• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Author of Shiva's Messenger

I am having a hard time picturing your crime prevention utopia. Perhaps some examples will help me understand.

How would you protect people from being murdered?

How would you protect people from being raped?

How would you protect people (and animals) from domestic violence (or cruelty towards animals)?



As for the tax issue, passing the burden up to the employer just doesn't seem like it would work. If taxes are based on how much an employer pays its employees, employers would have no incentive to offer their employees a higher wage.
 
I am having a hard time picturing your crime prevention utopia. Perhaps some examples will help me understand.

How would you protect people from being murdered?

How would you protect people from being raped?

How would you protect people (and animals) from domestic violence (or cruelty towards animals)?
The snap answer is to say that none of these are really done now: people ARE being murdered, raped and robbed from. You only PRESUME that the rule-of-law is protecting--but it isn't. The theory is that people fearing the reprisals will, refrain from the crime. That's not working overly well right now (if it ever really did) and as I discussed on the topic of 'Virginia Tech', the rule-of-law reduces the effectiveness of the very best crime prevention tool there is--the human conscience.

The aparatus for having a better system is already in place--we just need to restructure it and give it a better mandate.

1. We already have police who claim a desire to 'serve and protect'. They don't. All they really do is to defend the rule-of-law. So change their job description, Police should serve and protect PEOPLE.

2. We already have courts. Unfortunately, they are also only interested in proping up a defunct system of laws--expressly for the enrichment of lawyers, but to the ruination of all lives--on both sides of the crimes.

3. There are already jails and supposedly rehabilitative facilities. We should use them as that--instead of in retributions.
How would you protect people from being murdered?
The 'crime' of murder ceases to exist. Immediately, the means to commit a killing only to make a political statement against the government is effectively gone. How many wrongful deaths does that alone prevent? There's no way of knowing, but another Virginia Tech or Columbine High, probably wouldn't happen.

Further, an aspiring killer would have to overcome his conscience before he could kill and the rule-of-law wouldn't be helping him to do so. How many more would this protect? Again, we can't say but I suspect it'll be a significant number. FBI profilers know that serial killers attempt to de-humanize their victims--they think of them as things--specifically so they can override their consciences.

Just on the theory alone, we've substancially reduced the 'murder' rates. Now let's factor in an improved justice system where 'punishment' is NOT the goal.

People who feel they are going crazy will often seek therapy and even check themselves into the institutions that can help them. With prisons that were attempting to rehabilitate and with no public humiliation attached, couldn't a troubled individual seek some help? "I've been having murderous thoughts (or fantasies of rape), can you help me before I act on them?" Hey, haven't we just installed a system where even more 'crimes' have just been prevented?

Round this out with a continuation of the actions that are currently being undertaken in response to 'crimes' already committed. In other words, the people who have shown a murderous intent are already behind bars and we keep putting them in jail--but not in 'punishment'--it is because we are 'protecting' other people from them.

As for the tax issue, passing the burden up to the employer just doesn't seem like it would work. If taxes are based on how much an employer pays its employees, employers would have no incentive to offer their employees a higher wage.
Doesn't the rule of supply and demand set the wages? Doesn't the money going to the government already originate from the company and doesn't making an attractive 'take-home-pay' already cost the company the tax portion as well? There is essentially no change.

All that is modified is the public's perception of what the government does, and similarly there is a correction in the government's attitude toward the citizens. People are not treated as slaves and the bureaucracy truly become 'public servants'.

Sparkchaser, I've carried these lines of thinking far beyond what we've been talking about. I'm convinced that a few relatively minor changes philosophical in the way we order society, can solve almost ALL societal problems. We don't really have to work too hard at them either, if a system is structured to actually work--right from the roots, the ills will simply vanish, becuse the causes would be gone. (If you could cure the cold--the sneezing and runny-nose would disapear.)

<<<The simple cure for our civilization's sniffles>>>>

Rx - Un-sophisticate the society.

Sohisticated -
1 : to alter deceptively; especially : ADULTERATE
2 : to deprive of genuineness, naturalness, or simplicity; especially : to deprive of naïveté and make worldly-wise : DISILLUSION
3 : to make complicated or complex

The 'Sophists' were a reason why Aristotle invented the science of logic. They were a school that taught orators how to win arguments with specious manipulations of lies--to appear as truths. Much like barristers do today.

