How law works and why it does not.

[Fido]

We have more people per capita in the system than ever before in history. We have more rich people who are fabulously rich than ever before. Law makes this possible since peace is required for trade and the accumulation of wealth. And it takes a great deal of wealth production to support both prisoner and the wealthy. But Law breaks down communities because the need for group control, group responsibility, and group defense and vengeance is seen as past. Yet, the power of law is possible because no one can stand alone against the power of the state, and yet all are forced to. The rise of the individual follows the power of the church in the middle ages. That age had a tremenous focus on legality, and since they resurrected the laws of Justinian they needed Greek philosophy to follow the logic, and understand them. There is no question that wealth and capital grew under the umbrella of law, just as law protects trade and property today. 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. Yet, if we do not always have justice because we can freely pursue it with violence, that does not mean the need is gone with the power to enforce it. Where the people are powerless and justice is not within reach it is certain they will need war and seek war for an outlet for their frustrations.

[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

[boagie]

I only have one question,what is the absolute which is in the process of self-realization?

[Fido]

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

Let me agree with you that when a formulation of behavior is arrived at concerning the natural world, what we would call a LAW, then it is illogical to consider any other happening. It is illogical to think an object, when dropped will fall up.
On the other hand, laws of a social nature tend to be constructed from a formulation of human behavior, and how a desired end might be arrived at from threats, admonitions, incentives, or punishments. Even if a moral purpose is desired, one should still ask: how moral is the desire to bend people to a certain will. We know the penal system is based upon a false psychology holding a well and happy person as an ideal. If you threaten a normal person you may get a desired form of behavior. If you threaten some one already brutalized by life the response may be entirely unexpected. You might better ask, is the penal system designed to get the law abiding to continue on that course, or to right the violent, or anti social. I think it is more about making the good feel good than about making the bad feel bad. It is too difficult to make a person feel wrong when they have been wronged than if they had never been wronged.

Law like every individual thing is a form of relationship. Does it work? Does it not justify so much of what we hate to avoid what we fear? Let me offer you a terrible violent crime: Child abuse. It makes us feel good to put the criminals of this crime away for long stretches of time. What -if this results in a single child being killed because a criminal wants to escape capture when capture means life in jail. Is it ever worth it? Is it worth it to the one who dies? With time almost any pain or injury can be recovered from. Death is the exception, and is it worth it to society to punish with severity if that makes the criminal more brutal, more dangerous, and more careful? In the ideal, both criminal and society forgive each other, and get on with their lives. We see increasingly that every criminal is getting the mark of Cain, so that while none may injure him none need help him. Felons can be denied employment, and denied their vote. Are they not rehabilitated, restored to honor? If not; what are they doing free at all. Are they cut loose only to prove their freedom a failure?

[l0ck]

the absolute itself is basically existance
it is everything and all inclusive existance that expresses itself of infinitely and finite magnitudes
the absolute must express itself in every possible variation of expression good and bad
including the expression of self-realization
but it seems to learn by fooling itself basically
its a negentropic process
it seporates itself into finite magnitudes in order to achieve self awareness of its completeness
like you cannot know love without hate
or u cannot know light without dark
all aspects of the absolute are qualitative
we can start with any one quality and lead to the other
we can tell it expresses itself through energy and non-energy, energy having quality, both energy and quality are measurable
non-energy expressions are not measurable
non-energy expressions like cohesion hold energy in the form of mass, giving it quality, which is measurable
the finite environment around us is all energy
each brain just interprets its mass uniquely
the absolute expresses itself with an infinite number of awareness centers known as monads
monads are not of time-space, they exist in the infinite magnitude
every living thing can contain any number of monads
but there is only 1 host monad in each living thing
the monads become aware by absorbing qualities released by mass, which are literally pieces of the absolute, interpreted as mass and given manifestation in the brain
and together they form the complete awareness of the absolute eventually
in order for absolute expression to exist a finite magnitude must also exist separated into pieces and that is us right now, this is separation and effluxion of time
it is how the absolute exists eternally
through constant discovery and expression
monads are purely qualitative awareness centers whos purpose is to become aware and completely aware by use of the creative intelligence
and thats what we are doing
god i think is the absolute
the creative intelligence is why things happen though. it commands energy
energy gets absorbed by monads because of the creative intelligence
the creative intelligence is basically the decision maker and it is the reason anything happens
each time the universe is born a creative intelligence is born, a collective consciousness
once all time-space energy is absorbed by the creative intelligence it becomes one and starts all over again with another universe and another expression
the creative intelligences purpose is to get back to singularity
but it happens over a period of time, the illusion of separation of the absolute

[Fido]

See: Anthropomorphism.

[Didymos Thomas]

The question I have for you is: what are the long term benefits, and what are the draw backs of law?

