I took the liberty of pulling this quote from another thread, because I think the issue is important enough for it's own thread, and I didn't want to hijack the other. I could have gone in the Philosophy section, but I wanted a more contemporary discussion.
.
.
.
Nomad;629747 wrote: [...] Actually I was thinking about this and I realized the difference between us might be that I dont hold the law or at least all laws in high esteem. I obey the law because I found out I dont like jail much ...
I think laws are incredibly important, which is why I rail against stupid or abusive laws. I found this quote online (link provided): "Many people think the purpose of law is to promote justice. According to Bastiat, the purpose of law is to prevent injustice". That resonates for me. Laws should not be put in place to protect us from ourselves, but to protect us from others. Now, considering that "us" includes the "others" I refer to, laws ought to have a very tight line to walk to be put in place.
Unfortunately, too many people feel inconvenienced and yell for laws to make life more convenient. (I'd give examples, but I want to keep the focus on Law rather than specific laws. This conversation will deteriorate that way soon enough without my help.) Politicians, pandering to the people who keep them in power, are more than happy to sponsor bill after bill, enacting more and more laws to the point that hardly any get enforced anyway!
Laws should be as rare and as simple as humanly possible, imo. Also, like deadly weapons, they are far too dangerous to be handled carelessly.
What say you?
.
The Purpose of Law
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
The Purpose of Law
I do think laws should be written so the average person can understand them, and not filled with too much legal jargon.
Too many laws? Yes. They should be condensed, and get rid of the arcane versions that are no longer necessary.
Too many laws? Yes. They should be condensed, and get rid of the arcane versions that are no longer necessary.
The Purpose of Law
Too often when people rail against "stupid laws", they are in fact complaining about laws that inconvenience them personally. Laws should always be enacted and observed for the good of the society as a whole.
The Purpose of Law
NT and AF defy the laws of nature :-3 :-3
The Purpose of Law
jimbo;634580 wrote: NT and AF defy the laws of nature :-3 :-3
Yes! Let's go arrest them!
Oops. There is a burning sensation on the back of my neck that suggests my missus is in the room. Never mind...
Yes! Let's go arrest them!
Oops. There is a burning sensation on the back of my neck that suggests my missus is in the room. Never mind...
The Purpose of Law
jimbo;634580 wrote: NT and AF defy the laws of nature :-3 :-3
:wah: Hey Jimbo, are sure that your posts are taking up ENOUGH room on the screen - could you not have something bigger? :wah:
:wah: Hey Jimbo, are sure that your posts are taking up ENOUGH room on the screen - could you not have something bigger? :wah:
The Purpose of Law
I have a friend I have known for 23 years now, one day we were out driving around and he, out of the blue, made this statement, "Traffic signs are just suggestions". He is now almost finished with Law School he took a couple detours along the way to the clink. If a man needs consequences to keep him from doing something then he has already lost much of his humanity.
Life ain't linear.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
The Purpose of Law
chonsigirl;634544 wrote: I do think laws should be written so the average person can understand them, and not filled with too much legal jargon.
Interesting. Speaking generally, would you know what is against the law?
Interesting. Speaking generally, would you know what is against the law?
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
The Purpose of Law
Yes, I would. I write legal histories, and have had several published.
I am always encouraged to write them on a level the average person would be able to understand them.
I am always encouraged to write them on a level the average person would be able to understand them.
-
Patsy Warnick
- Posts: 4567
- Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:53 am
The Purpose of Law
Accountable
We have Laws for the Laws, although some were necessary the punishment or lack of - is what I'm disturbed with.
DUI's ( I know the serious consequences here & do not agree with, but majority have driven) my point
DUI's have a serious penalty(due to the smell of a beer) - yet a rapists walks
One can actually murder another - yet without 99% proof - they walk
There's several I could list
It's the penalty for the Laws I object to.
Patsy
We have Laws for the Laws, although some were necessary the punishment or lack of - is what I'm disturbed with.
DUI's ( I know the serious consequences here & do not agree with, but majority have driven) my point
DUI's have a serious penalty(due to the smell of a beer) - yet a rapists walks
One can actually murder another - yet without 99% proof - they walk
There's several I could list
It's the penalty for the Laws I object to.
Patsy
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
The Purpose of Law
I, Rob;634573 wrote: Too often when people rail against "stupid laws", they are in fact complaining about laws that inconvenience them personally. Laws should always be enacted and observed for the good of the society as a whole.
