The myth of man made law and authority.

[Dontaskme]

Ultimately it is force that counts. As long as it is advantageous to yourself, you talk of law. When the law fails, you use force.

May the farce be with you.

[Dimebag]

Ultimately it is force that counts. As long as it is advantageous to yourself, you talk of law. When the law fails, you use force.

May the farce be with you.

Laws without enforcement are hollow, without any consequences no one has any negative incentives to follow laws. Laws are there to restrict people’s behaviour and actions, but also, having a separate enforcement force means endless vendetta’s and blood feuds are removed from the equation, with a definite action and consequence, meaning no retaliation by the affected party is necessary. That’s the theory. We all know it’s not as clean and easy as this. Sometimes people are unfairly prosecuted, other times, people are forcibly taken into custody, it’s a messy process.

If we remove the law, we invite lawlessness from the lowest corners of society. Normally they operate in the shadows, but without law, they are free to operate at all hours. Then we have corruption of police and the blurring of the shadow culture and the enforcement, when the policing should be completely pure and incorruptible. It’s far from perfect. Let’s imagine the alternative given the current state of the world. It would be worse. I’m not saying we couldn’t get to a point some time, far in the future when laws and policing would be unnecessary, but there would have to be major strides in raising those from the shadows into the light. To get from here to there is going to take a few interim steps, and in the mean time, there still needs to be something to protect the innocent.

[RCSaunders]

If we remove the law, we invite lawlessness from the lowest corners of society. ...

Why does everyone assume this. Whenever someone suggest if there were no government laws and police society would devolve into roving gangs of thugs, robbing, raping, and destroying property. I ask, "if there were no law against murder, assault, rape, or theft, would you become a murderer, rapist, thief and go around raping women?" Of course you deny they would. "So you think you are better than everyone else, because everyone else would do those things?" And of course they would not. Those who do such things are always exceptions.

... To get from here to there is going to take a few interim steps, and in the mean time, there still needs to be something to protect the innocent.

How about the innocent protect themselves? I neither need or want anyone else protecting me and think most others would agree.

[Sculptor]

Ultimately it is force that counts. As long as it is advantageous to yourself, you talk of law. When the law fails, you use force.

May the farce be with you.

Is this related to anything that is happening?

[commonsense]

Ultimately it is force that counts. As long as it is advantageous to yourself, you talk of law. When the law fails, you use force.

May the farce be with you.

Whoever has the most force/power can get what he wants to have, do what he wants to do.

In the case of lawlessness, if that person wants to rape, murder, plunder or pillage, no one can stop him from performing the act and no one can stop him from getting away with it.

With laws, law enforcement must have the most power or force. Attorneys cannot arrest someone or put him in jail without the strength of law enforcement in support of the maneuver.

In either case, it is always a matter of power.

[Impenitent]

the declaration said all men are created equal

Sam Colt made them so...

-Imp

[Dontaskme]

Ultimately it is force that counts. As long as it is advantageous to yourself, you talk of law. When the law fails, you use force.

May the farce be with you.

Whoever has the most force/power can get what he wants to have, do what he wants to do.

In the case of lawlessness, if that person wants to rape, murder, plunder or pillage, no one can stop him from performing the act and no one can stop him from getting away with it.

With laws, law enforcement must have the most power or force. Attorneys cannot arrest someone or put him in jail without the strength of law enforcement in support of the maneuver.

In either case, it is always a matter of power.

But the ''humans'' are going to do whatever they want to do that is deemed advantageous to them, and will take advantage of any opportunistic moment because humans are thinking creatures who can plot and scheme for their own advantage at the disavantage of others.

So what to do? people then elect other people to sit in seats of power, and we call this a 'law enforcement power' that is meant to protect ourselves from ourselves. And yet we often see such self imposed enforcement laws breached by the very ones who are supposed to be our protectors.

I just think, what's the point in creating laws just to break them, to me, all man-made laws are a farce. But of course we definitely need to enforce them if we are to operate smoothly and sanely in the world. And yet, it really does start to look like our lives are ruled mainly by terror and fear, and so to counteract this, we enforce protection, sometimes this protection goes a little over the top like what we are seeing now with this Covid 19 virus threat...and so what we believe is for our own good, can actually look more like a world of tyranny that we may grow to resent. It's like we are bascially fearful of our own self imposed actions and inactions, by willingly allowing others to have power over us in the belief it makes us feel safe and secure.


The point is, no human societies are ever going to work and live together in peace, solidarity, and freedom without those others who have power over us. So in one sense, we're kind of free, and yet we are not free at all because if one person is enslaved then we are all enslaved. We cannot destroy our adversaries without destroying ourselves.

A lot of this farce is actually playing out on the worlds stage right now.



.

[commonsense]

May the farce be with you.

It seems you are conflating Coronavirus protection with police brutality in your thread about law.

[Dontaskme]

May the farce be with you.

It seems you are conflating Coronavirus protection with police brutality in your thread about law.

Well that's just your own assumed self biased belief born of what you have personally perceived to be there in the reading of this thread.

When in fact, police brutality was never mentioned, and yet I am supposed to have conflated what was you're idea with my OP idea.

Funny how man-made stories tend to build upon themselves, creating all sorts of different pictures and narratives that are nothing more than mental projections of ones own perceptions and beliefs. This thread is about the ''myth'' of human control and authority.

''Myth'' being the operative word. So again, may the farce be with you.

.

[commonsense]

Sorry. I thought force was the operative word.

[Dontaskme]

Sorry. I thought force was the operative word.

No need to apologise...what you thought was just what you thought. Thoughts become things and things are our story.

.

[Ramu]

The Ultimate Authority is You as God

[henry quirk]

the declaration said all men are created equal

Sam Colt made them so...

-Imp

[jayjacobus]

The law has relations to rights, morals, control, contracts, risk management, safety, protection, promotion of interests, subjugation, politics, etc., etc.

The idea is that the law has different purposes and that’s why we need judges. A judge will decide which purpose of the law should apply in each case he hears. He will then select the laws that support his position and dismiss those laws that don’t. Sometimes this is known a judicial prerogative.

When judges at the appeals level disagree with the subsidiary court on any case, they will choose different purpose(s) and can reverse the initial judgment. The case will travel up the judicial hierarchy until it gets settled although that may not happen until the Supreme Court level. There will usually be differing opinions in the Supreme Court but the majority rules. A litigant will know whether the biases in the court favors or disfavors himself. The litigant in the minority perspective will often settle before his case gets to the Supreme Court because he knows he will almost certainly lose.

So the litigant in the minority is almost FORCED to settle even if he thinks he has a slam dunk case. But he is simply unlucky that the Court is weighted against him.

The purpose of the law is varied and the application is subject to judicial interpretation.