• 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

BeerWench13

Active Member
Everyone please forgive me for any redundancy, but after 5 pages of circular reasoning, semantics and two pages of copied texts, I lost my patience and decided to just post my replies. Mods, please forgive my use of bandwidth.
nyse said:
People are NOT slaves. Conversely, corporate entities ARE slaves. They were created not with flesh, blood and souls, but rather with paper laws, mental concepts and (dare I say) greed. Non-human entities CAN be taxed without breaking a human's birthright of freedom
I take it you've never been a business owner? I work directly for a small business owner and I can tell you that there is more of his blood, sweat and tears stamped on this business than any of his employees.
nyse said:
The system I suggested in my last post outlined a way to convert 'income tax' into an 'employment tax' that the company pays. The net dollar value doesn't even appreciably change.
And how do these "evil soulless corporations" attain the money to pay this tax? They will either raise their prices, thus extracting the money from society in a roundabout way, or simply collapse. They would also deny higher pay for their workers and, in turn, this would cause all workers to basically become slaves. OH WAIT, that's what we're trying to eradicate. Hmmm.
nyse said:
Irregardless of whether it's a 'crime' or not, a society needs to protect its weaker members from 'wrongful acts' such as forced sex and pilfering private property
I must admit that I more or less discounted just about everything else that was stated by this "writer" based on the first word of this sentence, which is not a word at all. However, though the concept of protecting weaker members of society is sound, there has still been no explanation of how to accomplish this except for this circular reasoning...
nyse said:
Law is the WRONG thrust at having a TRUELY effective social protection system. Having justice ACTUALLY do, what we wish it did (protecting people) would prevent a number of wrongs--like Virginia Tech--right at the source.
and...
nyse said:
The human good conscience prevents most, and it's probably the main reason why YOU don't rob a convenience store at gunpoint. The law as written negates the conscience and it allows people to transfer a hurtful deed onto a thing (the law) rather than the person being hurt.
Though your theory has some logic to it, your knowlege of the human psyche is seriously lacking. I don't think Jeffrey Dahmer killed, dismembered and, on some occasions cannibalized, 17 people as a protest against "the law". He stated that he killed his first victim "because he didn't want him to leave", not because "the law" forced him to become the sick individual he was. Sure there are folks out there who break the law just to see if they can get away with it, but they are not a majority.
nyse said:
I broke my social conditioning and when I did, I started understanding things much clearer, more optimistically too, because there IS a much better system available AND it could be virtually painless to achieve.
I'm going to refrain from quoting this basic statement in the 20 different ways in which it was phrased, and ask just what this "much better system" would be? Are we really going to rely on human conscience? What, exactly, instills conscience in man? Is it religion? Morality? Where do these concepts originate and what makes a person basically good? If there are no consequences for actions, there is nothing to keep those who would do evil from doing so. They may do it now, but I can assure you that there are many who don't do acts of evil against their fellow man, not because they feel in themselves that it is wrong, but because they fear the penalty for their actions.
nyse said:
However, business and corporations are entities created by laws and they ARE our servants, so government does have the right to tax them--on our behalf.
The same money is raised but the tax agents swing their attentions away from family finances and scrutinize corporate books instead.
Again, have you ever had a job?? In a real business?? Have you ever had to deal with a corporate audit? Have you ever done any bookkeeping for a business? I have and do and I can tell you that ANY discrepency regarding the IRS is pounced upon, even if it's a decimal point error. I've been there. The government already scrutinizes corporate books on a much higher level than any individual, this point is moot.
nyse said:
You are vastly discounting the power of your subconscious mind over your waking actions. Your mouth is saying you're not a slave--but your inside self knows very well that you are treated as a serf and I'm sure this often manifests in your words and deeds. Can you REALLY determine why you toss a gum wrapper out the car window--when you know that it's against the law. If you TRULY believed in law, then you wouldn't do it--ergo, if it wasn't against the law, then maybe you wouldn't litter.
I don't toss gum wrappers out of the car window. I don't litter. Why? Not because it's against the law. I don't see myself getting pulled and arrested for such a small offense. I do it because I care about my environment and don't wish to see trash piles on the side of the road. What makes me feel this way? I enjoy beauty. I like things to be pretty and pristine. I like seeing the leaves change color this time of year without having that visual image ruined by piles of trash. It has nothing to do with the law. I could care less about the law. It has to do with personal responsibility.