I take it you take exception to some of my former railing? I'll try to supress my feeling personally insulted and agree wholeheartedly with your second sentence.
My question to you is: Do you feel that, in America, laws should primarily be enacted as locally as possible, or should they mostly be federal laws?
I personally feel that Washington can't possibly write a single law that can simultaneously fairly address life in Quincy, Illinois; San Francisco, California; and Natchez, Mississippi.
I take it you take exception to some of my former railing? I'll try to supress my feeling personally insulted and agree wholeheartedly with your second sentence.
My question to you is: Do you feel that, in America, laws should primarily be enacted as locally as possible, or should they mostly be federal laws?
I personally feel that Washington can't possibly write a single law that can simultaneously fairly address life in Quincy, Illinois; San Francisco, California; and Natchez, Mississippi.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
The Purpose of Law
Patsy Warnick;634681 wrote: Accountable
We have Laws for the Laws, although some were necessary the punishment or lack of - is what I'm disturbed with.
DUI's ( I know the serious consequences here & do not agree with, but majority have driven) my point
DUI's have a serious penalty(due to the smell of a beer) - yet a rapists walks
One can actually murder another - yet without 99% proof - they walk
There's several I could list
It's the penalty for the Laws I object to.
Patsy
I think all the meddling by the legislature creating mandatory minimums are at the root of most of our problems with the judicial system. The branches were created to be separate for good reason. Making the "War on Drugs" a political toy took away judges' discretion to keep more violent criminals in jail (assign penalty to the law). Now judges (relatively) routinely create law out of thin air and personal opinion, rather than trusting the political legislative system to respond to public opinion.
It seems that checks & balances have been replaced with tit for tat.
We have Laws for the Laws, although some were necessary the punishment or lack of - is what I'm disturbed with.
DUI's ( I know the serious consequences here & do not agree with, but majority have driven) my point
DUI's have a serious penalty(due to the smell of a beer) - yet a rapists walks
One can actually murder another - yet without 99% proof - they walk
There's several I could list
It's the penalty for the Laws I object to.
Patsy
I think all the meddling by the legislature creating mandatory minimums are at the root of most of our problems with the judicial system. The branches were created to be separate for good reason. Making the "War on Drugs" a political toy took away judges' discretion to keep more violent criminals in jail (assign penalty to the law). Now judges (relatively) routinely create law out of thin air and personal opinion, rather than trusting the political legislative system to respond to public opinion.
It seems that checks & balances have been replaced with tit for tat.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
The Purpose of Law
KB.;634654 wrote: I have a friend I have known for 23 years now, one day we were out driving around and he, out of the blue, made this statement, "Traffic signs are just suggestions". He is now almost finished with Law School he took a couple detours along the way to the clink. If a man needs consequences to keep him from doing something then he has already lost much of his humanity.
There are always consequences to everything you do, but I think I know what you mean, and I agree. Simple courtesy would eliminate the need for most if not all law, if only everybody used it.
There are always consequences to everything you do, but I think I know what you mean, and I agree. Simple courtesy would eliminate the need for most if not all law, if only everybody used it.
The Purpose of Law
Accountable;634764 wrote: I take it you take exception to some of my former railing? I'll try to supress my feeling personally insulted and agree wholeheartedly with your second sentence.
No insult intended. The quotation marks used in my original reply were not specific to a statement of yours.
Accountable;634764 wrote: My question to you is: Do you feel that, in America, laws should primarily be enacted as locally as possible, or should they mostly be federal laws?
Certainly there will be circumstances regarding climate and/or topography that will have to be addressed by individual civic ordinances, but in the interest of fair and equitable protections the majority of laws should be federalized. The burden of civic responsibility should be apportioned equally.
Accountable;634764 wrote: I personally feel that Washington can't possibly write a single law that can simultaneously fairly address life in Quincy, Illinois; San Francisco, California; and Natchez, Mississippi.
If (and only if; I don't seek here to put words in your mouth and if my reasoning is flawed I have no doubt you'll point it out) you allude to necessary differences to any one law or set of laws among those examples due to differing racial or economic profiles, I feel that such differences are not sufficient to require amendments to existing laws or the formation of new ones. I use the word "existing" only in the context of our mental exercise here; to enact and maintain fair and balanced legislation of the sort we're discussing, for the whole of society, the current system will most likely have to be torn down and rebuilt.
