change if the other factors that result in this actual legal situation that you complain were forgotten. Unfortunately you are forgetting such factors. And what are these factors?? Again, I’ll say: the social factors! I’ve already talked about it and you seem to just ignore it. But it’s a fact, you can not leave it aside. That’s why your ideas have no coherence. See, in a small text like this one it’s possible to point critical incoherencies in your thoughts. Why? Because you are trying to solve a problem with the wrong means. If you want to improve the people’s life quality you must work on the social and political ills that stains the societies. Abolishing law is not only impossible if you want to maintain any order. This new system of yours is a sort of order. So don’t you think about abolishing law. By the way, don’t think about law at all, at least by now. You must firstly focus in the social situation. The law is a reflex of the society’s situation, not the contrary. So don’t you--as people say in my land--try to put the cart to draw the horse.
You still have not designed a new system to replace law with. Your theory is not a theory. It’s just a complain. A thought must be coherent and justify itself for be called “theory”. I’m sorry if I’m being arrogant. I don’t intent to be such thing, and I usually am not. But I must be honest with you and point the two genres of mistakes you are performing: one is to develop such incoherent ideas; and the other is to continue affirming them without working on to improve its logic. Maybe I’ll be the only who is going to be so sincere. But I’ll certainly not be the only one to see your mistakes. So instead of eventually becoming angry with me, take my words as a tip. I myself had to give up in some thesis during academic life once I realized they were incoherent. Everyone knows the Socrates’ proverb “I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance”. It means that a wise guy who is really wise is always working to improve his knowledge. And by abandoning an idea that he realized its wrong or unwise, he will not be playing an ignorant, but we will actually be improving his knowledge and become even more wise. In the magistrate there are examples of judges that follow a jurisprudence that is illegal or bad and once they realize it’s harmful and its incoherence with law, they still keep applying the same jurisprudential option because they fear to admit they were wrong. And surely this will not make them right, but wrong in the worst way.
