Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


#ActualJeremy Williams

Posted 06 June 2013 - 10:34 AM

The point your trying to get across is that law is inherently immoral? 

 

As I said, it's not in any of the planned games, it's just an example.

 

No wonder people don't get it unless it's spelled out and grumble about it if it is spelled out.  Only a small fraction of an average audience would be receptive to that idea before the beginning of the story, and it would be really difficult to present a convincing argument to get the rest to become more receptive to the idea because it goes against people's deep beliefs about human nature and what society is for.

 

You appear to be hostile to my viewpoint, sir. Thus, I feel I must explain it.

 

The purpose of law isn't to protect the well-being of those under it, it is to protect the interests of those writing it, even if that is to the detriment of those living under it. While most laws are benign, once examined benign laws serve no purpose. Practically nobody would do any of the outlawed actions in benign laws if they were legal, and those who would aren't going to follow the law anyway. Heroin, for instance, is a horrible drug. It's understandable to decide that nobody should use it, and most people would never use it legal or not because of how absurdly harmful it is. To the few that would, illegality is not a significant additional downside to make it a dealbreaker, especially since most of them have enough common sense to know the chances of them ever being punished for it are extremely low. All making it illegal does is create a black market for it, which actually increases the amount sold, the price it is sold for, and the profits of those selling it. Since the presence of a black market is also a safety hazard, this law does a great deal of harm and no good. And that's how law always functions. If it's actually a bad idea, most people won't do it legal or not. The few that will are not going to be deterred by law. The important laws to my standpoint, however, are malign laws. They're something that will always exist, because they're what law is for. Their purpose is to protect the interests of the writers or the masters of the writers, regardless of its impact on the people beneath it. Laws like the provision in the NDAA 2012 that allow the US military to detain any individual, even US citizens, for an unlimited amount of time without trial or charge as prisoners of war. Or the law that allowed them to do that to prisoners of war in the first place. Better known (but actually a lot less evil) are SOPA and PIPA, which were thankfully shot down because it was rather clear that there would be war in this country before those laws passed. (Then the government went and exercised the power these bills would have given them anyway.) These laws are clearly harmful to those living under their charge, but their purpose is clear. SOPA and PIPA are attempts to allow the US to censor and regulate US citizens access to the internet, which is beneficial to those in power as it allows them to choose what information reaches their people. That provision in NDAA 2012 serves to provide a pathway to bypass the legal system overtly without having to cover it up. Since this basically means they can arrest people and imprison them without having to prove they did anything illegal, they can use it for any purpose should they deem it worth their time and the inherent bad press. This includes silencing dissenters, of course. Other examples, including the Patriot Act, come to mind as well, but I don't have all day and neither do you.

 

Frankly, the only way law can ever be applied that is to the benefit of the people living under it is if it is set up to protect their rights, rather than remove them. That's not its intended purpose, but if we restricted everything to its intended purpose we wouldn't get anywhere. The best possible approach is summed up in the quote "The right to swing my fist ends where another man's nose begins." Laws that act only to draw a clear line between exercising your rights and infringing on another person's are laws with a good purpose. And of course, there aren't very many of them. Part of this is that the purpose of law is different, part is that you don't need too many laws. It's a lot more complex than "just don't hurt anybody" but it's still fairly simple and doesn't need the intentional obfuscation present in modern law because even if it's completely transparent, there's no points within it to attack. Adding on a few necessary evils, such as taxation, would allow a nation to sustain itself and maintain society without any further law, but that's never going to happen. The reason it'll never happen is because there will always be people in power who want more power, more money and more privileges, and will create more laws to get them, even if this is entirely detrimental for their followers. And people won't have any say in the matter, either. Especially since most won't know a law contains any such elements until it passes, because the people are kept intentionally misinformed.

 

And if you could decide a society wasn't worth its laws and leave, then I wouldn't have as big of a problem with law. Then it's just be a consensual agreement, and even if it was overall detrimental to those agreeing to it, that would be their choice and I wouldn't take issue with it. It would still taste of extortion, but such is the nature of power. But that's not how it works, is it? You don't get a choice, you abide local law or those in charge will destroy your life and everything you ever hoped for. You can't leave civilization or find another country to live in, and you can't choose to give up benefits in exchange for not having to follow laws. The difference between a contract and law is the difference between sex and rape. It's not consensual, and that's a problem for me.

 

In summary:

1. Law is non-consensual. That alone makes it wrong as far as I am concerned.

2. Law is intended to further the interests of those in power, rather than those under its jurisdiction. (And if you think those in power are under its jurisdiction, you haven't been paying attention.)

3. Laws that appear to be in the interests of the public usually do more harm than good. Stupidity or malevolence, it's still harmful. 

4. Laws are written in a manner that intentionally obfuscates their contents. This doesn't sit well with me.

5. Laws that are abnormally evil, even by the standards of law, are passed without the public's knowledge or consent. It's a rarity the public becomes aware, and when they do they can seldom do anything about it.

 

If that is not enough for you to understand my viewpoint on law, you are not considering it.


#4Jeremy Williams

Posted 06 June 2013 - 10:33 AM

The point your trying to get across is that law is inherently immoral? 