No insult intended. The quotation marks used in my original reply were not specific to a statement of yours.
Accountable;634764 wrote: My question to you is: Do you feel that, in America, laws should primarily be enacted as locally as possible, or should they mostly be federal laws?
Certainly there will be circumstances regarding climate and/or topography that will have to be addressed by individual civic ordinances, but in the interest of fair and equitable protections the majority of laws should be federalized. The burden of civic responsibility should be apportioned equally.
Accountable;634764 wrote: I personally feel that Washington can't possibly write a single law that can simultaneously fairly address life in Quincy, Illinois; San Francisco, California; and Natchez, Mississippi.
If (and only if; I don't seek here to put words in your mouth and if my reasoning is flawed I have no doubt you'll point it out) you allude to necessary differences to any one law or set of laws among those examples due to differing racial or economic profiles, I feel that such differences are not sufficient to require amendments to existing laws or the formation of new ones. I use the word "existing" only in the context of our mental exercise here; to enact and maintain fair and balanced legislation of the sort we're discussing, for the whole of society, the current system will most likely have to be torn down and rebuilt.
The Purpose of Law
Accountable;634773 wrote: There are always consequences to everything you do, but I think I know what you mean, and I agree. Simple courtesy would eliminate the need for most if not all law, if only everybody used it.
Yeah, I dream about Utopias, it won't ever happen, but can't keep me from wishing.
Yeah, I dream about Utopias, it won't ever happen, but can't keep me from wishing.
Life ain't linear.
The Purpose of Law
Accountable;634541 wrote: I took the liberty of pulling this quote from another thread, because I think the issue is important enough for it's own thread, and I didn't want to hijack the other. I could have gone in the Philosophy section, but I wanted a more contemporary discussion.
I think laws are incredibly important, which is why I rail against stupid or abusive laws. I found this quote online (link provided): "Many people think the purpose of law is to promote justice. According to Bastiat, the purpose of law is to prevent injustice". That resonates for me. Laws should not be put in place to protect us from ourselves, but to protect us from others. Now, considering that "us" includes the "others" I refer to, laws ought to have a very tight line to walk to be put in place.
Unfortunately, too many people feel inconvenienced and yell for laws to make life more convenient. (I'd give examples, but I want to keep the focus on Law rather than specific laws. This conversation will deteriorate that way soon enough without my help.) Politicians, pandering to the people who keep them in power, are more than happy to sponsor bill after bill, enacting more and more laws to the point that hardly any get enforced anyway!
Laws should be as rare and as simple as humanly possible, imo. Also, like deadly weapons, they are far too dangerous to be handled carelessly.
What say you?
.
I would agree with almost everything you've said here - there are far too many laws governing things that should never be part of the legal system or phrased in a way that makes them far too inflexable for the purpose intended.
You say that laws are incredibly important. I'll ask you a question back - partly on Nomad's behalf as implicit in his original post.
Given that we live in the real world, with the laws that exist, would you feel constrained to obey a self evidently stupid law?
I think laws are incredibly important, which is why I rail against stupid or abusive laws. I found this quote online (link provided): "Many people think the purpose of law is to promote justice. According to Bastiat, the purpose of law is to prevent injustice". That resonates for me. Laws should not be put in place to protect us from ourselves, but to protect us from others. Now, considering that "us" includes the "others" I refer to, laws ought to have a very tight line to walk to be put in place.
Unfortunately, too many people feel inconvenienced and yell for laws to make life more convenient. (I'd give examples, but I want to keep the focus on Law rather than specific laws. This conversation will deteriorate that way soon enough without my help.) Politicians, pandering to the people who keep them in power, are more than happy to sponsor bill after bill, enacting more and more laws to the point that hardly any get enforced anyway!
Laws should be as rare and as simple as humanly possible, imo. Also, like deadly weapons, they are far too dangerous to be handled carelessly.
What say you?
.
I would agree with almost everything you've said here - there are far too many laws governing things that should never be part of the legal system or phrased in a way that makes them far too inflexable for the purpose intended.
You say that laws are incredibly important. I'll ask you a question back - partly on Nomad's behalf as implicit in his original post.
Given that we live in the real world, with the laws that exist, would you feel constrained to obey a self evidently stupid law?
