Laws/Rules

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

There are a lot of people who seem to have a major dislike of any kind of rules or laws, anything that limits them in any way, shape or form. I have to say I just completely don't get this idea. It's a total mystery to me why anyone would think like this.

How about anyone out there who thinks like this proving to me that absence of all laws and rules would be a good thing for society? I'd like to see the train of thought, the logic behind the attitude. Are you an anarchist? Show me how anarchy is a good thing for everyone, that it would be a beneficial thing for society as a whole. How it would benefit everyone from the baby in the cradle to the old retired couple living on a fixed income, and everyone in between. Be prepared to have your arguments, not you, torn apart though. I'll want to explore your reasoning pretty thoroughly as I would like to understand this.

 

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

Are you training in pshycology or something?

 

Interesting. We all live in nations/societies that impose laws on its citizens such as how fast we can drive in a school zone or where people can smoke cigarettes. In democratic societies, these laws (at least in theory) are ultimately the will of the majority of the citizens themselves and exist for the protection of the majority. I don't know anyone who'd like to live in total anarchy where anyone on the street could just come up to you and shoot you without any sort of consequence or protection. If I hear a prowler in my house at 2 a.m., I'm calling the police.

 

Thousands of years ago we would have lived without laws and rules. The fact that we have evolved into what we have, shows that we need these rules. Every nation on earth have their own laws and government. It's a neccessity.

The Mad Max Trilogy springs to mind as a scenario of society living in anarchy.
I haven't seen these films for a while, but from what I remember there was still a hierarchy within the clans; a natural progression perhaps, whether it's for good or evil.

"The need's of the many, outweigh the need's of the few" - Mr Spock.

 

The political philosophy of anarchism, rather than its tabloid representation (including its representation by people who call themselves anarchists but who are really 'tabloid' anarchists), is what lies behind much of the free software movement Freddy.

It isn't so much the absence of rules or laws, but rather that any such rules are mutually agreed upon by everyone equally, and in a dynamic way so that they are not 'inherited' or imposed and can be changed at any time. A good model to look at in this regard is Summerhill School in England. The school has no set rules: each year new school rules are developed and agreed on by the children in equality with staff, at regular meetings. There is an initial chaos, after which things eventually settle down into an ordered routine, although that routine can be very different to that of an ordinary school. The students learn the consequences of their choices, learn about responsibility etc. It is hugely challenging, especially emotionally. The authorities hate it - but the vast majority of children who come through it are more socially well-adjusted than those who pass through ordinary schools.

The expected unfortunate consequence of anarchism, the release of violent impulses in selfish individuals like trip's imagined murderous prowler, in fact isn't anarchism's major weakness. It is its inability to withstand organised tyranny and entrenched privilege. And human laziness. Murderous individuals exist in a 'lawful' society - and having more and more laws isn't necessarily a protection against that - as we know from our history studies of 20th century totalitarianisms. The laws which keep us safest are often those that protect us from the state itself.

Open source software is another pretty good example of anarchy in action, and studying its strengths and weaknesses will give you a lot of insights into those of anarchism too.

 

IMO we do need laws to protect society from destroying itself, however there are laws which imo that are created only to serve polaticians and the people in high places (i.e making them richer).

I have a great problem with the speed camera issue in this country, we now have average speed distance cameras they calculate the average speed of your car between 2 points and if its over the set limit you get fined.

I am a member of the institute of advanced motorists, imo speed does not kill its inappropriate driving you can quite easily drive at 80mph on a dry dual carriage way but only if traffick conditions allow but we get fined because of stupid laws.

Another law I have problem with is now you have to be 18 in this country to buy cigarettes but you can have sex at 16 this does not make sense to me.

The police in this country a bogged down in red tape because of the stupid pc brigade, the sooner political correctness is stopped or calmed down a bit then maybe the police will stop targeting motorists and get the real criminals.

EDIT: yes I agree with Ken, if anyone came into my house to rob it, I would not hesitate to get them out even if it meant them dying in the process.

 

Trip pretty much hit at what I was trying to say. And, I'd say my referral to anarchy, at least as a political instrument was not really where I was wanting to go with this.

Where I wanted to go with this is more related to moral laws and the like. It seems as if every time anything is brought up about religion there are several people who immediately, no matter what the relationship to the actual subject of the thread, who jump in and say they really dislike religion because it has rules, and no one has the right to tell them anything, or even suggest ways, or philosophies of, life that include rules for personal conduct.

This is what I don't get. The very suggestion that no one can tell me how to live means I have made that a rule in my life. My very objection to all rules is, in fact, a rule, as I want to impose it on anyone who says anything to me, or even if something remotely related to rules is mentioned. I want my rule of no rules enforced.

This seems very counter-productive and non-intuitive to me. Rules are what makes life livable for everyone, even those who don't like rules. It's like the criminal who taunts the police by saying, Hah, Hah, you have to follow the rules, and I don't. The very fact that he appeals to the rules means he understands why they are there, and how they protect even him. In the next breath he will say how he hates rules. Huh? I simply don't get it. He hates the concept of even those things which protect him from getting caught and punished. This leaves me just shaking my head in amazement.