The problem is that many, many, many people don't have the sense of personal responsibility for their actions (look at Katrina-I'm not trying to open a can of worms here, but you know a hurricane's coming, get the hell out of there!-and how the government was blamed for their refusal to use basic common sense) and believe that anything that occurs, even when they're at fault, is someone else's responsibility. Though it would be an absolutely fabulous world of everyone was inherantly good, was nice to everyone else and took responsiblity for their own actions, I'm afraid that you'd have a better chance of a comet bouncing off of Mars, then the moon and hitting only you on the Earth. Wonderful concept, but not really possible unless you can establish a society that is socailistic in nature and remove all greed from mankind.

For a great idea, see my post in this thread:
http://www.bookandreader.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14913&page=2
 

nyse

New Member
Everyone please forgive me for any redundancy, but after 5 pages of circular reasoning, semantics and two pages of copied texts, I lost my patience and decided to just post my replies. Mods, please forgive my use of bandwidth.
I don’t know why people can’t understand this concept: it’s not that difficult. If it sounds like only semantics and circular reasoning, then you haven’t grasped what I’m talking about. My understanding of the human psyche is also quite deep. I’ll try yet again.

Law is a convoluted way of ordering society. It’s so screwed up that even thinking of an analogy is difficult. Suppose you had an itchy knee: instead of just scratching it, the law would claim that an invisible shield around your limb had the itch, so you should scratch it—and not your knee. That’s what law does. It invents a defined ‘crime’ that happened (instead of the harm to a person), and prosecutes that. It isn’t scratching the real itch.

We don’t need the concept of ‘rules and punishment’ to ensure order. The job could be done better with ‘protections and remediation’. When I suggest the human conscience is stronger than many suppose, I’m NOT saying it could or should be the ONLY harm prevention tool, but the law negates it altogether. Using the itchy knee analogy again, why would you feel any compunction to scratch at all, when only the shield purportedly feels the itch?


I take it you've never been a business owner? I work directly for a small business owner and I can tell you that there is more of his blood, sweat and tears stamped on this business than any of his employees.

Again, have you ever had a job?? In a real business?? Have you ever had to deal with a corporate audit? Have you ever done any bookkeeping for a business? I have and do and I can tell you that ANY discrepency regarding the IRS is pounced upon, even if it's a decimal point error. I've been there. The government already scrutinizes corporate books on a much higher level than any individual, this point is moot.
Yes, I have owned a business. Even though an owner may sink blood sweat and tears into it, the 'feelings' are not reciprocal. A business is only a non-thinking tool--why shouldn't it be the tax engine?


And how do these "evil soulless corporations" attain the money to pay this tax? They will either raise their prices, thus extracting the money from society in a roundabout way, or simply collapse. They would also deny higher pay for their workers and, in turn, this would cause all workers to basically become slaves. OH WAIT, that's what we're trying to eradicate. Hmmm.

YEEESH! No more would be taken than is now. Only the philosophy and practicality of 'how and why' it is taken would shift away from slavery to the state.
And I'm not a slave, thank you very much.
I'll quote this again from earlier in the discussion. You are all slaves, but you refuse to see it as this. But it doesn't have to be like that.
 

Landslide

Well-Known Member
It ends where it negatively affects someone else.

Ok, so I'll give it one last try. And please try to answer my question will you? If no rules (or whatever you want to call it) are written, how do you effectively stipulate where does one's right to free action ends? I will give one practical example: the guy that killed and ate another man, with the said man's consent, do you think he deserved to be put in jail? After all, he did nothing wrong according to his conscience, and what he did to the man was done with his consent. Without law, how would he have been "punished", and how would you justify it?

I'm just curious to know your input on the subject.

Oh, and just in case you don't remember this case, here's a post to the news: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/31/wflesh31.xml
 

BeerWench13

Active Member
CDA said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyse
My understanding of the human psyche is also quite deep.