The Purpose of Law
Accountable;634764 wrote: I take it you take exception to some of my former railing? I'll try to supress my feeling personally insulted and agree wholeheartedly with your second sentence.
My question to you is: Do you feel that, in America, laws should primarily be enacted as locally as possible, or should they mostly be federal laws?
I personally feel that Washington can't possibly write a single law that can simultaneously fairly address life in Quincy, Illinois; San Francisco, California; and Natchez, Mississippi.
One law for everybody - if it's just for the folk of Quincy then it's also just for the folk of Natchez. You cannot be having one law for the rich and another for the poor or one law for the Whites and another for the Blacks - what's fair for one is fair for all.
My question to you is: Do you feel that, in America, laws should primarily be enacted as locally as possible, or should they mostly be federal laws?
I personally feel that Washington can't possibly write a single law that can simultaneously fairly address life in Quincy, Illinois; San Francisco, California; and Natchez, Mississippi.
One law for everybody - if it's just for the folk of Quincy then it's also just for the folk of Natchez. You cannot be having one law for the rich and another for the poor or one law for the Whites and another for the Blacks - what's fair for one is fair for all.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
The Purpose of Law
Bryn Mawr;641089 wrote: I would agree with almost everything you've said here - there are far too many laws governing things that should never be part of the legal system or phrased in a way that makes them far too inflexable for the purpose intended.
You say that laws are incredibly important. I'll ask you a question back - partly on Nomad's behalf as implicit in his original post.
Given that we live in the real world, with the laws that exist, would you feel constrained to obey a self evidently stupid law?
When we start ignoring stupid laws, we call into question which laws are stupid enough to be ignored. Many people, even among our lovely Garden, believe our immigration laws are stupid and should be ignored. I, and many others, strongly disagree.
If the law is stupid we need to rescind it, not ignore it.
You say that laws are incredibly important. I'll ask you a question back - partly on Nomad's behalf as implicit in his original post.
Given that we live in the real world, with the laws that exist, would you feel constrained to obey a self evidently stupid law?
When we start ignoring stupid laws, we call into question which laws are stupid enough to be ignored. Many people, even among our lovely Garden, believe our immigration laws are stupid and should be ignored. I, and many others, strongly disagree.
If the law is stupid we need to rescind it, not ignore it.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
The Purpose of Law
Bryn Mawr;641093 wrote: One law for everybody - if it's just for the folk of Quincy then it's also just for the folk of Natchez. You cannot be having one law for the rich and another for the poor or one law for the Whites and another for the Blacks - what's fair for one is fair for all.
Just just ain't enough. If the citizens of a crowded city decides it would be in their best interest to ban all firearms within its limits, should they wait for permission from the federal gov't to pass such a law? And should a small rural community with a long tradition of hunting be required to follow suit simply because it's "just" for that city?
And if a city decides to block automobile traffic in its city center, should New York and Los Angeles be forced to follow suit?
A public school can't teach everything to every student. There simply isn't enough time. What gives a centralized government the wisdom to create a single set of curricula to fit an engineering & manufacturing community as well as a high-tech or farming community?
Just just ain't enough. If the citizens of a crowded city decides it would be in their best interest to ban all firearms within its limits, should they wait for permission from the federal gov't to pass such a law? And should a small rural community with a long tradition of hunting be required to follow suit simply because it's "just" for that city?
And if a city decides to block automobile traffic in its city center, should New York and Los Angeles be forced to follow suit?
A public school can't teach everything to every student. There simply isn't enough time. What gives a centralized government the wisdom to create a single set of curricula to fit an engineering & manufacturing community as well as a high-tech or farming community?
The Purpose of Law
Accountable;641362 wrote: When we start ignoring stupid laws, we call into question which laws are stupid enough to be ignored. Many people, even among our lovely Garden, believe our immigration laws are stupid and should be ignored. I, and many others, strongly disagree.
If the law is stupid we need to rescind it, not ignore it.
and if the government passes a big brother law that seriously infringes civil liberty would you obey it whilst waiting to get it rescinded?
If the law is stupid we need to rescind it, not ignore it.
and if the government passes a big brother law that seriously infringes civil liberty would you obey it whilst waiting to get it rescinded?
The Purpose of Law
Accountable;641364 wrote: Just just ain't enough. If the citizens of a crowded city decides it would be in their best interest to ban all firearms within its limits, should they wait for permission from the federal gov't to pass such a law? And should a small rural community with a long tradition of hunting be required to follow suit simply because it's "just" for that city?