This depends upon the nature of the law. I share your concerns with law and injustice. Wasn't law supposed to promote justice?
I think the problem is that law has lost sight of it's intent - this is an easy diagnosis. What is difficult is identifying the errors within the law that lead to the failure (which may even be the law itself).

One distinction I find useful is one of property, the difference between legally preserved ownership, and the possession of property. What right has a man to some property, let us imagine a plot of land, if he has no use for the land? If he does not work the land with his own hands? Here, I believe, we find the problem of law. This land, only known to the owner for it's revenue and loss, is worked by hired men. These hirelings do all of the work, yet everywhere in our society they receives the most meager portion of it's produce. What natural right to this land can the proprietor claim?

The law upholds and defends the unnatural ownership of property. As property is stored away by the few, the many have less to go around. Hardly a soul owns his home; the supposedly advanced nations of the world are nations of renters, men who live perpetually in debt. They work today to pay today's bills, and will work tomorrow for tomorrow's debts. At the end of his life, he will leave a little money if he is lucky; most will leave still more debts, for which the law demands the children bear responsibility.

You may be interested in looking into some of Proudhon's work. Some of his books can be found online for free.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

This depends upon the nature of the law. I share your concerns with law and injustice. Wasn't law supposed to promote justice?
I think the problem is that law has lost sight of it's intent - this is an easy diagnosis. What is difficult is identifying the errors within the law that lead to the failure (which may even be the law itself).

Yes, and as I may have said earlier, Law is a form of relationship. I have an excellent book called Law and Revolution, the formation of the Western Legal Tradition, by Harold J. Berman which won an award as the best book of its sort in 1984. If that seems old, the subject is old and the book is very much in print. In any event, the sources of our law, the Bible, German Tribal Law, Roman Law, and Cannon Law are all relics of a bygone age, and we see everyday its progeny in its dotage. More than any form we deal with, Law exercises its grip on all our affairs from cradle to grave. I think it is The Problem, more than any other problem we face. When our politicians say: We are a nation of laws they are missing the point that all Nations must have some other glue to bind them besides ancient rules and privilages. And what does it matter when the President can say: I am the Law. The tower of power has become so shaky that none on the top dares to rock and roll in a test of the law he commands. So, ultimately the question comes down to this: Is the law above our ability to change, or must we all be changed by it? Why we seek forms in our lives is obvious. We want to build stability into our societies, and relationships. Does it work in the instance of law if we must all have a lawyer in our pockets before we dare to talk to our neighbors?

One distinction I find useful is one of property, the difference between legally preserved ownership, and the possession of property. What right has a man to some property, let us imagine a plot of land, if he has no use for the land? If he does not work the land with his own hands? Here, I believe, we find the problem of law. This land, only known to the owner for it's revenue and loss, is worked by hired men. These hirelings do all of the work, yet everywhere in our society they receives the most meager portion of it's produce. What natural right to this land can the proprietor claim?

In the area of property I would classify it all that is not personal property or intellectual property as a privilege. Republics are common wealths. This whole country was brought into being by Capture. This whole country either belongs to all the people or to the rich only so long as they can hold it. Now; can we say in every case that the people should not directly benefit from what is our common property? I say: The property should pay its way in private hands, and show a public benefit. When property paid for the government of this country, as we were constituted, then, the need for labor to improve and make the property profitable made labor dear and property cheap. With labor bearing the cost of society, property can be a bank of wealth condensing into fewer and fewer hands while the price of labor is always pressed to its lowest point. Property has so much political power in this country because it was supposed to pay its way. Now it has power without obligation to any but itself.

The law upholds and defends the unnatural ownership of property. As property is stored away by the few, the many have less to go around. Hardly a soul owns his home; the supposedly advanced nations of the world are nations of renters, men who live perpetually in debt. They work today to pay today's bills, and will work tomorrow for tomorrow's debts. At the end of his life, he will leave a little money if he is lucky; most will leave still more debts, for which the law demands the children bear responsibility.

You may be interested in looking into some of Proudhon's work. Some of his books can be found online for free.

So, I have already agreed with you. It is unnatural. Propertyis never private unless personal. Rather, anyone who can be a good steward of wealth should be allowed to make more of it, understanding that wealth, whenit represents power for one and poverty for another cannot be allowed to become our heritage. Equality is essential to a democracy. Inequality of wealth and power can everywhere be shown to result in injustice and inequalites of rights, and political inequalities. Today, those who own all the property neither defend the land nor pay for its defense. Today, those who have nothing to show from this country, who own no part of this country must support it and risk their lives in its defense. Law is like any other form of relationship. Every form can be manipulated to ones benefit until it loses meaning completely as a relationship. That is where we are in this nation of laws. They do not follow law on the top. Why should anyone follow law on the bottom?

