My Ideal Legal System, or lack thereof

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Goldstein
Posts: 985
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:38 pm UTC
Location: Newcastle, UK

Re: My Ideal Legal System, or lack thereof

Postby Goldstein » Sat Oct 31, 2009 9:20 pm UTC

mastered wrote:4. Laws may be passed for the general welfare if the people affected have agreed to them.

But this invalidates everything else you've said! This is how functioning democracies work now!

You don't need to start a thread in Serious Business to tell us you think we should only have laws that people agree to.
Chuff wrote:I write most of my letters from the bottom

User avatar
iop
Posts: 930
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:26 am UTC
Location: The ivory tower

Re: My Ideal Legal System, or lack thereof

Postby iop » Sun Nov 01, 2009 1:09 am UTC

mastered wrote:Yes, you get punished independently for intent and consequence, so intentional murder is worse than accidental killing, which is in turn worse than intentional arson, which is worse than accidental damage to another's property. In the case of true force majeure, where one was coerced by circumstance, a crime would not be considered intentional. I'm not sure about contingent intent; I'll have to read up on it.

Contingent intent is going ahead with an action even though you know that it is likely to cause harm (even though you don't directly mean to cause harm). If death ensues, it is, currently, considered as bad as murder.

Your list is exactly like the current law, by the way.

Of course, there are also cases where it's freedom against freedom: For example, I want to walk across the neighbour's lawn, but the neighbour wants to keep the lawn to himself. Or I want to listen to music so that I can fall asleep, but my neighbour cannot sleep if my music is on.

This is one of the reasons that I personally think the very concept of a society is somewhat dysfunctional. I would prefer to live alone, but humans are considered social animals.

If your legal system cannot handle the interactions of humans apart from murder, it is not very useful.

Not just murder, but any straightforward case of violating another's free choice would be addressed.

There are two reasons people go to court: Either, they are suspected to have done something so grave that the government is required to accuse them, or two parties believe the law is on their side.
The first reason are the 'straightforward' cases. The second reason are examples like the ones I mention above. It is because of this second group that you have to make a hierarchy of rights.


1. All persons capable have the right to make and follow their own choices as regards their personal lives.
2. All persons have the right to have their choices respected by others.

So... active beats passive? I.e. the one who turns on the music in order to sleep wins over the one who is prevented from sleeping by the music?
3. No legal restrictions shall be placed on consensual activity.

So no laws about contracts? Also, are you allowed to sell yourself into slavery?
4. Laws may be passed for the general welfare if the people affected have agreed to them.

Interesting. I assume that you'd require unanimity, right? What if a person is born into a community, does that person automatically have to accept such a law? If someone drives through a community where they decided to put up traffic lights, is that person bound by the local laws they did not agree with?
5. Ignorance of a law is, within reason, justifiable excuse. Crimes committed in ignorance will be considered unintentional.

Wow. This is VERY problematic. How do you prove that I know something? What if I forgot after the judge explained it to me the last time? Why would anyone ever want to learn anything about the law? If every community makes their own laws, how would a foreigner ever be liable?
6. Only claims (e.g. of ignorance or intent) with evidence, and which can be (dis)proven may be legally considered.

I do not think I understand what you mean with that.

Market failures can be viewed as scenarios where individuals' pursuit of pure self-interest leads to results that are not efficient – that can be improved upon from the societal point-of-view. For example, it is governments that currently attempt to stop overfishing (and even they have a hard time). Without governments, who is going to have the power to step in?

Environmentalists?[/quote]
And they do that how exactly? As far as I understand, they try to get enough people to lobby the government to pass laws that usually go against the will of a minority (or even a majority in the case of representational systems). How does this work without a government?

Woegjiub
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 12:22 pm UTC

Re: My Ideal Legal System, or lack thereof

Postby Woegjiub » Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:36 am UTC

You didn't happen to read this, did you?
Woegjiub wrote:I got to thinking today: we only really need one law:

You are allowed to do anything, providing it does not impose on the right of others to do the same.

Gambling would be illegal... for people who have to support children. Singles can throw their lives away.
Murder and theft clearly would be banned, pollution would be as well - a worse crime than murder, possibly...?


That was 2 fortnights ago :p

I believe that it could definitely work, and that the punishment should be equal to the freedom which has been removed - if one intentionally murders another, that person's right to everything has been forfeit.
For that reason, life imprisonment with almost no food, no light, a bucket and some hay would be enough for such a person :)
They should also be chained to the wall - they can have the right to death if they really want it.

Le1bn1z
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:27 pm UTC

Re: My Ideal Legal System, or lack thereof

Postby Le1bn1z » Sun Nov 01, 2009 12:30 pm UTC

mastered wrote:
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]

Sigh.