And if a city decides to block automobile traffic in its city center, should New York and Los Angeles be forced to follow suit?
A public school can't teach everything to every student. There simply isn't enough time. What gives a centralized government the wisdom to create a single set of curricula to fit an engineering & manufacturing community as well as a high-tech or farming community?
In UK terms you're talking the difference between the law a local bylaw which can be passed by the city council. Bylaws cover restricted areas but are restricted in subject matter and cannot go against national law.
Yes, bylaws exist but should be for nothing more than local traffic laws and the like.
For nationally important issues, like gun control, you should have national laws. It is not beyond the wit of man to tailor law to situations, no guns within any city boundary for example, but how do you expect a New Yorker travelling in California, for example, to know that Palm Springs has legislated no concealed guns whilst Palm Desert has gone for no openly displayed guns and Cathedral City has banned guns altogether?
One country, one law - for everybody, rich or poor, black or white. By allowing each town or area to pass it's own laws you are leaving yourself open to discrimination and injustice.
And if a city decides to block automobile traffic in its city center, should New York and Los Angeles be forced to follow suit?
A public school can't teach everything to every student. There simply isn't enough time. What gives a centralized government the wisdom to create a single set of curricula to fit an engineering & manufacturing community as well as a high-tech or farming community?
In UK terms you're talking the difference between the law a local bylaw which can be passed by the city council. Bylaws cover restricted areas but are restricted in subject matter and cannot go against national law.
Yes, bylaws exist but should be for nothing more than local traffic laws and the like.
For nationally important issues, like gun control, you should have national laws. It is not beyond the wit of man to tailor law to situations, no guns within any city boundary for example, but how do you expect a New Yorker travelling in California, for example, to know that Palm Springs has legislated no concealed guns whilst Palm Desert has gone for no openly displayed guns and Cathedral City has banned guns altogether?
One country, one law - for everybody, rich or poor, black or white. By allowing each town or area to pass it's own laws you are leaving yourself open to discrimination and injustice.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
The Purpose of Law
Bryn Mawr;641817 wrote: and if the government passes a big brother law that seriously infringes civil liberty would you obey it whilst waiting to get it rescinded?
That's completely different from stupid laws. In such a situation, if in no other, I would hope you & I would be standing shoulder to shoulder to change the government, not simply ignoring the law.
That's completely different from stupid laws. In such a situation, if in no other, I would hope you & I would be standing shoulder to shoulder to change the government, not simply ignoring the law.
The Purpose of Law
Accountable;634541 wrote: I took the liberty of pulling this quote from another thread, because I think the issue is important enough for it's own thread, and I didn't want to hijack the other. I could have gone in the Philosophy section, but I wanted a more contemporary discussion.
.
.
.
I think laws are incredibly important, which is why I rail against stupid or abusive laws. I found this quote online (link provided): "Many people think the purpose of law is to promote justice. According to Bastiat, the purpose of law is to prevent injustice". That resonates for me. Laws should not be put in place to protect us from ourselves, but to protect us from others. Now, considering that "us" includes the "others" I refer to, laws ought to have a very tight line to walk to be put in place.
Unfortunately, too many people feel inconvenienced and yell for laws to make life more convenient. (I'd give examples, but I want to keep the focus on Law rather than specific laws. This conversation will deteriorate that way soon enough without my help.) Politicians, pandering to the people who keep them in power, are more than happy to sponsor bill after bill, enacting more and more laws to the point that hardly any get enforced anyway!
Laws should be as rare and as simple as humanly possible, imo. Also, like deadly weapons, they are far too dangerous to be handled carelessly.
What say you?
.
Its gone way beyond the ideal of preventing injustice. Laws have run amuck. Laws and their intent are too easily manipulated by lawmakers with an agenda or by well paid attorneys. Those things in themselves breed contempt and mistrust.
I could cite many laws introduced and enacted by overzealous govt that serve only a minority of society or demonstrate a skewed view of political mindset if you make me.
If you cant trust the ones making law how can you support their models and standards. In my opinion govt is so far removed from reality anymore it doesnt warrant the respect it so desperately demands.
.
.
.
