Prohibitive Law vs Protective Justice

[BeerWench13]

So you're willing keep a system that has corruption built into is and hold it as sancrosanct

Yet again, you're reading your interpretation into someone else's words and twisting them to your argument. As long as there is money, there will be people who will take a bribe. It doesn't matter what "society" or "system" is in place. Greed is a very strong motivator.

Horse manure! I was born with a birthright of freedom. None have the right to make me a blind slave to an obsolete concept.

Poppycock! There is nowhere on this planet that you can live without having to comply to some semblance of order. Personally, I'm very happy that this is the case. I don't know who told you that you were special and above the law, but they lied to you. Until the day comes when mankind is always kind and considerate, there is no hunger and everyone has the same things, there will always be malice and discontent. These things lead to criminal acts. Even though some are done out of desperation while others are done with pure calculated viciousness, they are still crimes against a fellow human being. With no laws, this would be further increased. Without order, there is chaos.

 

[Tasku]

Nyse, you're giving us slogans, instead of answers to our questions.

It's easy to yell: "Stop the slavery, I will not submit!", but actually making a point to your argument is alot harder to do.

Try that for a change.

 

[nyse]

Poppycock! There is nowhere on this planet that you can live without having to comply to some semblance of order. Personally, I'm very happy that this is the case.

I know that and I'm fully in favor of ORDER. What I'm saying is that LAW is a piss poor way of ordering.

I don't know who told you that you were special and above the law, but they lied to you.

I'm not special or 'above the law'. Instead, I concider law to be a dillusionary (non)-entity that I can't be either above, below or beside.

Until the day comes when mankind is always kind and considerate, there is no hunger and everyone has the same things, there will always be malice and discontent. These things lead to criminal acts. Even though some are done out of desperation while others are done with pure calculated viciousness, they are still crimes against a fellow human being.

I've been trying to show how a non-law system would be better at dealing with the foibles of human nature, but you seem to be trying desperately hard NOT to follow it. I feel like I'm talking to children who don't want to know that Santa Claus is a fantasy.

Without order, there is chaos.

That is true. BUT, you're wrongly assuming that 'Enacted Laws' create order in society, in the same way that 'Physical Laws' give order to the universe. They don't, and I can effectively argue that 'Slavery laws' are creating social chaos. (Unfortunately, you have to allow yourself to understand the basic concepts before we can get into the advanced theory.)

 

[nyse]

Nyse, you're giving us slogans, instead of answers to our questions.

It's easy to yell: "Stop the slavery, I will not submit!", but actually making a point to your argument is alot harder to do.

Try that for a change.

I've tried, but as you're unable to accept comprehention of my basic premises, the answers aren't making sense to you.

This thread's title is 'Prohibitive Law vs Protective Justice. Why don't we try it from the opposite side and have you trying to sell me on the concept of law? Answer these questions.

How can something that doesn't exist in the physical universe, be 'broken'?

How is law able to effectively protect society, when some people (like me) don't believe that it has any real leverage over my actions?

How many laws can dance on the head of a pin?

 

[nyse]

I didn't blame money for anything. If anything, I blame greed. However , the point is that, if you have no set boundaries, those with more money can "bribe" their way to freedom.


I live in this country. In order to have the right to be a citizen of this country, I must abide by its laws. That is part of the deal. Much like, if I go to my parent's house, I cannot drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes inside. That is their rule and, if I wish to have the priviledge to stay in their home, then I must abide by their rules.

I'm not signing onto this (bad) 'deal'. I have as much right to live in this world (and the land where I was born) as someone who believes in law does.

 

[Tasku]

I've tried

I don't think you have.

Why don't we try it from the opposite side and have you trying to sell me on the concept of law? Answer these questions.

Nah... I'm bored with this subject... you figure it out.

 

[nomadic myth]

A parole board will decide when they deem her safe to conditionally release. If she refuses treatment or is not recalcitrant, she may never be released: (P.J. measures are not set punishments).

Can you say Gitmo?