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?
Krong writes: Code: Select all
transubstantiate(Bread b) {
Person p = getJesusPersonInstance();
p.RenderProperties = b.RenderProperties;
free(b);
}

User avatar
mastered
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 12:19 am UTC
Location: Terra

Re: My Ideal Legal System, or lack thereof

Postby mastered » Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:16 pm UTC

Goldstein wrote:
mastered wrote:4. Laws may be passed for the general welfare if the people affected have agreed to them.

But this invalidates everything else you've said! This is how functioning democracies work now!

You don't need to start a thread in Serious Business to tell us you think we should only have laws that people agree to.


No, functioning democracies work by majority vote. This would require unanimity.

iop wrote:
Yes, you get punished independently for intent and consequence, so intentional murder is worse than accidental killing, which is in turn worse than intentional arson, which is worse than accidental damage to another's property. In the case of true force majeure, where one was coerced by circumstance, a crime would not be considered intentional. I'm not sure about contingent intent; I'll have to read up on it.


Contingent intent is going ahead with an action even though you know that it is likely to cause harm (even though you don't directly mean to cause harm). If death ensues, it is, currently, considered as bad as murder.

Your list is exactly like the current law, by the way.


Then contingent intent is dependent on probability, and knowledge thereof.

3. No legal restrictions shall be placed on consensual activity.


So no laws about contracts? Also, are you allowed to sell yourself into slavery?


Yes, and yes.

4. Laws may be passed for the general welfare if the people affected have agreed to them.


Interesting. I assume that you'd require unanimity, right? What if a person is born into a community, does that person automatically have to accept such a law? If someone drives through a community where they decided to put up traffic lights, is that person bound by the local laws they did not agree with?


Yes, I'd require unanimity. If someone disagreed with the law where they lived, they wouldn't have to accept it. If someone chose to drive through a community with traffic lights, that would imply that they agreed to follow them.

5. Ignorance of a law is, within reason, justifiable excuse. Crimes committed in ignorance will be considered unintentional.


Wow. This is VERY problematic. How do you prove that I know something? What if I forgot after the judge explained it to me the last time? Why would anyone ever want to learn anything about the law? If every community makes their own laws, how would a foreigner ever be liable?


This is similar to the traffic light problem above.

6. Only claims (e.g. of ignorance or intent) with evidence, and which can be (dis)proven may be legally considered.


I do not think I understand what you mean with that.


If someone is claimed to have committed a crime intentionally, there has to be evidence of that for it to be considered by the law.

Market failures can be viewed as scenarios where individuals' pursuit of pure self-interest leads to results that are not efficient – that can be improved upon from the societal point-of-view. For example, it is governments that currently attempt to stop overfishing (and even they have a hard time). Without governments, who is going to have the power to step in?


Environmentalists?

And they do that how exactly? As far as I understand, they try to get enough people to lobby the government to pass laws that usually go against the will of a minority (or even a majority in the case of representational systems). How does this work without a government?[/quote]

They would change actions directly, bypassing the government.

Woegjiub wrote:You didn't happen to read this, did you?
I got to thinking today: we only really need one law:

You are allowed to do anything, providing it does not impose on the right of others to do the same.

Gambling would be illegal... for people who have to support children. Singles can throw their lives away.
Murder and theft clearly would be banned, pollution would be as well - a worse crime than murder, possibly...?


That was 2 fortnights ago :p

I believe that it could definitely work, and that the punishment should be equal to the freedom which has been removed - if one intentionally murders another, that person's right to everything has been forfeit.
For that reason, life imprisonment with almost no food, no light, a bucket and some hay would be enough for such a person
They should also be chained to the wall - they can have the right to death if they really want it.


Ah, that is very similar. I'm not sure how I missed that. However, in my case the law could not take away people freedoms even as punishment.

Le1bn1z wrote:Sigh.

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?


Actually, I've read the whole People's History of the United States, among others. And I wasn't assuming that nobody had tried something similar before, but I hadn't found an equivalent in all the politics and philosophy that I've read.

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!


This would be more like enforced anarchy. People couldn't make rules oppressing others, because that's against the law.

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.


It may be an abstraction, but it's certainly not empty. It's an abstraction of something that's been plaguing humanity for as long as we've lived in societies. That's the point of trying to apply it to real life, which is always difficult with ideals.

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.


At that time, religious laws were strictly enforced.

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.


I didn't say the internet isn't policed; I said it is less regulated than real life.

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.


Again, the enforced anarchy thing.

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?


And with the sarcasm re: American right-wing pov, I agree. My political philosophy is actually more left-wing radical-libertarian.
Things are only impossible until they aren't. - Cpt. Picard
Image

nowfocus
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:34 am UTC

Re: My Ideal Legal System, or lack thereof

Postby nowfocus » Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:36 pm UTC

mastered wrote:Again, the enforced anarchy thing.


I think your missing that a power vacuum is always filled. If you don't give the government the power to fill it, then either the local criminal will, or another government will, or religion will...

