How law works and why it does not.

[Didymos Thomas]

I do like history.

Marx came very close to saying what I say in saying Capital is a relation; while I would call it a form of relationship.

What's the difference?

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

I do like history.



What's the difference?

Well, while this may truly be said of capital, I believe if it is said correctly it sheds much more light on all human relationships. Now, in the case of Marx, what he said was like an objective judgement based upon a great deal of study. If we see capital as a formal form of relationship it is revealed as being a part of a great class of forms which are all forms of relationship. Apart from a value judgement on a form of relationship like slavery; if it can be seen a form purely, then the human relationships within can be seen objectively for what they are. So, if I say all forms (ideas, as can be concieved) are also forms of relationship then, as a common denominator in all relationships they can be excluded in any relationship. On the other hand, in any form of relationship, if one can exclude the relationship as without form then the form may be seen clearly for what it is. To try to look at both together form and relationship the variety alone is confusing. Marriage is a form of relationship. What can we tell of the form by looking at one marriage? Not much. Add ten, and then what can you tell of marriages? Again, more but still little. Excluding the relationship in any form, the form can be studied comparatively with other like forms. Then, excluding the form which gives it structure, marriages can be examined purely as relationships, and judgements can be made as to what works or fails in all relationships.

Now, to exclude the relationship from the form is not really possible. Some relationships are all form, and little personal relationship. Some forms are very informal, being mostly personal relationship without structure. Ultimately, the lesson I draw is not just the obvious one, that all forms are forms of relationship, but that each relationship is more formal as it is less relationship, and that at one period of time the relationship dominates and at other times the form dominates, that, this is true of forms of governments as forms of relationship, and that over formalization is the destruction of relationships. Invariable when something like capital no longer answers human needs so much as presents human problems, the answer becomes that: it is what it is and it cannot be changed. That is forms, because forms resist change, and are an attempt at stability. In the case of government we can see how this formalism is expressed in megalythic structures that literally shout to the skies that they will not be changed. If they cannot change they will neither serve a human purpose nor survive as a form. In fact they may destroy us in the process. And we should ask: is it really in the best interest of this people to be at their own throats with hatred because the other is seen as intransigent? The intransigence is in the form.

(here I will offer an observation made by some unknown on the Bourbon kings of France; that the learned nothing, and forgot nothing.

To change forms does not take that much, little effort, and much understanding. Even the worst forms serve some body's interest, and they defend the form, and this creates violence. To actually change the form means to reject it, and begin again. It can be like a disappointed husband jumping into the car to go for a bottle of wine, a loaf of bread, and thou; and never going back. We are only lost if feeling powerless before the form. It is the relationship that makes the form real, and gives it meaning. If the form can be cruel and mean to those within it is a demonstration of its dependence upon the people for its being.

Read the declaration of independence for a statement of forms.

[Wizzy]

Originally Posted by l0ck

i know when you refer to "law" you refer to man made laws, but let me bring up another point first, and hopefully you can try to make a connection
law is everywhere
it moves the planets and the stars
everything is subject to natural laws
the absolute even abides by its own laws in order to create opposition
when an event seems miraculous, it is because the operative laws are not part of the contemporary conventional wisdom. The Absolute is subject to the imperatives of its own laws.
another words, the absolute makes up obstacles of itself in order to further its self realization
opposition is a way of learning
opposition allows us as spiritual beings to absorb quality and learn
the more difficult the obstacle the greater the reward in terms of quality or experience
to me laws are apart of conflict and opposition and are apart of the negentropic process the absolute uses to develop and augment itself

The difference between man made laws and natures laws (like the once you mentioned) is simply that man made laws are made to hold people back (as you said with obstacles) but that we can function and live without them, what creates a law is simply that someone have decided that it's wrong. Now I'm not saying that stealing or murdering is wrong, cause it is but I'm just saying that man made laws are nothing but what another man have decided that you can not do. Which I have to say, is f:ed up. I mean, who the hell have the nerv to say that I can't decide for myself? Ofcourse alot of people can't, and then the laws are good to have in some cases, and in other cases, completley worthless.

Another thing that buges me about most if not all law systems are that they are designed not to protect civilians but to punish the people who have wronged the law. In other words, it's still every man for himself...

[Fido]

What we call a law is the same in the world of science as it is for the social world, and that is a formulation of behavior. If we throw it up we know it will fall, and we can count on it. We also formulize human behavior, and when we do this I think we miss the essence of social behavior, and that is the emotion of affection, and sympathy that bonds each person with another in peace and friendship. If we ignore the emotion, and control the behavior then the result is that those without love will use law for their advantage and undermine the emotionas attachment that really makes societies function. The law should be that people care for each other and bear no injustice, or exploitation. When law prevents justice in a small sense it permits injustice in every sense and should be discarded.

[Play_Dough]

Re: How law works and why it does not....

It does not (generally) matter what the law is or how that 'law' is applied.....
Why? Because the 'fail safe' for any ridiculous law or any application of law to any fact situation is THE JURY.
A jury does not need to account for itself. A jury can always refuse to convict (criminal action) or refuse to assign a monetary judgement (civil action).
If there is a problem with 'the law' then that problem rests with the composition of juries. It is juries (of our 'peers') that are enforcing problematic laws.