I think laws are incredibly important, which is why I rail against stupid or abusive laws. I found this quote online (link provided): "Many people think the purpose of law is to promote justice. According to Bastiat, the purpose of law is to prevent injustice". That resonates for me. Laws should not be put in place to protect us from ourselves, but to protect us from others. Now, considering that "us" includes the "others" I refer to, laws ought to have a very tight line to walk to be put in place.
Unfortunately, too many people feel inconvenienced and yell for laws to make life more convenient. (I'd give examples, but I want to keep the focus on Law rather than specific laws. This conversation will deteriorate that way soon enough without my help.) Politicians, pandering to the people who keep them in power, are more than happy to sponsor bill after bill, enacting more and more laws to the point that hardly any get enforced anyway!
Laws should be as rare and as simple as humanly possible, imo. Also, like deadly weapons, they are far too dangerous to be handled carelessly.
What say you?
.
Its gone way beyond the ideal of preventing injustice. Laws have run amuck. Laws and their intent are too easily manipulated by lawmakers with an agenda or by well paid attorneys. Those things in themselves breed contempt and mistrust.
I could cite many laws introduced and enacted by overzealous govt that serve only a minority of society or demonstrate a skewed view of political mindset if you make me.
If you cant trust the ones making law how can you support their models and standards. In my opinion govt is so far removed from reality anymore it doesnt warrant the respect it so desperately demands.
I AM AWESOME MAN
The Purpose of Law
Nomad;643832 wrote: Its gone way beyond the ideal of preventing injustice. Laws have run amuck. Laws and their intent are too easily manipulated by lawmakers with an agenda or by well paid attorneys. Those things in themselves breed contempt and mistrust.
I could cite many laws introduced and enacted by overzealous govt that serve only a minority of society or demonstrate a skewed view of political mindset if you make me.
If you cant trust the ones making law how can you support their models and standards. In my opinion govt is so far removed from reality anymore it doesnt warrant the respect it so desperately demands.
good post nomadski
I could cite many laws introduced and enacted by overzealous govt that serve only a minority of society or demonstrate a skewed view of political mindset if you make me.
If you cant trust the ones making law how can you support their models and standards. In my opinion govt is so far removed from reality anymore it doesnt warrant the respect it so desperately demands.
good post nomadski
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
The Purpose of Law
Nomad;643832 wrote: Its gone way beyond the ideal of preventing injustice. Laws have run amuck. Laws and their intent are too easily manipulated by lawmakers with an agenda or by well paid attorneys. Those things in themselves breed contempt and mistrust.
I could cite many laws introduced and enacted by overzealous govt that serve only a minority of society or demonstrate a skewed view of political mindset if you make me.
If you cant trust the ones making law how can you support their models and standards. In my opinion govt is so far removed from reality anymore it doesnt warrant the respect it so desperately demands.
All good points. It seems we've come almost full circle to the good ol' caste system days. The rich & powerful get what they want while we peasants get what we can. As long as we stay under their radar we'll be fine. And as long as they don't get too awful greedy while feeding off of us, we'll leave them alone. I live this way, whether I like to admit it or not.
But our society will collapse sooner or later, either through anger or neglect. Politicians blur the line between right and wrong by enacting laws too complex to understand and too numerous to ever keep track of. And we contribute to further blurring by picking which laws we want to follow and circumventing those that are inconvenient. Pretty soon the line between right & wrong will be unrecognizable to enough people that it will cease to exist.
It's a cycle that's repeated itself through history. I guess I should just accept the inevitable, eh?
I could cite many laws introduced and enacted by overzealous govt that serve only a minority of society or demonstrate a skewed view of political mindset if you make me.
If you cant trust the ones making law how can you support their models and standards. In my opinion govt is so far removed from reality anymore it doesnt warrant the respect it so desperately demands.
All good points. It seems we've come almost full circle to the good ol' caste system days. The rich & powerful get what they want while we peasants get what we can. As long as we stay under their radar we'll be fine. And as long as they don't get too awful greedy while feeding off of us, we'll leave them alone. I live this way, whether I like to admit it or not.
But our society will collapse sooner or later, either through anger or neglect. Politicians blur the line between right and wrong by enacting laws too complex to understand and too numerous to ever keep track of. And we contribute to further blurring by picking which laws we want to follow and circumventing those that are inconvenient. Pretty soon the line between right & wrong will be unrecognizable to enough people that it will cease to exist.
It's a cycle that's repeated itself through history. I guess I should just accept the inevitable, eh?