The reason you can't find an example of a society with no laws of any kind isn't because it hasn't been tried, its because its inherently unstable. Can you name a society thats been sucessful under you law system?

I also think your legal system is poorly defined. You can construe almost everything to be against someones freedom. What takes precedence, my freedom to blast music, or my neighbours freedom to not have music blasted? You get to pick whichever you think people will agree with. You need some kind of logic to say which freedoms take precedence. Your rule of 'not imposing on anothers freedom' can be applied to practically any side and to practically situation.

mastered wrote: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.


If there is no government, who catches the murders? Who defends you from outside military threats?
Jahoclave wrote:Besides if you observe romance, you change the outcome. Especially if you put his/her friend Catherine in a box.

Menacing Spike wrote:Was it the copper hammer or the children part that caused censoring?

User avatar
iop
Posts: 930
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:26 am UTC
Location: The ivory tower

Re: My Ideal Legal System, or lack thereof

Postby iop » Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:18 pm UTC

3. No legal restrictions shall be placed on consensual activity.

So no laws about contracts? Also, are you allowed to sell yourself into slavery?

Yes, and yes.

In other words, there are no contracts that are non-enforceable (in the current system, a contract by which I sell myself into slavery cannot be enforced, because I cannot be denied my basic rights), because there is no law that would make any contract enforceable. Well, maybe there would the novel job of a contract enforcer, which would mean that you'd have to very carefully read everything you sign, because there are no safeguards about contracts anymore.

4. Laws may be passed for the general welfare if the people affected have agreed to them.


Interesting. I assume that you'd require unanimity, right? What if a person is born into a community, does that person automatically have to accept such a law? If someone drives through a community where they decided to put up traffic lights, is that person bound by the local laws they did not agree with?


Yes, I'd require unanimity. If someone disagreed with the law where they lived, they wouldn't have to accept it. If someone chose to drive through a community with traffic lights, that would imply that they agreed to follow them.

5. Ignorance of a law is, within reason, justifiable excuse. Crimes committed in ignorance will be considered unintentional.


Wow. This is VERY problematic. How do you prove that I know something? What if I forgot after the judge explained it to me the last time? Why would anyone ever want to learn anything about the law? If every community makes their own laws, how would a foreigner ever be liable?


This is similar to the traffic light problem above.

Maybe I misunderstand you, but this sounds to me like you want to have your cake and eat it.

If passing through a community means you implicitly accept all the local rules, then ignorance of a law cannot be a justifiable excuse. Also, if laws only apply to an individual as long as the individual wants them to apply, then it is as if there was no law at all.

6. Only claims (e.g. of ignorance or intent) with evidence, and which can be (dis)proven may be legally considered.


I do not think I understand what you mean with that.


If someone is claimed to have committed a crime intentionally, there has to be evidence of that for it to be considered by the law.

That is the presumption of innocence. Sounds reasonable to me, and it is, fortunately, already in place.

Market failures can be viewed as scenarios where individuals' pursuit of pure self-interest leads to results that are not efficient – that can be improved upon from the societal point-of-view. For example, it is governments that currently attempt to stop overfishing (and even they have a hard time). Without governments, who is going to have the power to step in?


They [environmentalists] would change actions directly, bypassing the government.

How? Since a law restricting fishing does not apply to a fisherman if he doesn't feel like it, there is not going to be any way any environmental law is enforceable. Though since there is never going to be unanimity, such a law would not be created in the first place.

User avatar
mastered
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 12:19 am UTC
Location: Terra

Re: My Ideal Legal System, or lack thereof

Postby mastered » Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:06 pm UTC

iop wrote:
3. No legal restrictions shall be placed on consensual activity.

So no laws about contracts? Also, are you allowed to sell yourself into slavery?

Yes, and yes.

In other words, there are no contracts that are non-enforceable (in the current system, a contract by which I sell myself into slavery cannot be enforced, because I cannot be denied my basic rights), because there is no law that would make any contract enforceable. Well, maybe there would the novel job of a contract enforcer, which would mean that you'd have to very carefully read everything you sign, because there are no safeguards about contracts anymore.


Yes.

4. Laws may be passed for the general welfare if the people affected have agreed to them.


Interesting. I assume that you'd require unanimity, right? What if a person is born into a community, does that person automatically have to accept such a law? If someone drives through a community where they decided to put up traffic lights, is that person bound by the local laws they did not agree with?


Yes, I'd require unanimity. If someone disagreed with the law where they lived, they wouldn't have to accept it. If someone chose to drive through a community with traffic lights, that would imply that they agreed to follow them.

5. Ignorance of a law is, within reason, justifiable excuse. Crimes committed in ignorance will be considered unintentional.


Wow. This is VERY problematic. How do you prove that I know something? What if I forgot after the judge explained it to me the last time? Why would anyone ever want to learn anything about the law? If every community makes their own laws, how would a foreigner ever be liable?