The rule-of-law is a fundemental LIE. It does NOT have a 'right' to rule, it only has a self-granted 'power' to do so and that is backed up with armed might--not with logic.

Suppose that a legislative body passed a rediculous law - 'When people jump up, it is illegal for them to come down.' Obviously, the law of gravity would make everyone lawbreakers, but this illustrates my point that there is NOTHING in the law to prevent such a ludecras enactment because at it's very base, the law is resting on a falsehood. People cannot be made utter slaves. Regardless of what law is passed, it doesn't overwhelm the greater law, 'that souls have complete freedom over their body's actions'. So why try to fight reality with sohpisticated mumbo-jumbo. Recognise that freedom will always exist, as does gravity, and work forward from there to achieve a well-ordered and TRUE society.

Cure the society by overthrowing the wrongful ruler --the law. Before you panic, almost all the 'laws' can be still used to the betterment of society. We just have to install the democratic people as above.

IE. A 'law' stating that 'Murder is AGAINST THE LAW', now becomes a 'governing statement' that 'Murder is AGAINST PEOPLE and unacceptable.
 
IE. A 'law' stating that 'Murder is AGAINST THE LAW', now becomes a 'governing statement' that 'Murder is AGAINST PEOPLE and unacceptable.

How is that going to prevent a drive-by shooting? Or a jilted lover killing the new competition? Or a thug killing a shop owner?

Your vision, while certainly well thought out and grand, ignores the emotion and unpredictability of humans.
 
How is that going to prevent a drive-by shooting? Or a jilted lover killing the new competition? Or a thug killing a shop owner?
Can't we compare apples to apples? How does the current law effectively thwart these either? Yes, some wrongdoing is always going to be done, but why shouldn't we do the VERY best that our brains can do.


Your vision, while certainly well thought out and grand, ignores the emotion and unpredictability of humans.
I see the reverse as being true. The rule-of-law is a fuedal concept. The Magna Charta of 1215 was a method for the ruling class to hold power--while pretending to give freedom to the serfs. Law doesn't work right because it wasn't designed on TRUE principles. It's rooted on slavery and that WON'T work right for very much longer. It's already falling apart. What will happen when some intelligent slaves start renouncing their chains?

Do you really think the rule-of-law could stand a true test in a court of law, or better yet in the a trial of public opinion? The rule-of-law will only survive if the truth can remain suppressed. The internet makes that increasingly more difficult. The rule-of-law WILL fall and good riddance when it goes. People need and deserve JUSTICE.
 
IE. A 'law' stating that 'Murder is AGAINST THE LAW', now becomes a 'governing statement' that 'Murder is AGAINST PEOPLE and unacceptable.

OK, so the head of state for your country issues a decree/proclamation/law/whatever that says 'Murder is AGAINST PEOPLE and unacceptable'. So then what? Will gangsters and thugs and jilted lovers think twice before killing their victim? I think not.

You're proposing a system that somehow prevents crimes from occurring by redefining what a crime is. I still fail to see how your version of crime prevention would work. If murders and rapes and other crimes against an individual are going to happen, your system is no better than the current one.

Perhaps you need to travel to a country with no criminal justice system so you can see how good we really have it. I recommend Burma. Or perhaps you should jump into a time machine and see what it is really like to be a peasant or a slave. We're neither. Well, I'm not and I cannot presume to speak for you; after all, maybe you are a slave. Someone bought for money and forced to work with no compensation. A novel writing slave, but a slave nonetheless.
 
OK, so the head of state for your country issues a decree/proclamation/law/whatever that says 'Murder is AGAINST PEOPLE and unacceptable'. So then what? Will gangsters and thugs and jilted lovers think twice before killing their victim? I think not.
Law is currently wrong and not working the way we want it to BECAUSE the theory enabling it is INCORRECT. The way to stop wrongdoing isn't by saying it is against some proclaimation and punishing for it. That is an outgrowth of the fuedal system with the land as lord in place of a landlord--it is still serfdom (but with a less bitter flavoring)

A much better way to combat wrongdoing is to set people free, but to issue (almost) the SAME laws back in a truthful format. You still inprison rapists and murderers but you're doing so not to punish, but to protect people and to rehabilitate. Enforcement still performs generally as it did, but the logically true system enables justice to emerge--and wrongdoing decreases naturally.


