Do laws really work?

Alexander Sheppard · 2002-01-19 23:39:19

I'm creating this topic because I don't believe repression is the answer. Laws are a form of repression because, they create psycological complexes in people's minds which emulate values like "This is good, this bad, if I think this, I'm bad, so I have to think this" which inevitably leads to self denial of one's own emotions, instead of healthy acceptance. It seems to me that if people didn't repress their own emotions so much, those emotions would not build up inside them up finally, "pop", you have a disaster, like a murder, or rape, or something. It seems to me that if people stopped the repression, they would ultimately begin to accept their emotions in a mature way, and the vast majority of crime in the world would come to a halt as a result of this.

Therefore, to reinterate, I think that instead of laws solving crime, laws are actually the cause for the vast majority of crime that goes on in society: they are a manifestation of subconcious repression that takes effect in, sadly, the majority of human beings in this country. The subconcious aspects, of course, manifest in concious aspects which are much more obvious, like war and murder.

Josh Cryer · 2002-01-20 03:59:10

Laws are oppressive / repressive, what-have-you, but they are the embodiment of security.

Most laws are common sense, the perculiar ones are the ones that insure class power; the ones that are ?laws for some? and not ?laws for all.?

I don't really like the idea of a mandated judicial system. Indeed, I don't even like the idea for mandated anything, but without defining a ?framework,? people will look at me like a freaking maniac (does my concession make me a hypocrite?). The only thing I can do is try to convince people that the framework is (or should be) as transparent as possible (in order to facilitate full growth potential). Instead of there existing ?police officers,? for example, I call them SAOs and explain their duties, just to put the function into context. Need there be laws for civil functions? No, not really, but laws sure do help us with consistancy. Well, the organizational laws, at least.

The only laws that should exist are human rights laws (the free speech stuff), the rest should be up to specific communities.

(Though the idea of having a harem of young nymphets is inticing... maybe this ?law thing? isn't so good after all... )

Your belief that laws are the cause of the vast majority of crimes: well, with all due respect, laws are about oppression. A law saying you cannot murder oppresses your murderous tendencies (ever-so-slight they may be), a law saying you cannot jaywalk oppresses your natural desire to take shortcuts (;)), but you get my drift.

Now that it's obvious laws are about oppression, it's not hard to see that laws that protect classes from lower classes (most notably: property laws) are oppressive, what follows then; is class struggle. And that is the root of most crime. Just to put everything into context. (I really don't think ?accepting your emotions in a mature way? is going to fill an empty stomach, you know?)

And, just for fun, I'll remind you that no society could exist without ?laws.? Any negative learning process instills ?laws? in our minds. Have you ever touched a hot burner twice? Probably not, because you freaking new better the second time. The laws of the senses, perhaps?

Alexander Sheppard · 2002-01-20 19:39:49

Well I concede that my hypothesis does beg some modification. However with a bit of change it does actually come to lend some support to your own class difference theory.

Perhaps what I really should have addressed, instead of laws themselves, is the current prejudices and hatreds of people in the world, which often give rise to nonsensical systems of "law and order". These prejudices often take the form of psycological repression ; for example, when you hate a certian thing, you necessarily have this idea remaining in your mind, this thing is bad, but this is good. This necessarily generates fear, because you always have to be doing the good thing. Fear generates all sorts of emotions which generally create strife in society. This is nothing like having a healthy sense of what is beneficial and what is not, it is an irrational hatred that I am speaking of. Such hatreds often take form in equally irrational systems, like the kind of justice system in place in almost all (and to a reasonable extent, all) nations around the world today, including the United States.

Marajuana is bad, people who smoke it must be punished!
Communists are bad, communists must be punished severely!
Socialists are bad, socialists should be exiled!
Etc etc.

Your belief that laws are the cause of the vast majority of crimes: well, with all due respect, laws are about oppression. A law saying you cannot murder oppresses your murderous tendencies (ever-so-slight they may be), a law saying you cannot jaywalk oppresses your natural desire to take shortcuts, but you get my drift

But this is ridiculous! This means that laws necessarily fufill the very intentions they set out to undo! What does a murder do? Well, he oppresses the victim! How can you fix oppression with more oppression? The idea is nonsense! The reason societies are successful is not because of laws, but because of the inherent moral tendencies of individuals! In fact, laws in their current form, in my opinion, work against morality.

And that is the root of most crime.

The root has a root, Josh. The root of the root is hatred and prejudice. Class struggle wouldn't happen without that ; it necessary to portray certian groups as evil in order to justify the unjustifiable. So, of course, accepting your emotions in a mature way is not going to fill your stomach directly, but if people, especially in the middle class, did that, they might well change the system, and thereby help those who can't fill their stomachs do so.