Bollocks...
QFT!
Humankind is not good. I can appreciate your positive mental attitude that everyone would do the right thing all of the time based on their conscience, but you need only to pick up a newspaper or turn on the television to see that your trust in the human conscience is blind.

nyse said:
Instead of laws, the government can pass 'protections'. Those approach order keeping from a much better (non-slavery-based) direction. Instead of saying "murder is against the law", justice would say "we will protect people from being murdered, by restraining and attempting to rehabilitate those inclined to murderous acts" (or some such wording).
Okay, I'll play along. So the government passes a "protection" for the citizens that "we will protect people from being murdered...blah blah blah", and then I decide to murder you for using the non-word "irregardless" (It really, really is a pet peeve of mine!), chop up your body and eat it. How did changing the word "law" to "protection" protect you from me? Gee. I don't think it did. Now what? Do I go to jail? Who determines this and, if there are no penalties for not upholding the "protections", then what's to stop me from killing someone else for saying "nukular"?

Changing the word "law" to "protection" is really what you've proposed. There would be no change should somone break that "protection" except that you changed the word "jail" to "rehabilitation". You can call a dog a giraffe if you like, but it's still a dog.
 

nyse

New Member
Ok, so I'll give it one last try. And please try to answer my question will you? If no rules (or whatever you want to call it) are written, how do you effectively stipulate where does one's right to free action ends? I will give one practical example: the guy that killed and ate another man, with the said man's consent, do you think he deserved to be put in jail? After all, he did nothing wrong according to his conscience, and what he did to the man was done with his consent. Without law, how would he have been "punished", and how would you justify it?
The theory is that you are NEVER punishing for any action. Society is only using the past action as indication of the threat posed. In this canabalism case, it was concentual--but that predilection and his advertising for more victims makes him into a threat--IF the court determines it so. I'll stress again. The state shouldn't punish, it only is to protect.
 

nyse

New Member
QFT!
Humankind is not good. I can appreciate your positive mental attitude that everyone would do the right thing all of the time based on their conscience, but you need only to pick up a newspaper or turn on the television to see that your trust in the human conscience is blind.
I disagree. Most of us are very good but the slave system is damaging all of us. No, we wouldn't always follow our consciences but the stupidly designed legal system factors the conscious OUT. How can you know how much it would factor IN?

Okay, I'll play along. So the government passes a "protection" for the citizens that "we will protect people from being murdered...blah blah blah", and then I decide to murder you for using the non-word "irregardless" (It really, really is a pet peeve of mine!), chop up your body and eat it. How did changing the word "law" to "protection" protect you from me? Gee. I don't think it did. Now what? Do I go to jail? Who determines this and, if there are no penalties for not upholding the "protections", then what's to stop me from killing someone else for saying "nukular"?
Why did just a word usage lead to a death? Were you lashing out to vent other frustrations? Did serfdom to the stupid system cause your hair-trigger anger? Removing the slavery might relieve that tension. The government might have protected me by removing the big target from my back.

However, you did kill me and society must ensure that you don't do that to anyone else. If you seriously try to help rehabilitate yourself, then you may earn your way to freedom someday. If you think you'll just serve out your 'time', you'll be wrong. You're not there in 'punishment', so there's no set 'time': you're incarcerated until we're confident that it's safe to let you out.

Changing the word "law" to "protection" is really what you've proposed.


It's a word change that reflects a philosophy change with slavery concepts removed. A government has no intrinsic right to tell people what they can or cannot do--but society does have the right to protect its citizens. The justice system should protect people--not just protect itself with a convoluted law system.


There would be no change should somone break that "protection" except that you changed the word "jail" to "rehabilitation". You can call a dog a giraffe if you like, but it's still a dog.
There is no 'law' to 'break'. The system hasn't inserted itself between the perpetrator and the victim so the conscience is given a chance to intervene. 'Breaking' a 'law' just to make a political statement is no longer possible.


I’ll use drunk driving for another example. The current prohibiting law sees the person in court to spend 5-10 thousand dollars on his lawyer. If his lawyer looses, the fine may be another $1000: he downs a bottle to drown his sorrows. If the lawyer finds a technicality, he walks: or rather, he drives to a bar to celebrate. Has anyone besides the lawyer and the government revenue department benefited? Society is still at risk.