This is similar to the traffic light problem above.

Maybe I misunderstand you, but this sounds to me like you want to have your cake and eat it.

If passing through a community means you implicitly accept all the local rules, then ignorance of a law cannot be a justifiable excuse. Also, if laws only apply to an individual as long as the individual wants them to apply, then it is as if there was no law at all.


That's why informed consent is always important.

Market failures can be viewed as scenarios where individuals' pursuit of pure self-interest leads to results that are not efficient – that can be improved upon from the societal point-of-view. For example, it is governments that currently attempt to stop overfishing (and even they have a hard time). Without governments, who is going to have the power to step in?


They [environmentalists] would change actions directly, bypassing the government.

How? Since a law restricting fishing does not apply to a fisherman if he doesn't feel like it, there is not going to be any way any environmental law is enforceable. Though since there is never going to be unanimity, such a law would not be created in the first place.


If a law is passed, then those who agreed to it (including the fisherman) are bound to follow it in future. There are advantages to environmental laws even for the fishermen.
Things are only impossible until they aren't. - Cpt. Picard
Image

nowfocus
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:34 am UTC

Re: My Ideal Legal System, or lack thereof

Postby nowfocus » Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:31 pm UTC

mastered wrote:If a law is passed, then those who agreed to it (including the fisherman) are bound to follow it in future. There are advantages to environmental laws even for the fishermen.


Bound by whom exactly?
Jahoclave wrote:Besides if you observe romance, you change the outcome. Especially if you put his/her friend Catherine in a box.

Menacing Spike wrote:Was it the copper hammer or the children part that caused censoring?

User avatar
mastered
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 12:19 am UTC
Location: Terra

Re: My Ideal Legal System, or lack thereof

Postby mastered » Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:53 pm UTC

nowfocus wrote:
mastered wrote:If a law is passed, then those who agreed to it (including the fisherman) are bound to follow it in future. There are advantages to environmental laws even for the fishermen.


Bound by whom exactly?


Themselves, in having previously agreed to it, and whoever who be the enforcers - presumably the judges, who study the law and are required to be objective in cases.
Things are only impossible until they aren't. - Cpt. Picard
Image

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: My Ideal Legal System, or lack thereof

Postby BlackSails » Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:10 am UTC

mastered wrote:
nowfocus wrote:
mastered wrote:If a law is passed, then those who agreed to it (including the fisherman) are bound to follow it in future. There are advantages to environmental laws even for the fishermen.


Bound by whom exactly?


Themselves, in having previously agreed to it, and whoever who be the enforcers - presumably the judges, who study the law and are required to be objective in cases.


Required to be objective by whom?

nowfocus
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:34 am UTC

Re: My Ideal Legal System, or lack thereof

Postby nowfocus » Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:11 am UTC

Right, so who decides who the are judges? Who pays for the judges? Who requires the judges to be objective?

Further, who apprehends the people that break the law? Other fisherman?
Jahoclave wrote:Besides if you observe romance, you change the outcome. Especially if you put his/her friend Catherine in a box.

Menacing Spike wrote:Was it the copper hammer or the children part that caused censoring?

User avatar
mastered
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 12:19 am UTC
Location: Terra

Re: My Ideal Legal System, or lack thereof

Postby mastered » Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:11 am UTC

BlackSails wrote:
mastered wrote:
nowfocus wrote:
mastered wrote:If a law is passed, then those who agreed to it (including the fisherman) are bound to follow it in future. There are advantages to environmental laws even for the fishermen.


Bound by whom exactly?


Themselves, in having previously agreed to it, and whoever who be the enforcers - presumably the judges, who study the law and are required to be objective in cases.


Required to be objective by whom?


nowfocus wrote:Right, so who decides who the are judges? Who pays for the judges? Who requires the judges to be objective?

Further, who apprehends the people that break the law? Other fisherman?


Those are the requirements of the system. The people affected by someone's crime would report it to the judges.
Things are only impossible until they aren't. - Cpt. Picard
Image

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: My Ideal Legal System, or lack thereof

Postby BlackSails » Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:08 am UTC

So we have philosopher king's who can do no wrong sitting upon in judgement?

Thats sounds more like tyranny than anarchism.

User avatar
mastered
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 12:19 am UTC
Location: Terra

Re: My Ideal Legal System, or lack thereof

Postby mastered » Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:49 am UTC

BlackSails wrote:So we have philosopher king's who can do no wrong sitting upon in judgement?

Thats sounds more like tyranny than anarchism.


Of course they can do wrong. That's why there are more than one. Judgement must then be unanimous.
Things are only impossible until they aren't. - Cpt. Picard
Image

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: My Ideal Legal System, or lack thereof

Postby BlackSails » Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:07 am UTC

mastered wrote:
BlackSails wrote:So we have philosopher king's who can do no wrong sitting upon in judgement?