Josh Cryer · 2002-01-20 21:13:05

Marajuana is bad, people who smoke it must be punished!
Communists are bad, communists must be punished severely!
Socialists are bad, socialists should be exiled!

Well, this is propaganda. I mean, there is no ?law? against communism, or socialism (indeed, the constutional framework could facilitate either system- though we would still be a republic), but schools teach that these things are ?evil? without defining the actual political theories (or by adding bias- for example, ?Communism is bad because you're forced to do such and such and you don't get to do what you want?).

We get this kind of propaganda everywhere. Keep in mind that America may be a ?free country,? however, it's very Church-inclined. And we use laws to spread propaganda.

(Edit: A really, really, good example of ?laws and propaganda? were segregation laws back in the early 1900's. Did you know black people were in the Senate in the 1800's? I bet you didn't. See how people take their beliefs and make what they believe ?law?? Even without a framework for laws, it would still happen. So I think it would be wise to define human rights laws first, just so things don't get out of hand in the future.)

This means that laws necessarily fufill the very intentions they set out to undo! What does a murder do? Well, he oppresses the victim! How can you fix oppression with more oppression?

Well, I think the problem lies in laws that people accept which are inherently ?laws for some.? The kind of laws that make no sense outside of a specific political belief. Those are the ones that are really oppressive.

Laws exist as a framework for punishment, and that punishment is basically an ?incentive? not to break the laws. Laws are created by people who think they can determine what is right and what is wrong. Well, obviously most things are highly subjective. Like your marijuana example.

A religiously inclined political system might ban marijuana (and spread propaganda), whereas scientifically inclined politics might define security measures so you don't overdose and so on and so forth (and too spread propaganda). An ideal society wouldn't have laws about it at all, indeed, people would be allowed to decide for themselves.

Class struggle wouldn't happen without [hatred and prejudice].

I say otherwise. Hatred and prejudice wouldn't happen without class struggle. If we all had equality of conditions we wouldn't have to justify the poverty striken or defend the rich and privileged.

Tell me Alexander, how am I to love my fellow human when he has a nice house, car, and a beautiful wife, when I'm nursing blisters on my hands after working a 16 hour work day?

Alexander Sheppard · 2002-01-21 11:55:56

Hatred and prejudice wouldn't happen without class struggle.

Yes, but that goes vise versa as well (and I must say I think that the beliefs are somewhat more important, because with a bad system and an educated population you can change the system, but with a good system and a badly educated population things degenerate quickly). The system reinforces the beliefs which in tern reinforce the system which.... etc. If people were able to look on the poor and the middle class with open eyes, free from the subjective nonsense imposed by them from mindless propaganda, whether that propaganda be from government, the media, corporations, or their own family, they might try to change the system to help them, thus ending the class struggle you speak of.

Your neighbor, much more well off than you are, supported by an unjust system does tend to generate hatred and prejudice, but his own prejudice against you generates the unjust system which keeps you chained. In many ways this is a cycle.

Josh Cryer · 2002-01-21 16:59:48

I see exactly where you're coming from. Abolishing laws (I still believe a framework is necessary, but we wouldn't have to call them laws, since they would be scrutinized constantly- unlike current laws) is what I believe in. The hard part is ?enforcing? anti-propaganda because as you can see, it happens when people pool together and have similar ideas. Segregation would not have happened if people, lawmakers especially, didn't come to an awful consensus about who deserved what. And that's scary! Imagine how many people must have been involved in the process! It's disgusting! No one, no one, spoke out. It makes me cringe to think of it. Representative Democracies do not afford the people enough power, and it should be done away with.

I have a problem for you: How do we insure this relatively lawless society the protection from others in it from mindlessly starting their own ?anti-socitey?? Or do we just not care?

I think that's where human rights laws come in.

If people were able to look on the poor and the middle class with open eyes, free from the subjective nonsense imposed by them from mindless propaganda, whether that propaganda be from government, the media, corporations, or their own family, they might try to change the system to help them, thus ending the class struggle you speak of.

I think this is going to happen, within our lifetimes. The beauty of capitalistic propaganda is that it efficiently drives the machine which promotes it. Once high level technology gets into the hands of the masses, supply will magically outweigh demand, and we will have no choice but to work together and drop our biases.

But I don't see compassionate people looking down on the ?poor? to help them. It can often be observed that the rich give to the poor as propaganda. ?Look at me, I'm not a monopolistic company, I give to the poor.?

Do you know anything about GNU? It's a software movement that Linux is based around. Basically it's an End User License Agreement that tells the user (using copyright against itself) that they ?must keep the source code free.? That's all there is to it. Without that rule, that law, there would be no system.