Under protective justice, his right is to drive drunk—as long as nobody else is put at risk. IE, on a lonely stretch of rural road—but if a police officer spots him, then his stupidity is obviously endangering the officer’s safety, (as well as any jaywalking squirrels). The drunk is then into the court system. There was no ‘law’ broken, so no technicalities are possible, the court will order whatever treatments or measures fit the circumstances. Perhaps, it could mean jail time until he successfully conquers his alcohol problem.
 

Tasku

kickbox
I haven't read the full thread, being that I've just registered here, but I did read the first couple of pages, and understand the basic concept of this little debate that has errupted here in the Introductions forum.

There was no ‘law’ broken, so no technicalities are possible, the court will order whatever treatments or measures fit the circumstances. Perhaps, it could mean jail time until he successfully conquers his alcohol problem.

Anyways, the above statement - and excuse me, if this issue has already been discussed, like I said, I didn't read it all - to me sounds like dictatorship, or atleast the possible seed to dictatorship. Without guidelines - "laws", we have anarchy, and in times of anarchy, the strong will rule as they please.

Like I said, I'll stop my rant here, running the risk that I have missed something here... :)
 

BeerWench13

Active Member
nyse said:
Why did just a word usage lead to a death?
Because it's one of my biggest pet peeves. That and having to repeat myself, yet another button of mine that you're continually pushing because you're trying to defend your point which isn't really a point at all but just a change in wording. People have killed with less motivation throughout history under many other governments and during the period where there was no law at all (which is why laws were invented). Besides, I ate you. Maybe I was just hungry and couldn't afford a side of beef.
nyse said:
Were you lashing out to vent other frustrations?
No, you just happened to be the unlucky 100th person to use a word that doesn't exist and it snapped that little nerve. Why? Well, because I woke up on the wrong side of the bed, was hungover and took it out on you. Or maybe I just don't like you and your use of the word was an excuse to end your life so that you were no longer a thorn in my side.
nyse said:
Did serfdom to the stupid system cause your hair-trigger anger? Removing the slavery might relieve that tension. The government might have protected me by removing the big target from my back.
Nope. Like I said, your use of the word was just the excuse I needed to end your continued rantings about "the man" and "the system". And I was hungry. I needed some protein. I have no aggression toward what you call serfdom and slavery. I realize that laws are necessary to keep order. I do feel the government is micro-managing a great deal and I will certainly concede your point on that, but I don't see that all laws are wrong. There are some that infringe on personal rights and some that are good for the whole of mankind. You have to take the good with the bad. A lawless society would be the end of civilization.

Again I will say that you know nothing of human psychology. A person is good. People are not. Think on that one because it's kind of deep.

nyse said:
However, you did kill me and society must ensure that you don't do that to anyone else.
Who is "society" and how do they determine
a) That I'm a threat to society
b) When or if I'm "rehabilitated" (people are great actors too)
c) Why I killed you in the first place
d) That you didn't deserve to be killed?

nyse said:
In this canabalism case, it was concentual--but that predilection and his advertising for more victims makes him into a threat--IF the court determines it so. I'll stress again. The state shouldn't punish, it only is to protect.
How can the court determine that he is a threat to society? Under what precedents? There is no right or wrong, no good or bad, no "law" broken. How can you possibly incarcerate... excuse me... rehabilitate someone when, according to your system, they've done nothing wrong? They were acting on their conscience which said it was no big deal to kill and cannibalize another human being.

Your system is good in theory, but without order there is chaos.
 

nyse

New Member
A lawless society would be the end of civilization.
I disagree. Law is holding civilization from being an enlightened society.
Again I will say that you know nothing of human psychology. A person is good. People are not. Think on that one because it's kind of deep.
Again, I disagree. I see deeper into human psychology than common (erronious) beliefs. I can show by logical assumption how the rule-of-law is the root cause of many societal ills. Changing to a protective (non-slave) system would bring wonders to our social order. Unfortunately, you people are choking on the basic premise, so we can't go further into them.