 

[nyse]

Nah... I'm bored with this subject... you figure it out.

I have figured it out--it's F**ked and you're just too chicken to try.

 

[nyse]

Can you say Gitmo?

Hello, didn't Gitmo happen under your system of law? So how is this statement a valid condenmation of mine?

 

[nyse]

Zing!
If I can still be jailed or sentenced to death for a wrongful act,

The death penalty is only justifiable in a 'punishment', not as a 'rehabilitation'. You beak-off about underdtanding my arguments well enough to reject them utterly--but most of your statements simply prove that you've entirely missed the salient points.

 

[nomadic myth]

Hello, didn't Gitmo happen under your system of law? So how is this statement a valid condenmation of mine?

My system? Oh no.

I just don't like the sound of "she may never be released" and "there are no set punishments". It leaves a lot of room for legal abuse.

 

[Tasku]

Maybe "Law" infact is an entity of it's own afterall. An entity which cannot be changed or controlled by any one person (or atleast they will face serious opposition if they would ever attempt such a transgression.) Maybe this is not such a bad thing, though. If no man can touch this entity, which we call "Law" (or banana, if you like), then no man will be able to make himself above the law.

The terrorism "laws" coming to effect are a prime example of a society ruled by prohibitive law taking steps into becoming a society under protective law. In this system any man, deemed a threat to society by those making the decision may be placed under arrest for as long as those, who determine him / her to be a threat, so please without anyone being able to disprove their argument.

This is what I think Nomadic Myth was implying to.

 

[BeerWench13]

You beak-off about underdtanding my arguments well enough to reject them utterly--but most of your statements simply prove that you've entirely missed the salient points.

And you get abusive when you fail to properly convey your "system". It's not my fault you lack the ability to fully explain the DIFFERENCES between your system of justice and the one that currently exists. All you keep doing is changing the names of laws to suit your argument. You have yet to effectively show what makes your system better.

I'm going to make this easier on you. Simply answer the following question (it has 2 parts):
Who decides that I'm a threat to society and when I'm "rehabilitated"?

 

[nyse]

And you get abusive when you fail to properly convey your "system". It's not my fault you lack the ability to fully explain the DIFFERENCES between your system of justice and the one that currently exists. All you keep doing is changing the names of laws to suit your argument. You have yet to effectively show what makes your system better.

From my point of view, it gets very frustrating when people refuse to understand or acknowledge the root concept. When I've then try to expand on the (misunderstood) footing, you've thrown up this 'it's just a name change' comment that puts me back behind square zero again.

I'm going to make this easier on you. Simply answer the following question (it has 2 parts):
Who decides that I'm a threat to society and when I'm "rehabilitated"?

Part one - The police pick you up as a suspect: just as they do now. The difference begins with how they investigate, and how they treat you: you aren't a 'criminal' who 'broke a law', you are a proctected person in society: who is being restrained to protect others--and yourself.

Part two - A court and 'parole' board decides what is safest for you and society. Again, this is as today but also very different because the court and parole/rehabilitation board are not the authoritarians of the serf rules system. They are serving society directly and the ideology under their authority is true. (The current ideology is false, because a government has no right to make people into slaves).

 

[nyse]

My system? Oh no.

I just don't like the sound of "she may never be released" and "there are no set punishments". It leaves a lot of room for legal abuse.

In Canada, Karla Holmolka was given a shorter set term in a deal for testimony against her husband, Paul Bernardo. At the end of the time, she was released. She is a now a ticking time-bomb in society who will very likely kill again. 'Law' can't put her (or her husband) away forever but 'protective justice' could -- where warrented.
{Note - The court and rehabilitation wouldn't be for 'breaking a law' and the process would be confidential. The police, lawyers and goverment couldn't get the publicity that they crave: so there would be no (corrupt) benefit to misapplying justice.}

 

[Tasku]

But you're forgetting that in our current system, even those who are enforcing the law, making laws or giving judgement in the court are just aswell "slaves", as you call it, under the law. No one is above it. No one can escape it.