You're proposing a system that somehow prevents crimes from occurring by redefining what a crime is. I still fail to see how your version of crime prevention would work.
It would be nice if you had the patience to comprehend what the f--k I'm talking about before taking an automatic stance against it.

If murders and rapes and other crimes against an individual are going to happen, your system is no better than the current one.
Under the current system wrongs are NEVER concidered to have occurred AGAINST the individual. The argument in court is concerned ONLY with how the action (crime) was AGAINST the state's prohibition (law). That ass-backwards way of trying a wrongdoing that DID HAPPEN to a person, is a major reason why so many guilty people currently walk Scott free.

Perhaps you need to travel to a country with no criminal justice system ... I recommend Burma.
I've been there and in fact, I'm almost next door to there right now. Burma, or the better example would be Somalia, is a case in point where there are laws--but the policing is overwhelmed and failing to enforce them all.

Somalia might resolve their chaos by reducing laws to a bare minimum, (like violence, sex and property crimes), and forgetting about the non-essencial others until they get a better handle on their internal situation.

***But before you leap down my throat, that is NOT what I'm proposing for here. It's just an example of how looking at a problem without the societal blinkers can show a differing view.***

Or perhaps you should jump into a time machine and see what it is really like to be a peasant or a slave. We're neither. Well, I'm not and I cannot presume to speak for you;
I know that 'slave' is a harsh word and it's difficult to swallow. If I had a softer one, I would use it instead--how about 'modern person indentured to a nation'?

An entity (the parliament) makes rules and a person (the citizen) is forced to follow them or else punishment ensues. You can try to soften this anyway you like, and you might 'feel' free, but it is still a slavery principle.

I assert, and I'm sure you would agree if you grasped my concepts, it DOES NOT have to be this way. A justice system and government could still function perfectly, and in fact much better, if we were ACTUALLY free. Many, and in fact most societal problems are caused by the 'technical' slavery inherent in the system: those would all be alieviated.

after all, maybe you are a slave. Someone bought for money and forced to work with no compensation. A novel writing slave, but a slave nonetheless.
<<SMILE>>> No, I'm certainly not a slave. A good little slave would accept his master's rules without questioning them.

"so you can see how good we really have it."
This merited a separate comment. You have it good, but what about the homeless people you pass on the streets? Your life is fine, but what about the innocent person languishing in prison? You've been untouched by crime, but what about the rape victim? You're secure, but what about the youth beaten senseless by police for standing next to where an alteration occurred? You enjoy comforts, but what about your children whom you're consigning to a police state that grows ever more draconian and a society that becomes correspondingly more violent.

You have it good, but where is the harm in thinking about and discussing a potencial way of making it even better?

Authorities and judges like the screwed up system the way it is because they are absolutely in charge. They fill people's minds with unsubstanciated tripe about how it HAS TO BE EXACTLY THIS WAY to maintain a high standard of life. BULLSHIT! A truthful system can slide seamlessly into place without sacrificing anything. To the reverse, people could then look forward to a wonderful next millenium--with REAL optimism.
 
I'm not a "modern person indentured to a nation" either. If I so desired I could pack up my essential possessions and move to Canada. Or Australia. Or even Japan, provided that my Godzilla insurance is up to date.

Do you cover this social reformation in your books?

When you've toppled a 3rd world nation and installed a government based on your theories, I'll swing by for a visit to see how things have worked out; however, don't be offended if I show up wearing a kevlar vest and personal protection devices.

I'm no longer interested in this thread so I will bid you good day.

I said Good Day!
 
Better a tinfoil hat than a head so padded (on the inside) with poitically approved insulation, that no innovative ideas are able to filter in.

Have you seen sales of your book rocket since starting this thread?
 
Better a tinfoil hat than a head so padded (on the inside) with poitically approved insulation, that no innovative ideas are able to filter in.

I could not see any innovative ideas. It seems you just regurgitate a bunch of "radical" ideas you read in some books, without actually understanding them.

I'm really impressed by your advertising efforts. I bet you got a lot of new readers from your posts on this forum.
 
Back
Top