Le1bn1z wrote:I see three holes in this legal system:
1.) This legal system becomes problematic in cases of indirect crimes, such as threats or incitment to crime. For example, offering a hitman a million bucks to kill one's wife would not be a crime under this system, because the hitman is not BOUND to kill the wife, merely encouraged. Osama bid Laden would not be a criminal for simply a.) Saying that someone should blow up American buildings and b.) Giving support to those who hold the same opinion.
Wouldn't making that a crime be, if not undemocratic, dangerously close to taking away freedom of speech?
Le1bn1z wrote:The criminal code exists to protect people. A crime is an action which can harm another. Whether that action succeeds or not, or whether it is direct or indirect is less relevent than intention and effect of the action.
I proposed changing the definition of a crime to an intentional action that damages another's individual free choice.
Le1bn1z wrote:2.) The legal system would be problematic in the case of civil law. What of laws governing divorce, contracts and marriage? In this system, marriage would be a crime as it is an action which attempts to impede, through legal and social pressures, the ability of both parties to hook up with other people. It is an "affront" to freedom (at least in the abstract sense that the first poster used) and therefore would be banned. In divorce, one member is often ordered to support the other financially. This, of course, has nothing to do with "freedom," but addresses another quality; fairness. It is fair to assume that being married one gives up opportunities to seek one's own fortune and ties one's fortune to another person. If one person backs out, they owe the other, in fairness, to compensate. Likewise, there could be no contract law. Contract laws forbid people simply giving money back if they get cold feet; the other party has invested, so everyone has to follow through on their commitments, or face the consequences. Without such protections, its hard to imagine a functioning economy.
If two people choose to enter into a marriage of their own free will, then it's not an infringement. Then leaving the other person (which presumably would be against their previous contract) without the other's agreement could be reprehensible. The same is true for any contract involving informed consent.
Le1bn1z wrote:Then there is the protection and interest of third parties. In divorce, the courts are supposed to look to the needs of the children, first and foremost. It would take some convoluted sophistry to make this an issue of freedom. In the interest of the children, access to the children by EITHER parent is always defined and limited. This doesn't effect the freedom, but the wellbeing of the child, and is, abstractly, contrary to the freedom of both parents.
This is the other side of the law; not only to protect, but to promote hapiness and wellbeing.
Which brings me to...
3.) This legal system would essentially end government taxation, a system of laws designed not to protect freedom so much as to promote well being, safety and actual freedoms to pursue happiness, rather than the abstract, empty freedom prefered by libertarians. I hear the cheers of a mass of teenage suburban whites echoing already, but consider this. Penalties for not paying taxes are contrary to freedom; one has no choice when it comes to paying. Under the model proposed here, fascists living in the USA, Britain and Canada would have bee in the right to refuse to pay taxes towards the war effort against Hitler. Al Capone would never have been charged with anything, because taxes would be optional. Of course, the whole government would fall apart. The police, healthcare, social security, national defense, consular affairs; these are all set up by laws to promote the wellbeing of the nation. Imagine the reaction of the Right when this legal system was put in place, and there was no more moeny for border security, anti-terrorism measures or a military bigger than Tuvalu's.
It would be an act of utter hair-brained, self-destructive, ivory-tower foolishness to institute a "freedoms only" law code which would, ultimately, do away with all of these things.
Who would be the "government"? This is nearly an anarchy, or at least self-governed. Think of how the internet works! Independent of the outside world, people share ideas, argue, learn, create, etc. There is no government specifically.
As opposed to Feudalism or a caste system, no social heirarchy would be politically supported or enforced.[/quote]
The two pereniall problems with American political theory. At least on these boards. And in most published and broadcast authors I've noticed. But I digress.
1.) No history. I mean none. I'd be shocked if you'd actually read more than 10 history books (picture books of WWII battles don't count) offering more than 1 point of view.
The big problem isn't just the ignorance, its the assumption that everything pre-American revolution was cobweb-clad darkness and is therefore irrelevent and that, therefore, when you get some new abstract idea, surely, nobody would have tried this before. Right?
2.) A real contempt for actual living human beings. Its hard for people from Canada to wrap our heads around American Right-wing thought, because the notion that empty, drifting abstractions could mean more than human beings just seems so bizarre.
In light of these problems, lets deal with your questions one at a time.
A.) You're saying that you'd be happy with a legal system that allowed the Mafia, Hells Angels, Al Qaeda and Comorra to operate freely using the exact methods they use now, because "I wanna protect free speech! Yaaaay Liberty!" Incidentally, that's how Feudalist and Tryanical states tend to get their start. Some disaster or moron pulls down the protections that guard the weak from the strong and the strong take over. It's human nature. Unless you consciously defend REAL liberties against the abuses that arise immediately in anarchy, in an organised way, you get tyranny.
The Mafia and Comorra BOTH sprung up because of power vacuums in southern Italy. The Wild West was called the Wild West for a reason. Ask the First Nations of America how that worked out for them. And that's wild like, wow, dudes like wild animals just killed my whole family for ten bucks, not, dude, that frat party was WILD!
B.) Your response to the point that your legal system holds protecting real people as a last-priority is that you're changing the definition of crime. Please go to Wikipedia. Look up George Orwell. Read the section on 1984. Look up "Newspeak" and "Thoughtcrime." In your system, an empty abstraction holds infinitely more weight than any actual human being. Go back to your computer. Look up the definition of "Totalitarianism." If you have trouble, look up "Hannah Arendt." Then read Karl Marx and Benito Mussolini. Think real hard. Try to fit the peices together.
C.) Oh sweet, sweet jebas another American kid who really, really believes he'd be the first person to attempt anarchy as the solution to his woes. There has been only one case of complete legal anarchy in American history. Even the Wild West had a semblance of laws, and more than a semblance in theory. The one place where ALL laws were officially null (You can look it up) for several months, was Salem. I'll leave it to you to guess when.
Other great moments in Anarchy: Somalia, 1990's-Present; Afghanistan, Post Soviet pullout and American end of funding to moderates; Rwanda, 1995 (Police and UN abdication of duties); Italy post fall of Rome (begining of "the Dark Ages").....
I actually really like your internet analogy. It shows how little thought you've really put into it. The internet IS actually policed, and with good reason. The wide freedom that it provides has been used to coordinate and spread brutal terrorism, facilitate fraud, and to set off a boom in the distribution of child porn.
So, if you're in favour of supporting terrorism, fraud and child sex slavery and child porn, then yes, yes you have devised a truly cunning plan. Congratulations to you.
Not to mention your support for the ice-flow senior's health plan, cliff-toss sick child-plan, and "don't worry, I'm SURE that nobdoy will ever attack an unarmed, defenseless country with massive resources and wealth, because its too stupid to pay for an army" defense plan.
Now, I know, you're going to say that there are laws in your system that "block infringments of Freedom." But you've already conceded that, if this is the only kind of law, taxes are void. Then you had a cutsie statement about how we don't need any rules.
Without taxes, you can't pay to enforce the laws. Without enforcement, laws are meaningless. The only laws your system provides is no law at all. Which is to say, the law of whichever crazy, corrupt or capricious armed faction ends up on top.
Here's an idea: People first, ivory-tower posturing second. Or does that make me a pinko-commie islamic-terrorist-socialist-fascist (which everyone knows is the worst kind) like Obama?