Your system is good in theory, but without order there is chaos.
Here I agree, but your unstated presumption is that 'law creates order' and I don't concur with that. If we were to turn this discussion end-for-end to have you trying to sell me on the concept of law, you would be hard-pressed to explain and justify such an obtuse concept as law. The rule-of-law was first foisted on ignorant people who were already used to the rule-of-lords, it seemed like an improvement--but it wasn't. Then gradually, the concept became ingrained as a 'given truth', even though law is illogical.

[Law works fine for ruling entities created by laws--like compnies and corporations. Law seeks to rule people but it can't attain the intrinsic right to usurp a person's inherant freedom and that's laws downfall.]
 

nyse

New Member
Who is "society" and how do they determine
a) That I'm a threat to society
b) When or if I'm "rehabilitated" (people are great actors too)
c) Why I killed you in the first place
d) That you didn't deserve to be killed?
"Society" was intended to mean the court.
a) You showed a willingness to kill and a taste for human flesh. Isn't that a threat to other living 'long-pigs'?
b) It's as subjective as it is now, but we're not hamstrung by having to let Karla Holmolka out only because of the prosecution 'deal' she made.
c) The investigation would actually look for that. (see answer to d)
d) Maybe I did deserve to be killed and the police/court can explore that avenue (as they can't now). Under the current 'law' process, the police are ONLY looking for IF a law (murder) was hurt. If police methodology were used by fire investigators, the cause would always be arson because that is all the police are looking for. An electrical fault would be disregarded, becuase it didn't fit the arson theory. This is one reason why innocent people are often convicted.
 

BeerWench13

Active Member
nyse said:
"Society" was intended to mean the court.
a) You showed a willingness to kill and a taste for human flesh. Isn't that a threat to other living 'long-pigs'?
Not if they don't use a word that doesn't exist.:p
Who "picks me up" to bring me to court and what right do they have to make me stand trial? I'm a free person and there is no law prohibiting me from killing.
nyse said:
b) It's as subjective as it is now, but we're not hamstrung by having to let Karla Holmolka out only because of the prosecution 'deal' she made
So, money would have no place here? People wouldn't be able to buy their freedom? Do you really think that the "court" in any society won't be able to be bought? Greed is a very, very powerful motivator.
nyse said:
c) The investigation would actually look for that. (see answer to d)
d) Maybe I did deserve to be killed and the police/court can explore that avenue (as they can't now). Under the current 'law' process, the police are ONLY looking for IF a law (murder) was hurt. If police methodology were used by fire investigators, the cause would always be arson because that is all the police are looking for. An electrical fault would be disregarded, becuase it didn't fit the arson theory. This is one reason why innocent people are often convicted.
But who are the police and what are they policing? There are no laws and, as a free person, I took it upon myself to rid society of someone who I felt grammatically incapable to live on this planet. My conscience told me that I was doing society a good deed. Where does "the court" prove this wrong? How can they say that what I did was not justified?

Nyse said:
Again, I disagree. I see deeper into human psychology than common (erronious) beliefs. I can show by logical assumption how the rule-of-law is the root cause of many societal ills.
Nonsense. You see only that which supports your theory. I majored in psychology and can tell you that the things that go through even your everyday ordinary human being would scare the bejesus out of you. What keeps most people (like myself) from acting on those is a sense of consequence for their actions. Those which do it anyway have numerous reasons, only one of which is to lash out at "the man".
 

Landslide

Well-Known Member
I don't get it, there is a "court" but there are no laws?
Who chooses the members of the court?
If there is no written law, how do you assure equal justice to all? I mean, different courts, composed by different people, "judging" the same "crime", without guidelines may result in different "sentences", right?

I apologize in advance for the terms I applied and that surely do not exist in your new system, but I think you get the point.
 

Tasku

kickbox
d) Maybe I did deserve to be killed and the police/court can explore that avenue (as they can't now).

I'm sorry, but I just can't help but point out once again, that this would most definately turn into a tyrannical dictatorship.

What you're basically saying is that, the police / court, or who ever it is that has the throne of power, can pretty much kill off anyone they so desire, because they decide who is a threat to society.

