posted January 17, 2008 08:22 PM         

I've been pondering the way that people act when they think that there are no consequences, versus the way they act when negative consequences are more certain.

On the surface, this appears to be an argument in favor of enforcement and continuation of the policy of written Law enforced by a system of Law.

But..is it true that Law tames the beast in our society? Or does it simply hide an ugliness that is growing behind the facade of legally acceptable behavior that we put on from day to day?

Does imposed "law and order" simply act as a bandaid covering an infected wound? If not, why the divergent behavior during a perceived lack of legal consequences?

Can we REALLY say that what we call "human nature" isn't an aberration brought on by the way we raise human beings these days?

Can we honestly say that human beings raised outside of our way of thinking wouldn't tend toward socially beneficial behavior more perfectly than any written laws could force them to?

I'm not sure yet. I'd like to think about it some more. Any input that might help?

posted January 17, 2008 08:47 PM         

I think Law does deter some criminals, but I think that overall mental health, lack of morals, and desperation propell other criminals.

posted January 17, 2008 09:46 PM         

Rereading what was written earlier, it does seem poorly communicated. Let me try again.

I'm just wondering first, if imposing certain behaviors and conditions (Law) on people only keeps antisocial tendencies hidden. Is that possible? Is it possible that we are covering up our society's sicknesses, further distancing ourselves from it's solutions? (Hide the problem and it goes away right? More problems..more hiding places ie, prisons and psychiatric facilities?)

The second part of the query is about the probable response by some people:

"The Law protects us from Human Nature."

The second part of the question is:

Are we so sure that people, raised outside of these systems of human social engineering, wouldn't act in a socially beneficial manner all by themselves? (or..in a "for all purposes" legal manner..in the absence of law?) Is how we are raised now, and what we become a decent reflection of our "Human Nature"? Or is our current "Human Nature" an invented response brought about by our upbringing?

Hope that makes the idea clearer..

posted January 18, 2008 01:57 PM         

I think that decline and decay are a part of everything. Like the seasons.

I also think that given a choice between the Law of Nature and the Law of Humans, most people would choose the Law of Humans.

If you are asking if people could be raised in some sort of benign Utopia if they would be different, then yes, they would be eternal children, innocent... but this would require others to shoulder the burden for them to keep their Utopia filled with food and free of disease, and free of stress or tension that would cause deep thought or fear... caused from a lack of something.

posted January 18, 2008 02:39 PM         

Also..what if the human race is going through that part of life where we learn that our "parents" knew best after all?

What if Human Law is the equivalent of teen thoughts on "life should be fair now", and Natural Law is a more realistic way of looking at things?

What if the slow decay of our system amounts to a sink full of dirty dishes in a rooming house full of teen and 20 somethings who are all out at Burger King, cuz its easier than washing dishes or cooking?

Who's footing the bill for the imposition of these restrictions upon our freedom in the end?

How much "random chance" that equates to a "better fate" lies outside of the lines that our society has drawn for us in the sand? How many destinies have been funneled through the mechanism of law into a finite number of outcomes?

Where are the returns that Law promises and are they worth the freedoms lost and the burden imposed?

Finally, going into an idea that is perhaps more realistically aimed, what are the minimum number of laws required for a society to function? Is it possible to list a minimum number? We don't really have to start with Leviticus do we? (Yikes!)

Thanks again for participating. It's nice to be able to share ideas together instead of having them stuck in my head all of the time.

posted January 18, 2008 03:25 PM         

I thought that you were careful and courteous in your estimation of the status quo, still I would caution us all to reserve judgment for now if that's ok.

It's hard to maintain the balance of discussions such as these without it becoming a battle of opinions..an awful lot like riding a surfboard.

We all come from different walks of life, and no doubt it would be as harmful for our discussion to be missing the perspective of people who BELIEVE in Human Law as it would be for it to be missing people who feel strongly that Human Law is creating more problems than it solves.

In order for us all to get our ideas out and fully explore the topic, let's watch what we say strongly in favor of, or against Human Law...for now.

Back to some of your points:

I tend to wonder if Human Law could also be a "transitional necessity." For a very long time, I've said that I believe that human beings are the step in an evolutionary chain between animal and something else..

(No offense to animals..who are more civilized than us in many regards.)

The question at one time might have been one of Human Law being necessary as our animistic human selves went from acting like our animal ancestors to acting more like..well..whatever it is we're becoming.

That said, perhaps Human Law was a good thing that is outliving its usefulness? Or again, perhaps it IS useful. Perhaps I'm benefiting from it right now and am too ignorant and ungrateful to recognize that fact. It's quite possible I suppose.

Are there any examples of people who manage to avoid most of our cultural conditioning issues? OR is that just a pipe dream?

daf

P.S. This also leads me into thoughts of how our media and society tend to encourage animistic behavior and self-indulgence.