Thats sounds more like tyranny than anarchism.


Of course they can do wrong. That's why there are more than one. Judgement must then be unanimous.


Unanimous? Thats interesting. So I only need to bribe a single judge to be untouchable?

User avatar
mastered
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 12:19 am UTC
Location: Terra

Re: My Ideal Legal System, or lack thereof

Postby mastered » Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:46 am UTC

BlackSails wrote:
mastered wrote:
BlackSails wrote:So we have philosopher king's who can do no wrong sitting upon in judgement?

Thats sounds more like tyranny than anarchism.


Of course they can do wrong. That's why there are more than one. Judgement must then be unanimous.


Unanimous? Thats interesting. So I only need to bribe a single judge to be untouchable?


That's why the system for choosing judges needs to be so rigorous.
Things are only impossible until they aren't. - Cpt. Picard
Image

nowfocus
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:34 am UTC

Re: My Ideal Legal System, or lack thereof

Postby nowfocus » Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:48 am UTC

mastered wrote:
nowfocus wrote:Right, so who decides who the are judges? Who pays for the judges? Who requires the judges to be objective?
Further, who apprehends the people that break the law? Other fisherman?

Those are the requirements of the system. The people affected by someone's crime would report it to the judges.


The one answer you have doesn't respond to a single one of my questions.
Jahoclave wrote:Besides if you observe romance, you change the outcome. Especially if you put his/her friend Catherine in a box.

Menacing Spike wrote:Was it the copper hammer or the children part that caused censoring?

User avatar
mastered
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 12:19 am UTC
Location: Terra

Re: My Ideal Legal System, or lack thereof

Postby mastered » Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:58 am UTC

nowfocus wrote:
mastered wrote:
nowfocus wrote:Right, so who decides who the are judges? Who pays for the judges? Who requires the judges to be objective?
Further, who apprehends the people that break the law? Other fisherman?

Those are the requirements of the system. The people affected by someone's crime would report it to the judges.


The one answer you have doesn't respond to a single one of my questions.


-Who requires the judges to be objective? -Those are the requirements of the system. -Who apprehends the people that break the law? -The people affected by someone's crime would report it to the judges.
Things are only impossible until they aren't. - Cpt. Picard
Image

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: My Ideal Legal System, or lack thereof

Postby BlackSails » Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:04 am UTC

mastered wrote:
That's why the system for choosing judges needs to be so rigorous.


So you trust your entire society to a system that is set up by people who arent trustworth, are inherently fallable, and no matter what, the system will make mistakes.

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: My Ideal Legal System, or lack thereof

Postby mmmcannibalism » Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:06 am UTC

BlackSails wrote:
mastered wrote:
That's why the system for choosing judges needs to be so rigorous.


So you trust your entire society to a system that is set up by people who arent trustworth, are inherently fallable, and no matter what, the system will make mistakes.


What's the problem?

Power enlightens, absolute power enlightens absolutely.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

nowfocus
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:34 am UTC

Re: My Ideal Legal System, or lack thereof

Postby nowfocus » Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:16 am UTC

mastered wrote:
nowfocus wrote:
mastered wrote:
nowfocus wrote:Right, so who decides who the are judges? Who pays for the judges? Who requires the judges to be objective?
Further, who apprehends the people that break the law? Other fisherman?

Those are the requirements of the system. The people affected by someone's crime would report it to the judges.


The one answer you have doesn't respond to a single one of my questions.


-Who requires the judges to be objective? -Those are the requirements of the system. -Who apprehends the people that break the law? -The people affected by someone's crime would report it to the judges.


What? Its "a requirement of the system"? Then system just doesn't work. There is nothing to protect people from the tyranny of the judges.

Also, Apprehending != Reporting. You need people with guns to apprehend, you need people with phones to report.
Jahoclave wrote:Besides if you observe romance, you change the outcome. Especially if you put his/her friend Catherine in a box.

Menacing Spike wrote:Was it the copper hammer or the children part that caused censoring?

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: My Ideal Legal System, or lack thereof

Postby BlackSails » Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:18 am UTC

This system is pretty much as bad as you can get, both in theory and execution. Basically, this entire thread can be summed up so: "If government was unnecessary, government would be unnecessary"

Mattg500001
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:15 pm UTC

Re: My Ideal Legal System, or lack thereof

Postby Mattg500001 » Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:15 am UTC

Well he did say he would prefer to live in solitude.

I am not sure a solitarian libertarian is best qualified to rule on what legal system a complex society needs......

User avatar
mister k
Posts: 643
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 11:28 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: My Ideal Legal System, or lack thereof

Postby mister k » Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:45 pm UTC

I have to say, while I felt your arguments seemed reasonable to begin with, this is beginning to dissolve into farce.

You want a system in which there are laws agreed on by... someone? And enforced by judges who are paid by no-one but are rigorously selected...