I think I should like to read Proudhon's: The Poverty of Philosophy. Certainly, the title in itself is an argument few can refute. If philosophy dared to challenge the status quo, perhaps more people would be willing. Nothing on earth is worse than a problem unresolved and left to fester or grow worse. If we understand we are dealing with a simple form, just as Jefferson said: "forms to which they are accustomed", then what does it take to approach the problem like any other; To say: people have always changed forms all the time when better suited their purpose. The problem is well illustrated by The declaration of Independence. Even as an act of grand larceny, of the theft of rights en masse from the king and country of England; it is still presented as a legal brief. The ultra, and over arching form of law was one no one dared to live without. But it is just a form. It is just a social machine long past due for a rebuild. And, most of its premises should be tossed out whole. This little dog is hiking his leg up against the tower of power. I suggest you do the same.

[Didymos Thomas]

In any event, the sources of our law, the Bible, German Tribal Law, Roman Law, and Cannon Law are all relics of a bygone age, and we see everyday its progeny in its dotage.

I'm not sure where you are from, though, most law in the US comes from English common law, with the exception of Louisiana which is derived from French code. Either way, the bodies of law you mention certainly influenced these systems. As for the book, I'm not familiar with it, though I have to wonder if Mr. Berman brought up this point: law changes constantly. Certainly, our laws can be traced back to ancient and more primitive systems, but these systems have radically changed. Law is always changing, and changing to meet the demands of the modern world. We see this happening in a very visible way with laws regarding the internet.
Even though our systems can be traced back to systems which are without question antiquated, our systems seem to be able to meet the demands of the chaning world.

More than any form we deal with, Law exercises its grip on all our affairs from cradle to grave.

Law is influential in our lives, yes, but how significant? In the case of laws which limit individual liberty, such laws certainly are out of place. But are the legal ramifications of murder and theft really so intrusive on our lives?

When our politicians say: We are a nation of laws they are missing the point that all Nations must have some other glue to bind them besides ancient rules and privilages.

Politicians suck.

And what does it matter when the President can say: I am the Law.

Especially tyrants.

Is the law above our ability to change, or must we all be changed by it? Why we seek forms in our lives is obvious. We want to build stability into our societies, and relationships. Does it work in the instance of law if we must all have a lawyer in our pockets before we dare to talk to our neighbors?

And this is why my first response in this post is so important. Don't get me wrong, I abhor our legal system. Within it exists an untold number of unjustices, many so extreme the stories can make you break down in tears. I have been arrested, jailed, tried and convicted for a crime which I do not believe to be criminal. I have had my share of injustice from our system. However, just because our system is not perfect, does not mean that the general notion of law which exists is more harmful than beneficial.

Remember, the system changes everyday. People change it. We are both people.

In the area of property I would classify it all that is not personal property or intellectual property as a privilege.

What do you consider personal? The craftsman's workshop? The farmers field, barn and pigs? The millionaire's jet? A family's home?

Rather, anyone who can be a good steward of wealth should be allowed to make more of it, understanding that wealth, whenit represents power for one and poverty for another cannot be allowed to become our heritage.

Who has use of the excess of wealth?
Who is a good steward of wealth, and in society, who should make such a decision? Certainly, there must be some method for deciding if some will be allowed to make more of it based on such a decision.
Can wealth be accumulated without causing poverty for another?

That is where we are in this nation of laws. They do not follow law on the top. Why should anyone follow law on the bottom?

In this nation? Yes. And just as well, often worse in every other nation in history.

I think I should like to read Proudhon's: The Poverty of Philosophy. Certainly, the title in itself is an argument few can refute.

I recomend it. I much prefered his libertarian socialism to the marxist literature.

If philosophy dared to challenge the status quo, perhaps more people would be willing.

Has philosophy done much else other than challenge the status quo? Even when some philosophy becomes the status quo, some other comes along to combat the establishment. Socrates was executed, and he was far from the last thinker to be persecuted for challenging authority on philosophical matters.

The problem is well illustrated by The declaration of Independence. Even as an act of grand larceny, of the theft of rights en masse from the king and country of England; it is still presented as a legal brief. The ultra, and over arching form of law was one no one dared to live without.

Of course it was a legal brief. Jefferson was a legislator, and the declaration of independence is a legal declaration - that these people will make laws for their own posterity and no longer be ruled by the laws of England. 'No taxation without representation' was the battlecry, the people had enough of England's laws.

It is just a social machine long past due for a rebuild. And, most of its premises should be tossed out whole.

And what do you consider to be the outdated premises? Even Confucius found value in having law.

This little dog is hiking his leg up against the tower of power. I suggest you do the same.

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism"
- Thomas Jefferson

[Fido]

Just a quick reply with more later, perhaps. I will agree that England's laws, for the most part, became ours; but was it only common law? Blackstone is quoted as giving the sources of English law thus: Natural law, divine law, international law, ecclesiastical law, Roman law, law merchant, local customs, common law, statute law, and equity. Appearantly Burke commented against the current of English thought that there was much of Medieval law in English law. talk later, thanks.