Search results

A real democracy (where political parties have been abolished), seems to me as the only possible Utopian government: as it is good for everyone equally. Capitalism seems to spur growth and efficiency better than communism did, but communism seems a better system for administering a public...

I like that quote, but I love this one: "Truth springs from argument amongst friends." - David Hume

This statement gives rise to a question of where law's right to enslave comes from. You and any individual member of society has NO singular right to make rules for another adult to be a slave to. The government might 'tax' each citzen for 100% of their 'right' to rule and punish, but it...

Again I detect sarcasm in lieu of valid argument. Either you are a slave, or you and not: your 'rights' determine which is true. Would a syllogysm help you determine which you are? Slaves obey rules or they are punished. Laws are rules with punishments. Those who obey laws are slaves.

Reading my last post showed me that I didn't make it clear why your words equated to what I said. I believe that "a killer has the 'right' to walk into a school and 'butcher' children". Just as every person has the inalienable 'right' to do whatever we will. (So according to you, I must need...

This might be a difficult concept for you to understand, but I strongly believe that the greatest crime ever committed against mankind--is the law itself. It was a theft of gargantuan porportions that stripped us of our free will, and it was rooted on a lie. People call 'lawyer' the...

Imagine if a nation suddenly voted only independent members to their parliament. There would be no party in power, so no leader of that party to be pres or PM. Hense there would be no pres, pr PM to nominate cabinate members and portfolios. All elected members, who represent ONLY their...

Now I feel that I'm getting somewhere! Okay, with the basic concept in mind, let's bridge over some of those gaps--ask away. There is a lack of rules but not a lack of constraints, because the old laws are applied in reverse--onto the protected person/people. For example, the prohibition...

I confess that in that statement--I was. I think that you're getting closer to understanding my position, but what you don't share is my utter contempt for how the law doesn't do what we want and deperately need it to do. Interactions between people are much more complicated than a simple...

It isn't unbiased and here is another place where law falls apart. All people have to believe in law for it to work unbiasedly. Let me present this very realistic scenario. I’m driving on a straight, dry, deserted highway, and I honestly don’t believe in law. My disbelief in law makes it...

I see this argument as a 'half-empty' viewpoint based on your belief that (some?, most?) humans are bad at the core and strong laws force some goodness. I'm of the 'half full' opinion that all are fundementally good and that external influences (in some cases that is the law itself) are to...

I'm interpreting this as sarchasm. Unfortunately, when one 'quotes', the prior remark that spawned the comment doesn't come along. Is that cunningly cutting? I offered a questionair to determine where I should concentrate to clarify for you--but half of your answers were only jabbing at the...

If she or you understood the basic concepts, then why would Beerwench STILL think that nothing replaces laws and why would she STILL be asking how law nullifies the conscience? But if you could understand WHY those are a BAD thing then you might understand how those are fatal weaknesses in YOUR...

Because inquiring minds want to know? Seriously though, these are good questions and I hope I can satisfactorily answer them. "We" here refers to the current law aparatus--with their job descriptions amended to the new philosophy. When you build a tower, you should put it on a 'true'...

I didn't ask you to read my mind, only to have read in the foregoing conversation for 'why'. The human conscience <<SHOULD>> assist in the prevention of wrong doing, but it's function is impared and even nulified by the theory of 'law' being the 'imaginary shield'. Uh? the preceeding point was...

Not quite, but on reading your post I'm happy to see that someone is at last trying to understand--before making judgements. The 'imaginary shield' is in the wording (and theory) of law. IE. If you go to hurt someone in a manner that is covered by a law, you are warned by the law, that this...

I seriously can't understand why you can't understand. I'm sorry if in your opinion, I seem to go on tirades. The concept I'm proposing really does have merit--when you understand why/how it works. May I try a questionair to try and determine where the break in communication is. Do you...

Am I really free to think as I do? Are you? When more people think as I do, that law is a sham with no right to rule, what will happen to law? Will IT outlaw free thinking to preserve it's sanctity? Law is an imaginary boogie man concept that looses it's fearsome power when the light of...

<exhasperated sigh>I quoted your statement which said 'without preset laws' and responded by saying that P.J. had 'presets', but they weren't 'laws'. How is that saying that is "just changing the word "law" to "preset"? Basically, your above statement, proves to me that the below one is not...

All have gone silent? This is what frustrates me. The majority of people agree that there are problems in the law, but none can give any reasonable suggestions of how to fix it. Then I suggest that the real problem is the law itself, and people either 'panic argue' or clam up when they...