The government would have no money. If theres no government then theres no-one to enforce rules and you effectively have anarchy so all your arguments about there being laws are meaningless. Society isn't magic, it was formed because of need. There is always a government, and it must have some element of power. If you want laws, you need lawmakers.
Elvish Pillager wrote:you're basically a daytime-miller: you always come up as guilty to scumdar.

Woegjiub
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 12:22 pm UTC

Re: My Ideal Legal System, or lack thereof

Postby Woegjiub » Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:34 pm UTC

mastered wrote:Ah, that is very similar. I'm not sure how I missed that. However, in my case the law could not take away people freedoms even as punishment.


So..... what?
You tell them off?
Removing money is removing their freedom.
There is no form of punishment that does not remove freedom - it's not a punishment if the person doesn't dislike the situation their actions resulted in.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: My Ideal Legal System, or lack thereof

Postby Azrael » Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:27 pm UTC

mastered wrote: However, in my case the law could not take away people freedoms even as punishment.
So again, no 'legal' nor 'system'. This is anarchy with a "Don't Be A Dick or Some Guy We Appointed Will Verbally Admonish You" clause. We've already covered why your judges would be a terrible idea, but if they can't do anything why have them at all?

User avatar
mastered
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 12:19 am UTC
Location: Terra

Re: My Ideal Legal System, or lack thereof

Postby mastered » Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:44 pm UTC

mister k wrote:I have to say, while I felt your arguments seemed reasonable to begin with, this is beginning to dissolve into farce.

You want a system in which there are laws agreed on by... someone? And enforced by judges who are paid by no-one but are rigorously selected...

The government would have no money. If theres no government then theres no-one to enforce rules and you effectively have anarchy so all your arguments about there being laws are meaningless. Society isn't magic, it was formed because of need. There is always a government, and it must have some element of power. If you want laws, you need lawmakers.


Laws must be agreed upon by everyone in a society. The system merely allows such laws to be passed. As an ideal it would be enforced anarchy.
Things are only impossible until they aren't. - Cpt. Picard
Image

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: My Ideal Legal System, or lack thereof

Postby BlackSails » Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:48 pm UTC

mastered wrote:
Laws must be agreed upon by everyone in a society. The system merely allows such laws to be passed. As an ideal it would be enforced anarchy.


Well, I dont agree that you have a right to exclusive use of your home. Im going to come by and stay there for a while. Eat your (our) food, drink your (our) beer, etc. Maybe Ill also sleep with your underage daughter too, because hey, I dont agree that there should be an age of consent.


Also, since our society never created sewers, im going to be dumping my sewage in your backyard. I hope thats ok.

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: My Ideal Legal System, or lack thereof

Postby mmmcannibalism » Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:22 am UTC

mastered wrote:
mister k wrote:I have to say, while I felt your arguments seemed reasonable to begin with, this is beginning to dissolve into farce.

You want a system in which there are laws agreed on by... someone? And enforced by judges who are paid by no-one but are rigorously selected...

The government would have no money. If theres no government then theres no-one to enforce rules and you effectively have anarchy so all your arguments about there being laws are meaningless. Society isn't magic, it was formed because of need. There is always a government, and it must have some element of power. If you want laws, you need lawmakers.


Laws must be agreed upon by everyone in a society. The system merely allows such laws to be passed. As an ideal it would be enforced anarchy.


So when we decide to form a mob and rob someone it will be okay because everyone agreed right?

Oh wait, one person would disagree so we couldn't do that...oh crud now we are being stopped from expressing our freedom to choose to rob someone.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

User avatar
MiB24601
Posts: 714
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:13 pm UTC
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: My Ideal Legal System, or lack thereof

Postby MiB24601 » Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:35 am UTC

mastered wrote:In the search for absolutes, the closest I can get to my truth is the preservation of any semblance of free choice. If I had my way (if only), the only crime would be to intentionally infringe upon another's free choice in a way that affects them. This may sound too general or dependent upon judgement, but it is the most just system I can think of. Surely it has been thought of before?


Yeah, this has been thought of before. You might want to read Two Treatises of Government by John Locke. It's also reminiscent of the "law is objective" aspect of the legal science movement of the 19th century. Of course, the legal science movement was pretty much destroyed and replaced by the American legal realism, although aspects of it still remains in how law is taught. Oliver Wendell Holmes summed up the problems with the legal science movement with “The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience. The felt necessities of the time, the prevalent moral and political theories, intuitions of public policy, avowed or
unconscious, even the prejudices which judges share with their fellow-men, have had a great deal more to do than the syllogism in determining the rules by which men should be governed.”