How do you expect any progress being made in a society, where the opposition will always be cut down by a courtsystem, that has ruled that they are a threat to society by some wierd logic that will suit their own goals?

I understand that what you're proposing is not meant as a dictatorship, but having no guidelines by which to rule the population, and giving the power to make those guidelines as we go along, to those who are holding this position in the society, is a dead end, which will lead to the same result that we've seen with pretty much every revolution in history, except for modern western democracy. Good example of this is communism, which also started off as a society for the people, and ended up society for one person.

If police methodology were used by fire investigators, the cause would always be arson because that is all the police are looking for. An electrical fault would be disregarded, becuase it didn't fit the arson theory. This is one reason why innocent people are often convicted.

No, the reason innocent people are convicted, is because the evidence are pointing that way and those interpeting the evidence are only people just as you and me, and we all make mistakes. What I'm also having a hard time understanding in your above comment, is this "Arson-Theory". I've seen (or atleast heard of) numerous suicides, traffic accidents and other fatal incidents, where no one was convicted, because no one was to blame.
 

nyse

New Member
I'm sorry, but I just can't help but point out once again, that this would most definately turn into a tyrannical dictatorship.

What you're basically saying is that, the police / court, or who ever it is that has the throne of power, can pretty much kill off anyone they so desire, because they decide who is a threat to society.
I'm saying that police/court operates under full autonomy FROM the government. Currently, whichever party government takes power can change the laws as they choose.
I understand that what you're proposing is not meant as a dictatorship, but having no guidelines by which to rule the population, and giving the power to make those guidelines as we go along, to those who are holding this position in the society, is a dead end, which will lead to the same result that we've seen with pretty much every revolution in history, except for modern western democracy. Good example of this is communism, which also started off as a society for the people, and ended up society for one person.
Nazi Germany fit the definition of your 'modern western democracy'. Look how that turned out. The 'party' system of governance is not a democracy--it's just built in corruption.
How do you expect any progress being made in a society, where the opposition will always be cut down by a courtsystem, that has ruled that they are a threat to society by some wierd logic that will suit their own goals?
It's the law that is weird logic.
No, the reason innocent people are convicted, is because the evidence are pointing that way and those interpeting the evidence are only people just as you and me, and we all make mistakes. What I'm also having a hard time understanding in your above comment, is this "Arson-Theory". I've seen (or atleast heard of) numerous suicides, traffic accidents and other fatal incidents, where no one was convicted, because no one was to blame.
Only because the perp was too dead to stand trial.
 

Tasku

kickbox
I'm saying that police/court operates under full autonomy FROM the government. Currently, whichever party government takes power can change the laws as they choose.
Okay, I didn't understand that part at first. Sounds better now, but you'd still have an organization, that has basically limitless power as there are no laws working as guidelines or barriers. And even while the police / court are independent from the government, there would eventually be lobbying and persons in power making favours for each others, accross different institutions within the governing elements of the country. This would result in corruption and unfair distribution of power, and most likely wealth.

Nazi Germany fit the definition of your 'modern western democracy'. Look how that turned out. The 'party' system of governance is not a democracy--it's just built in corruption.

Yes, I'm not trying to defend democracy as the perfect system. Power corrupts, and there is no such a leader, who wouldn't take advantage of his / her position if they have the opportunity to do so.

My point, however was about revolutions (meaning series of events, that lead to change in the doctrine by which a country is ruled) often turn out something else than what was promised to the people, or even what was first planned by those stepping into power. In another words: your system is undobtetly meant as a step forward, but the fact that you set no boundaries (also known as "laws") for your governing elements, would in my mind, and as shown by history, most likely turn into something different. Not necesseary immediately, but by time it would slip from it's original purpose into something else.

Only because the perp was too dead to stand trial.

I don't think failed suicide, where "the perp" lives, would in our current system be taken to trial as attempted murder. Or accidentally burning your house down, because you forgot to blow out the candles in your window, be tried as arsony.

All in all, it's a good theory, utopia if you like, but I would most definately oppose such a system, if for some reason they decided to change our current system into that. And by reading the posts in this thread, you can see, so would most rest of us.
 
Top