Is it simply because animals' behavior is more easily predicted and controlled than independent human behavior?

Is it because impulsive, self indulgent people make great shoppers and more prolific rapists?

Is it because people who have no self control tend to be more "criminally" active and thus more revenue producing for law enforcement and the state?

posted January 19, 2008 09:29 AM         

That's how it's supposed to work.

We're all learning or at least experiencing something as we go along; it's sort of like a potluck or smorgasbord of ideas. We can each choose the pieces that fit, pass up those that don't. The trick is to not get too attached to them when they're sitting up here on the table..and to not talk about someone else's offering in a derogatory manner.

I think we all understand that each person has their own notion of merit. Well, that means we're all likely to form different opinions and perspectives.

Certainly the hope is that the more "overall" merit an idea has, the more of us will choose it.But that's always up to each of us to decide alone.

Sometimes people get that backwards, thinking that the more people that are convinced of an idea, the more merit it has. So the arguments ensue.

In the end, there isn't much to argue about since you can't really convince anyone of anything. Especially not by yelling at them or cutting down their ideas. That just causes most people to put up defenses.

The best we can do, is offer what we have..and hope it makes a difference.
(Or at least makes us feel better!)

So far this has been one of the more pleasant threads I've been involved in lately that had any substance.

It's turning out to be a worthwhile investment of time.

Who knows if we'll find any answers, but certainly the sharing of ideas between strangers without conflict seems return enough.

daf

posted January 19, 2008 09:32 AM         

And..Yea! What about a comparison between Natural Law and Human Law? Perhaps it's the areas where Human Law diverges from Natural Law that creates any issues that may (or may not)exist.

And did we ever come up with any examples of a minimal set of laws?

Has someone said "Treat people the way you'd like to be treated"? Would karma provide Law Enforcement in such a society?

posted January 19, 2008 12:02 PM         

"I also think that given a choice between the Law of Nature and the Law of Humans, most people would choose the Law of Humans."

posted January 19, 2008 04:24 PM         

At one time, there was some guy, the King or the Priest or the Chief or the Judge who would really (hopefully) look at each case, and apply the law equitably (hopefully) in each case.

So if the law said "let all who willfully defile the river die", they might make an exception for the guy who was being chased by killer bees..even though he willfully entered the river.

Nowadays it seems to me like "the letter of the law" has become a lazy (or pressured) moderator's answer to making decisions.

And this has gone down (or maybe it's come up) through the ranks of our society, until now the janitor will watch you squirm if he's a jerk, because policy tells him to keep you out of the restroom while he's performing maintenance.

Heck as long as the words fit..that's all that matters.

"But that's why we have abuse and harassment laws, right?"

Not satisfied with this..our solution to getting rid of these "policy abusers", is to create MORE policies that will be mindlessly enforced.

("My hands are tied by the letter of the law," says the judge, "I wish that they weren't.") What is that? Does it make sense? I dunno...just thinking out loud.

Perhaps I'm naive. I've been known to be excessively hopeful at times. Apparently that's possible, but I'm still not convinced.

posted January 19, 2008 05:31 PM         

Is Human Law covering hidden social problems behind forced behavior? Just questions. Got any thoughts on the subject? Lot's of people have posed different questions and presented different ideas. Pick your pleasure A.G.

posted January 20, 2008 05:19 PM         

quote:

---

Is Human Law covering hidden social problems behind forced behavior?

---

I've already stated that my opinion is that an anarchistic society would soon move to lawfulness.

posted January 20, 2008 06:21 PM         

I totally understand what you're saying about the wisdom of people. But we're not talking necessarily about the wise anymore. In many cases we're talking about the "goal oriented" or the "horribly isolated." We've put so much faith in numbers and figures and studies, that they seem to substitute for experience and real world exposure in our legislatures.

I know sometimes its a matter of..efficiency. But efficiency and isolation have NEVER made for wise decisions. Ever. Our leaders need more than just photo op visits to problem areas and reams of paper describing the problem. Until that happens, these laws are going to have less and les to do with "wisdom" and more and more to do with control.

It's like when I was doing software engineering. There are folks who intentionally protect their jobs because they know they're incompetent.

Great input so far. Give it a shot. Throw your two cents out there without specifics if you get the inspiration to do so. That's how this works. It's awesome. Thanks.

posted January 20, 2008 10:47 PM         

Brilliant, I absolutely agree.

I like everything everyone else said too, but that rang loud with truth. Well said.

posted January 21, 2008 12:55 AM         

You seem to have hit the nail on the head when you said, "We decided to hold on more tightly."

Control seems to be the reason for all of this EXTRA law. Hmm lots to think about. I'd like to add more tomorrow. Thanks everyone. Awesome ideas..awesome energy.

posted January 21, 2008 02:40 AM         

quote:

---

How else can anyone explain the explosion of Homeownwers Associations whose rulings are almost always upheld by courts of law?

---