I'm curious, mastered. What was the line of thinking that led you to your ideal legal system?
"There's no point being grown-up if you can't be childish sometimes." - The Fourth Doctor, Doctor Who

User avatar
mastered
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 12:19 am UTC
Location: Terra

Re: My Ideal Legal System, or lack thereof

Postby mastered » Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:25 am UTC

I think some people are misunderstanding, or perhaps just missing the point that any crime violates another's choice somehow. I dare you to give me an example otherwise; I've so far been able to apply it to any true crime I can find. Sometimes it may sound contrived, but it works, as opposed to calling something a crime first and figuring out (or making up a reason) why later.

MiB24601 wrote:
mastered wrote:In the search for absolutes, the closest I can get to my truth is the preservation of any semblance of free choice. If I had my way (if only), the only crime would be to intentionally infringe upon another's free choice in a way that affects them. This may sound too general or dependent upon judgement, but it is the most just system I can think of. Surely it has been thought of before?


Yeah, this has been thought of before. You might want to read Two Treatises of Government by John Locke. It's also reminiscent of the "law is objective" aspect of the legal science movement of the 19th century. Of course, the legal science movement was pretty I much destroyed and replaced by the American legal realism, although aspects of it still remains in how law is taught. Oliver Wendell Holmes summed up the problems with the legal science movement with “The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience. The felt necessities of the time, the prevalent moral and political theories, intuitions of public policy, avowed or
unconscious, even the prejudices which judges share with their fellow-men, have had a great deal more to do than the syllogism in determining the rules by which men should be governed.”

I'm curious, mastered. What was the line of thinking that led you to your ideal legal system?


Ah, that's interesting. Thanks for the recommendation. My line of thinking involved the point that laws enforce morals, which are relative, and that the only thing absolute about any crime is that someone's rights, as determined by themselves, are violated. So if such an essential factor in the definition of crime is subjective, then one can merely define crime as the violation of another's personal choices. It is not for us to judge another's personal rights for them.
Things are only impossible until they aren't. - Cpt. Picard
Image

User avatar
mister k
Posts: 643
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 11:28 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: My Ideal Legal System, or lack thereof

Postby mister k » Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:32 am UTC

But how does enforced anarchy work? Who enforces it? You seem to be assuming that everyone will utterly agree with each other and happily enforce the system against a small number of recdivists who do not. If this was the case, laws would effectively be irrelevant. What about abortion? Do unborn children have more rights? (I don't want to make this an argument about abortion, merely make the point that this issue of rights is highly contentious). Would marriage exist under your system? If so who would have a right to it? Would polyamory be allowed? Would beastality? What about children? When are they able to be informed about their own rights? If a child wants to sleep with an adult, are we infringing their rights to stop them? Is healthcare a right, and if so how would we provide it with no taxes? Is being fed even a right, and how would we support those who cannot feed themselves? How does ownership work in a world of no legally enforcable contracts? What rights does a tenant have? And above all, how do we enforce it??
Elvish Pillager wrote:you're basically a daytime-miller: you always come up as guilty to scumdar.

User avatar
mastered
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 12:19 am UTC
Location: Terra

Re: My Ideal Legal System, or lack thereof

Postby mastered » Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:04 pm UTC

mister k wrote:But how does enforced anarchy work? Who enforces it? You seem to be assuming that everyone will utterly agree with each other and happily enforce the system against a small number of recdivists who do not. If this was the case, laws would effectively be irrelevant. What about abortion? Do unborn children have more rights? (I don't want to make this an argument about abortion, merely make the point that this issue of rights is highly contentious). Would marriage exist under your system? If so who would have a right to it? Would polyamory be allowed? Would beastality? What about children? When are they able to be informed about their own rights? If a child wants to sleep with an adult, are we infringing their rights to stop them? Is healthcare a right, and if so how would we provide it with no taxes? Is being fed even a right, and how would we support those who cannot feed themselves? How does ownership work in a world of no legally enforcable contracts? What rights does a tenant have? And above all, how do we enforce it??


The system will not be enforced against a small number of recidivists who don't agree with it; it is simply a different way of identifying crime. All people who can express a choice have a right to make it. That includes children, who can express a choice, as opposed to unborn children, who cannot. Marriage can exist if those involved make the choice to marry. Free choice involves sexual minorities. Re: children being informed, if they decide to make a choice, that's their prerogative, but if they don't know what they're talking about, others can advise them - same as anyone else. If someone wants healthcare and it costs money, then they would want a job to get that money, and that's their choice. Same for food. If a contract is entered into by choice, then it is legally enforcable unless all those involved decide to annul it. If a tenant and a landlord make a contract, the pertinent rights are determined by that. The judges would determine when a crime is committed.
Things are only impossible until they aren't. - Cpt. Picard
Image

Chen
Posts: 5579
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: My Ideal Legal System, or lack thereof

Postby Chen » Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:24 pm UTC

mastered wrote:My line of thinking involved the point that laws enforce morals, which are relative, and that the only thing absolute about any crime is that someone's rights, as determined by themselves, are violated. So if such an essential factor in the definition of crime is subjective, then one can merely define crime as the violation of another's personal choices. It is not for us to judge another's personal rights for them.


