How law works and why it does not.

[Khethil]

Originally Posted by Fido

The question I have for you is: what are the long term benefits, and what are the draw backs of law? To my perception, people can have peace and enough prosperty with little law. Why the need for such an abundance? And, some peoples, like the Muslims believe people have an absolute right to justice. People overly concerned with justice never grow too wealthy, nor know too much of peace. The peace we know in our society is often beside much injustice.

Good question with almost no right answer; complex and convoluted. To take a mass of *individuals* and set hard-and-fast rules is to walk one very thorny path. But we kind of need to, don't we?

I believe it self-evident (given the context) that you're speaking of laws established within a 'state'. Without going off on a tangent on one single aspect of what you said or flying off the handle on the terms you use (which some others appear to have done), I believe its simple: These laws are humans attempt at structuring individual conduct to live within a collection. Yes; they get befuddled. No; they don't fit everyone's conception of 'fair'. Corruption and greed are very real ubiquitous companions (as is the *appearance* of corruption and greed where none existed). I think it most-important we remain mindful of not assuming too much - like making the mistake of attributing our perceptions of someone's motives where no basis for this exists.

I also believe that the more laws a society implements, the more convoluted and contradictory (and thus unenforceable) they become. Ironic, isn't it? Try to be more thorough and a collection of people end up with just the opposite effect. Don't institute laws and society has no recourse for actions detrimental to the populace. Do institute laws and you'll inevitably step on someone's toes. Ow!

There's a host of problems with this whole process endemic to the human animal: Differences in concepts of justice, individuals' perception of fairness, how many laws are too much, vast differences in personal values that - to many - rise to the need of 'law', etc., etc. But almost no collection of humans has any chance for peace, prosperity and the requisite amount of liberty without them. So we urk through as best we can. Show me any system of laws and I'll show you its flaws - show me any society without laws and its pain would be undeniable to even the most-blind. Justice is a concept we made up (read; vengeance), as is fairness (Read: 'I'll get what I deserve'). These exist in innumerable variations depending on who's doing the talking.

I believe a legal system that could apply to all people is conceivably possible, but remains elusive given the vast differentiation we have in individual values. Given this, any 'successful' system would necessarily rely on the willingness of the individual to subordinate their views, values and liberty. And this is a bitter pill to swallow indeed

[urangutan]

Fido there are very, very few places that have established peace with law. There are fewer places still that have kept that peace

[Fido]

Originally Posted by urangutan

Fido there are very, very few places that have established peace with law. There are fewer places still that have kept that peace

Since most of our law springs from failed societies maybe we should ask why we bother unless we act with the presumption that law is not what cause them to fail. Again, I think the answer is supplied by Abelard who said that Justice is the genus, and law was a species of it. If it is not Justice, it is not technically law, but coercion. If you can force a person into peace without giving him justice you have sabotaged the social contract. It is not the common law breakers who destroy the meaning and value of law, but those who make law to make what should be illegal legal for the benefit of their class or their persons. For this reason I like what the Germans and the French call law, and that is: Right, because what is law should also be right, and people should examine all the rules they live by for the right there defined. It is so unfortunate that in reading forensic quotations, that one often finds in English Law which is the father of American law, a fact; the fact that justice is not a first or even routine consideration of law, but precident and practice and the act itself. No judge can consider on his own the justice at issue, and that is wrong, and ultimately means that justice is reactionary, not supporting the people in their needs, but supporting the institutions of law and government apart from what should be their prime purpose: Justice.
There was another, and previous reply which I cannot answer due to time. Please forgive, and I will return.

[Holiday20310401]

How does creative intelligence mean to try to get back to singularity. The way I see it creativity is variation which is more like a gradient, not a singularity

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

How does creative intelligence mean to try to get back to singularity. The way I see it creativity is variation which is more like a gradient, not a singularity

This post makes me think there is something wrong with my hearing aid and I don't wear one. Thanks.