Why are rules, even those which can be shown to protect us from very negative consequences in our lives, seen as bad, as limiting, and as something which should be pretty much universally rejected? Is it that rules have always been taught to people as ways to keep people away from something, rather than as ways to protect them from results that will make their lives much harder?

Take the Christian commandments as an example. Lots of people don't like them. They say they don't want anyone telling them what to do. Yet, the Christian commandments say that other people shouldn't lie to you, shouldn't cheat you or steal from you, shouldn't sleep with your wife, that your children should honor you, and that no one should take your life away from you by murdering you. I look at all of these rules, and I cannot find anything I object to. Even when I was living in a drug-induced state I didn't want someone sleeping with my wife, lying to me, stealing from me, etc.... My life was much better when those kinds of behaviors didn't happen to me. I don't see a single negative consequence from those rules. I simply can't find one. For anyone. If you see some, then show them to me. Enlighten me.

The Golden Rule is basically the summation of of the principles at stake in the 10 commandments. Hey, don't do anything to anyone else that you don't want done to you. Wow. Does anyone really claim that their lives would be worse if everyone lived by that? If so, speak up. I want to hear how your life would be made worse if everyone lived by a rule that said that. Explain it to me. Point-by-point. I really want to understand your line of reasoning.

The way I see rules is that they are there for a reason, at least all just rules are. I'm not saying there are unjust rules that protect only the few at the expense of the many. I think rejecting all rules though just because there are some unjust ones is simply faulty reasoning, not really thinking things through and as a result generalizing too broadly.

 

I'm surprised to hear you say that Freddy.
After all, you've been outspoken in the past about things like the MS EULA and such.
I'd classify an agreement as a 'rule' to be followed.

I had you down as being somebody who doesn't like things that limit them in any way, shape or form.

Just goes to show how wrong you can be...

 

It's not against the law to use reasonable force on someone who has broken into your house. Once you go beyond that line though, you become a criminal yourself and I have no problem with the law making this distinction. We are after all living in a society were there are rules and you can't just become a vigalante because someone has decided to break into your house.

 

In defense of those who are secular but who do support a society of laws, the major perceived difference between society's laws and laws of the Bible for instance is that the former is seen as the will of the people (and thus the people have some sort of control over what laws are enacted) and the latter is seen as a set of rules that the people had no say in creating or enacting and have no ability to appeal or change in any way. From a secular point of view, the laws of the Bible appear to have been created by a dictator who states, "It's my way or the highway".

Putting that into perspective, those of us who have chosen to come under the laws of the Bible have..."chosen". That is, we've seen what those laws are, believe we understand the intent behind those laws, and willingly agree to accept those laws upon ourselves. G-d is seen not as a dictator but rather as a loving parent who enacts laws for our protection.

The problem we have as human beings is that, under democratic rule, we at least have the understanding (or perhaps the illusion) that we have a hand in the laws we agree to obey and can vote to change those laws if we want to. We see ourselves as co-authors of the law making process so it makes it easier to comply with those laws. In terms of the laws of the Bible, we agree to accept our role as the subject of those laws and that we are not equal in any sense to the Creator. We have to give up the idea that we have total control over our lives and that only we know what is in our own best interests.

I think that's the sticking point for a lot of people on this issue. To quote Milton (actually, I got this off an episode of Star Trek), Lucifer says as he's about to be thrown into the pit, "It is better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven".

While people may argue as to whether life here is "hell on earth" or not, the sentiment applies. People are built to want to "rule" as opposed to "serve"...especially if that "service" is seen as imposed from the outside and that we have no apparent say about the conditions of that service.

 

I'm a believer in rules and laws.

Yet, I'm sure I share with all of you the occasional feeling of 'hang on, he's breaking the rules, ending up better than me, and not being punished.'
I guess that's because I don't have a religious twist on things where I can justify it by 'we will all get our just rewards in heaven'.

On the other hand, our laws say you can drive at 70 on motorways.
Gosh, I drive at 80, or even 85 - so straight away that makes me a hypocrite.

Of course, as a sci-fi fan, it raises the question - what would the World be like if everyone followed the rules without exception?
Equilibrium?

So on a daily basis, I believe that the world would be a better place if we followed The Rules.

But a slightly more philosophical side of me thinks that mankind has made some of (if not all of) our advances by not sticking to rules.

We'd all still maintain that the world was flat, for a start.


Or if we take the religious spin, weren't we forbidden to eat the apples in the garden of eden?
And we did.

Was that a good move, or a bad one?

 

If I hear a prowler in my house at 2 a.m., I'm grabbing the nearest weapon I can find.

I won't go attacking people outside the confines of my property... but once an intruder invades the privacy of my home, I must defend the lives of my family.

 

This is a straw-man thread: create a premise, that no-one on this forum has ever actually stated, and then ask for it to be defended.

I'm getting a little tired of threads that seem more like gambits for religious proselytising rather than genuine enquiries.

 

Then don't read them. Nobody is forcing you to.

 

Don't start them. Nobody is forcing you to.

 

1) Anyone can start any message they want, provided it doesn't break the forum rules.

2) I don't start them, so you're speaking to the wrong person.

 

Wouldn't it be great if we could have a discussion in one of these "philosophical" threads and no one got their nose bent out of shape?