This cannot work in any semblance of reality. If I suddenly decide that you looking at me is a violation of my rights to not be looked at, you're saying it should be a crime? People can have absurd reasons for their choices. People can make choices that are detrimental to society. The goals of a legal system is to ensure that society follows a set of rules that ensures the society will not be harmed or destroyed. If each individual decides what rights they themselves have, what do you do when two individuals create rights that are in direct contradiction? In reality its society that decides on the rules that govern said situation via laws. In your scenario I cannot see what would occur...unless the judges or whatever decides on who's rights are the "correct" ones...in which case there's really no difference between this system, and what we actually have.

User avatar
mastered
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 12:19 am UTC
Location: Terra

Re: My Ideal Legal System, or lack thereof

Postby mastered » Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:41 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
mastered wrote:My line of thinking involved the point that laws enforce morals, which are relative, and that the only thing absolute about any crime is that someone's rights, as determined by themselves, are violated. So if such an essential factor in the definition of crime is subjective, then one can merely define crime as the violation of another's personal choices. It is not for us to judge another's personal rights for them.


This cannot work in any semblance of reality. If I suddenly decide that you looking at me is a violation of my rights to not be looked at, you're saying it should be a crime? People can have absurd reasons for their choices. People can make choices that are detrimental to society. The goals of a legal system is to ensure that society follows a set of rules that ensures the society will not be harmed or destroyed. If each individual decides what rights they themselves have, what do you do when two individuals create rights that are in direct contradiction? In reality its society that decides on the rules that govern said situation via laws. In your scenario I cannot see what would occur...unless the judges or whatever decides on who's rights are the "correct" ones...in which case there's really no difference between this system, and what we actually have.


That's why the effects of someone's rights being violated must be legally defensible. If you decided that me looking at you was a violation of your rights, you would have to defend that in court with evidence.
Things are only impossible until they aren't. - Cpt. Picard
Image

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: My Ideal Legal System, or lack thereof

Postby Azrael » Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:23 pm UTC

mastered wrote:That's why the effects of someone's rights being violated must be legally defensible. If you decided that me looking at you was a violation of your rights, you would have to defend that in court with evidence.

Defend against what? You've already stated that there can't be any consequences.

Chen
Posts: 5579
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: My Ideal Legal System, or lack thereof

Postby Chen » Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:36 pm UTC

mastered wrote: So if such an essential factor in the definition of crime is subjective, then one can merely define crime as the violation of another's personal choices. It is not for us to judge another's personal rights for them.


masterd wrote:That's why the effects of someone's rights being violated must be legally defensible. If you decided that me looking at you was a violation of your rights, you would have to defend that in court with evidence.


In the first quote you said crime is defined as a violations of another's personal choices and that we cannot judge them. Then in the next quote you say you'd have to defend it in court with evidence (ie judging them). These are mutually exclusive ideas!

Instead of a single sentence response could you maybe elaborate on what you actually mean when you respond to someone? Or are you just some random troll?

User avatar
mastered
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 12:19 am UTC
Location: Terra

Re: My Ideal Legal System, or lack thereof

Postby mastered » Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:21 am UTC

You'd have to defend to the judges. And one can only satisfactorily judge a claim if it has evidence to be assessed. For example, if you decided that I was violating your rights by looking at you, you'd have to come up with some tangible evidence of how that violated a personal choice of yours. If you decided you wanted to read a book, and someone tried to prevent you from reading it, you could explain how that physically prevented you from following through on your choices.
Things are only impossible until they aren't. - Cpt. Picard
Image

nowfocus
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:34 am UTC

Re: My Ideal Legal System, or lack thereof

Postby nowfocus » Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:20 am UTC

mastered wrote:I think some people are misunderstanding, or perhaps just missing the point that any crime violates another's choice somehow. I dare you to give me an example otherwise; I've so far been able to apply it to any true crime I can find. Sometimes it may sound contrived, but it works, as opposed to calling something a crime first and figuring out (or making up a reason) why later.


The point isn't that you can't construe crimes as violating choice somehow, its that you can construe anything whatsoever to be a violation of someones choice. Your using hindsight.

If I brought rape to you as an example, you'd say it violates someones choice to not be raped. Problem solved right?

Except the assaliant can say "She is infringing on my choice to a rapist, and hence she is the criminal". Since there is no morality, no side is in the right, and you can give your currently undefined punishment onto the guilt party.

So I flip it back onto you: Every crime violates all parties choices some how. I dare you to give me an example otherwise.

I'm also curious as to how your system handles someone, or a gang of people, decide they will kill the judges...
Jahoclave wrote:Besides if you observe romance, you change the outcome. Especially if you put his/her friend Catherine in a box.

Menacing Spike wrote:Was it the copper hammer or the children part that caused censoring?


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Chen and 8 guests