The 'law' (in the West) is simply a codification of philosophy!
If the public refuses to apply the law (via the jury system) then that law is discarded or made 'moot'.
So... if there is a problem with the law then the problem rests with our neighbors who populate the jury boxes.

The solution for 'bad laws' is for the jury to 'just say NO'!

.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Play_Dough

Re: How law works and why it does not....

It does not (generally) matter what the law is or how that 'law' is applied.....
Why? Because the 'fail safe' for any ridiculous law or any application of law to any fact situation is THE JURY.
A jury does not need to account for itself. A jury can always refuse to convict (criminal action) or refuse to assign a monetary judgement (civil action).
If there is a problem with 'the law' then that problem rests with the composition of juries. It is juries (of our 'peers') that are enforcing problematic laws.

The 'law' (in the West) is simply a codification of philosophy!
If the public refuses to apply the law (via the jury system) then that law is discarded or made 'moot'.
So... if there is a problem with the law then the problem rests with our neighbors who populate the jury boxes.

The solution for 'bad laws' is for the jury to 'just say NO'!

.

Jurys are given the principals upon which to decide the law, just as judges and lawyers. I would not doubt, that if they find strongly against the evidence that they may found in some sense in contempt. Ultimately it is for thewhole people to make the law and consent to the or they are not bound by it. You would never get me on a jury because on the basis of common sense I would not convict some who are technically guilty while I would convict others before a trial.
So how about you. Tell me of your travails. Where have you been?

[Play_Dough]

Originally Posted by Fido

Jurys are given the principals upon which to decide the law, just as judges and lawyers. I would not doubt, that if they find strongly against the evidence that they may found in some sense in contempt. Ultimately it is for thewhole people to make the law and consent to the or they are not bound by it. You would never get me on a jury because on the basis of common sense I would not convict some who are technically guilty while I would convict others before a trial.
So how about you. Tell me of your travails. Where have you been?

The jury is the ultimate decider. The 'power' is with the people. Evidence is irrelevant to unfair laws. The friendly neighbor who finally burned down a ghetto crack-house, after complaining to the police (who did nothing) over a three year period, can be found 'not guilty' by a jury. The jury does not have to explain its decision.

My 'travails'? ... Overcoming my rational mind (the mind of 'can't' and 'not'), which was the warehouse of my ego and its ridiculous preferences.
I have been to the 'end of time' only to discover my original 'starting place'. Beyond that, I am a mystery to myself.....

.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Play_Dough

The jury is the ultimate decider. The 'power' is with the people. Evidence is irrelevant to unfair laws. The friendly neighbor who finally burned down a ghetto crack-house, after complaining to the police (who did nothing) over a three year period, can be found 'not guilty' by a jury. The jury does not have to explain its decision.

My 'travails'? ... Overcoming my rational mind (the mind of 'can't' and 'not'), which was the warehouse of my ego and its ridiculous preferences.
I have been to the 'end of time' only to discover my original 'starting place'. Beyond that, I am a mystery to myself.....

.

I just checked in to see what condition my condition was in...

Ultimately when people will not obey the law because it is unjust, and juries (which is a very liberal accomodation of common law) will not convict them of crime, then the society is at a cross roads. The responsible actions of a few people isnot sufficient to save the whole country from injustice. Making law, and being bound by the law requires the assent and consent of the whole people. If you suffer a law that you never agreed to be bound to on the presumption that your presence here constitutes acceptence then you will not be alone in jail, and there will be more criminals out than in. It is just to have the final say in law, and to demand consensus. Look at congress passing laws, and presidents signing them because they are politically popular, or the lobby wants them; even when they know if they are challenged they will be found unconstituional. When you trade your honor for a vote, and desert your obligations for gain, and leave government to the caprice of the courts you are a traitor.

[urangutan]

Sadly, it is much easier to ammend laws that are wrong than to simply abolish them. It is at this juncture that confusion is played upon and the truth is toyed with, to avert, from the falsehoods.


Sorry if this point seems inapropriate at this stage, I had read the first page of this thread and did not realise there was more to follow. I will read up and see if I should ammend this view or at least apologize to any who may have covered this. I do think Fido was leading this way when I read the last post of page one.

Any Laws made today are for those who are lazy. The truth is that most of society is built from corruption.

Rattle the concept of a Boston Tea Party during Thanksgiving while listening to a Chinese pirated copy of your favorite music.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by urangutan

Sadly, it is much easier to ammend laws that are wrong than to simply abolish them. It is at this juncture that confusion is played upon and the truth is toyed with, to avert, from the falsehoods.


Sorry if this point seems inapropriate at this stage, I had read the first page of this thread and did not realise there was more to follow. I will read up and see if I should ammend this view or at least apologize to any who may have covered this. I do think Fido was leading this way when I read the last post of page one.

Any Laws made today are for those who are lazy. The truth is that most of society is built from corruption.

Rattle the concept of a Boston Tea Party during Thanksgiving while listening to a Chinese pirated copy of your favorite music.

I think a worse problem than amended laws is all the laws that are never used, but are a threat, like spitting in the street. Over all, the major problem is this: Once you have established peace with law there is nothing to stop anyone from manipulating law for their own benefit, and making laws which are unjust, and so rob the whole society of the basis of peace which is justice.