In your proposed system on the other hand - if I'm understanding it correctly - the court system basically makes the decision on who is and who is not considered a threat to the society and they have no restraints - preset rules to follow and abide.

There is no law, so they themselves can never be a threat to society - they rule the society.

Call me a donkey, squirrel or chicken, this system in my opinion, would not "free" us from anything, but rather push us back to the stoneage.

 

[BeerWench13]

Part two - A court and 'parole' board decides what is safest for you and society. Again, this is as today but also very different because the court and parole/rehabilitation board are not the authoritarians of the serf rules system. They are serving society directly and the ideology under their authority is true. (The current ideology is false, because a government has no right to make people into slaves).

On what basis does the court/parole board make this decision?
How do those that serve on the court and parole board get to that position?
Comparing to what can they decide if I'm a threat to society?

You say the court and parole/rahabilitation board are not authoritarians of the serf rules system meaning they make up the rules as they see fit?
There is no guideline or law to give them the right to try me, so they just arrest me for something that they see as a threat to society and then try me based on their opinions or points of view?

Also, you're saying that you'll "restrict/try/rehabilitate" someone for doing something without warning them of the consequences beforehand? After all, there is no law prohibiting any action and no stated consequences for performing those actions. You cannot incarcerate/rehabilitate someone for doing something when you have not prohibited it in the first place. Without a stated law, there can be no consequences. If I decide to park my car in front of my house instead of in my drive and my neighbor, who happens to be on the parole board doesn't like it, does that mean he can make me "a threat to the safety of society" because my car is in his way? I believe the abuse of power would be horrific without preset standards.

I'm trying to understand your system. I truly am, but you keep giving the same circular reasoning without stating exactly how the system would work. If there is no law prohibiting me from stealing my neighbor's car, what right have you to arrest and/or try me for the offense?

 

[nyse]

Maybe "Law" infact is an entity of it's own afterall. An entity which cannot be changed or controlled by any one person (or atleast they will face serious opposition if they would ever attempt such a transgression.)

I called it an entity to make you see it as one--but it's imaginary. A bogey-man entity in a closet is only fearsome to a child when they believe that it is real. When the lights come on, it vanishes and so does the law when you look at it.

Maybe this is not such a bad thing, though. If no man can touch this entity, which we call "Law" (or banana, if you like), then no man will be able to make himself above the law.

I don't acknowledge the law because it really doesn't exist. Why should I allow myself to be 'ruled' by concept that I can rationally prove as false?

The terrorism "laws" coming to effect are a prime example of a society ruled by prohibitive law taking steps into becoming a society under protective law.

I strenuously disagree. Those are the government trying to assert a stronger police state on a public that is growing discontent with the 'law'.

I see that you are currently reading Orwell. Try putting Osama bin Lauden's face onto 'Goldstien' and 1984 will take on another year--like 2007

 

[Tasku]

I see that you are currently reading Orwell. Try putting Osama bin Lauden's face onto 'Goldstien' and 1984 will take on another year--like 2007

I'm reading Orwell, but not 1984

Answer Beer Wench's latest post and you will have answered my question aswell.

 

[nyse]

On what basis does the court/parole board make this decision?
How do those that serve on the court and parole board get to that position?
Comparing to what can they decide if I'm a threat to society?

The nuts and bolts of how the system would work flow from the root change and I think if you 'grokked' (Robert Heinlien-Stranger in a Strange Land) that, then you could answer these questions for yourself.

The root concept ISN"T just a wording change.

Imagine yourself standing inside a glass eggshell and call your enclosure 'the rule of law' because society has said that it exists. You feel protected but if anyone assaults you, the fagile shell breaks and you are wounded. However, the court isn't really concerned with what happened to you: the judge only examines what happened to the shell. {A person like the Virginia Tech killer aims only at the eggshell.}

Protective justice doesn't use an imaginary entity. Harms to people are exactly that and society reacts accordingly.