Alexander Sheppard · 2002-01-22 21:45:23

How do we insure this relatively lawless society the protection from others in it from mindlessly starting their own ?anti-socitey??

We can't. It is up to the people. The best we can do is try to show people the truth, but they have to accept it for themselves. Only they can do that.

. The hard part is ?enforcing? anti-propaganda because as you can see, it happens when people pool together and have similar ideas.

Ultimately the best way to avoid propaganda is to have people draw no alligences. When people ally themselves with a name or sometimes even a belief itself, they can become mindless followers, not questioning what is actually happening. In anarchy, such alligences must be, at least to a certian extent, nonexistant, or the system will quickly implode and fall in upon itself.

Thus, in many ways, the quest for the truth, synonymous an end to mindless belief in propaganda, is the quest for anarchy, because when people see the truth they will see the supreme terror which government often imposes on others.

I too think it is possible that a great revolution will happen in our lifetimes. Yet it is also quite possible that it will not, so we should not comfort ourselves with this.

Josh Cryer · 2002-01-25 22:47:16

We can't [have relative security]. It is up to the people. The best we can do is try to show people the truth, but they have to accept it for themselves. Only they can do that.

We can definitely educate. I think what is necessary is a constitution or manifesto of sorts. Indeed, even anarchism is driven by the ?propaganda? of freedom.

Bakunin said in ?The Political Theory of Bakunin,? anarchy attempts ?to diffuse science and knowledge among the people, so that the various groups of human society, when convinced by propaganda, may organise and spontaneously combine into federations, in accordance with their natural tendencies and their real interests, but never according to a plan traced in advance and imposed upon the ignorant masses by a few ?superior? minds.?

Anarchism couldn't exist without the quest for freedom, and by no means would an anarchist society allow constraint. And there must be something, a constitution or manifesto, in place to spread these ideas.

Am I being redundant?

Ultimately the best way to avoid propaganda is to have people draw no alligences. When people ally themselves with a name or sometimes even a belief itself, they can become mindless followers, not questioning what is actually happening. In anarchy, such alligences must be, at least to a certian extent, nonexistant, or the system will quickly implode and fall in upon itself.

I think the biggest philosophical implication of anarchy is that we should think for ourselves for a change. We could call anarchism schools of thought, ?propaganda? but but it should be seen in a positive light. The ?propaganda of anarchy? is to question everything, reject hierarchal authority, and basically think for yourself. There's nothing wrong with alligence as long as these principles are practiced. In anarchy, propaganda wouldn't be able to really spread misinformation, whereas in any other political system, it could (and definitely does).

[...] because when people see the truth they will see the supreme terror which government often imposes on others.

Agreed.

I too think it is possible that a great revolution will happen in our lifetimes. Yet it is also quite possible that it will not, so we should not comfort ourselves with this.

Yeah, I think the probablity of it happening (within our lifetimes) is greater than the probablity of it not, though. We have so much potential, there are millions of people who have these schools of thought.

I'm optimistic, of course.

anansi · 2002-06-14 19:01:31

When the space program began, no one knew how to go to the moon. A complete set of doctrines, policies, and procedures had to evolve from the best available minds at the time. The book of flight rules that we follow tody with shuttle missions all has its origins in experience that had never happened before WW2.

Those flight rules might be likened to the law of the sea, where the captain is the ultimate authority while underway.

Once the ship lands though, and the colony unpacks, though, there is no precident, no firm rulebook to follow. They can have all kinds of guidelines for how groundpounders on earth think things should go, but in reality, they will be making it up as they go along, I think martians will of necessity be anarchists, by which I mean no coersion among equals. If the ship's captain tries to tell someone to do something he doesn't want to do, there will not be the time to try him, nor the jail in which to convict him. The captain will have to know not to exceed her authority in the first place.

This, I think, is the real reason why it's so much fun to imagine ourselves on mars. A fresh start, no rules, and no one on earth can tell us what to do. It distracts us from the unrelenting backbreaking labor that reality presents.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-01-19 23:39:19

Re: Do laws really work?

#2 2002-01-20 03:59:10

Re: Do laws really work?

#3 2002-01-20 19:39:49

Re: Do laws really work?

#4 2002-01-20 21:13:05

Re: Do laws really work?

#5 2002-01-21 11:55:56

Re: Do laws really work?

#6 2002-01-21 16:59:48

Re: Do laws really work?

#7 2002-01-22 21:45:23

Re: Do laws really work?

#8 2002-01-25 22:47:16

Re: Do laws really work?

#9 2002-06-14 19:01:31

Re: Do laws really work?

Board footer