 

As I said, it's not in any of the planned games, it's just an example.

 

No wonder people don't get it unless it's spelled out and grumble about it if it is spelled out.  Only a small fraction of an average audience would be receptive to that idea before the beginning of the story, and it would be really difficult to present a convincing argument to get the rest to become more receptive to the idea because it goes against people's deep beliefs about human nature and what society is for.

 

You appear to be hostile to my viewpoint, sir. Thus, I feel I must explain it.

 

The purpose of law isn't to protect the wellbeing of those under it, it is to protect the interests of those writing it, even if that is to the detriment of those living under it. While most laws are benign, once examined benign laws serve no purpose. Practically nobody would do any of the outlawed actions in benign laws if they were legal, and those who would aren't going to follow the law anyway. Heroin, for instance, is a horrible drug. It's understandable to decide that nobody should use it, and most people would never use it legal or not because of how absurdly harmful it is. To the few that would, illegality is not a significant additional downside to make it a dealbreaker, especially since most of them have enough common sense to know the chances of them ever being punished for it are extremely low. All making it illegal does is create a black market for it, which actually increases the amount sold, the price it is sold for, and the profits of those selling it. Since the presence of a black market is also a safety hazard, this law does a great deal of harm and no good. And that's how law always functions. If it's actually a bad idea, most people won't do it legal or not. The few that will are not going to be deterred by law. The important laws to my standpoint, however, are malign laws. They're something that will always exist, because they're what law is for. Their purpose is to protect the interests of the writers or the masters of the writers, regardless of its impact on the people beneath it. Laws like the provision in the NDAA 2012 that allow the US military to detain any individual, even US citizens, for an unlimited amount of time without trial or charge as prisoners of war. Or the law that allowed them to do that to prisoners of war in the first place. Better known (but actually a lot less evil) are SOPA and PIPA, which were thankfully shot down because it was rather clear that there would be war in this country before those laws passed. (Then the government went and exercised the power these bills would have given them anyway.) These laws are clearly harmful to those living under their charge, but their purpose is clear. SOPA and PIPA are attempts to allow the US to censor and regulate US citizens access to the internet, which is beneficial to those in power as it allows them to choose what information reaches their people. That provision in NDAA 2012 serves to provide a pathway to bypass the legal system overtly without having to cover it up. Since this basically means they can arrest people and imprison them without having to prove they did anything illegal, they can use it for any purpose should they deem it worth their time and the inherent bad press. This includes silencing dissenters, of course. Other examples, including the Patriot Act, come to mind as well, but I don't have all day and neither do you.

 

Frankly, the only way law can ever be applied that is to the benefit of the people living under it is if it is set up to protect their rights, rather than remove them. That's not its intended purpose, but if we restricted everything to its intended purpose we wouldn't get anywhere. The best possible approach is summed up in the quote "The right to swing my fist ends where another man's nose begins." Laws that act only to draw a clear line between exercising your rights and infringing on another person's are laws with a good purpose. And of course, there aren't very many of them. Part of this is that the purpose of law is different, part is that you don't need too many laws. It's a lot more complex than "just don't hurt anybody" but it's still fairly simple and doesn't need the intentional obfuscation present in modern law because even if it's completely transparent, there's no points within it to attack. Adding on a few necessary evils, such as taxation, would allow a nation to sustain itself and maintain society without any further law, but that's never going to happen. The reason it'll never happen is because there will always be people in power who want more power, more money and more privileges, and will create more laws to get them, even if this is entirely detrimental for their followers. And people won't have any say in the matter, either. Especially since most won't know a law contains any such elements until it passes, because the people are kept intentionally misinformed.

 

And if you could decide a society wasn't worth its laws and leave, then I wouldn't have as big of a problem with law. Then it's just be a consensual agreement, and even if it was overall detrimental to those agreeing to it, that would be their choice and I wouldn't take issue with it. It would still taste of extortion, but such is the nature of power. But that's not how it works, is it? You don't get a choice, you abide local law or those in charge will destroy your life and everything you ever hoped for. You can't leave civilization or find another country to live in, and you can't choose to give up benefits in exchange for not having to follow laws. The difference between a contract and law is the difference between sex and rape. It's not consensual, and that's a problem for me.

 

In summary:

1. Law is non-consensual. That alone makes it wrong as far as I am concerned.

2. Law is intended to further the interests of those in power, rather than those under its jurisdiction. (And if you think those in power are under its jurisdiction, you haven't been paying attention.)

3. Laws that appear to be in the interests of the public usually do more harm than good. Stupidity or malevolence, it's still harmful. 

4. Laws are written in a manner that intentionally obfuscates their contents. This doesn't sit well with me.

5. Laws that are abnormally evil, even by the standards of law, are passed without the public's knowledge or consent. It's a rarity the public becomes aware, and when they do they can seldom do anything about it.

 

If that is not enough for you to understand my viewpoint on law, you are not considering it.


#3Jeremy Williams

Posted 06 June 2013 - 10:08 AM

The point your trying to get across is that law is inherently immoral? 

 

As I said, it's not in any of the planned games, it's just an example.

 

No wonder people don't get it unless it's spelled out and grumble about it if it is spelled out.  Only a small fraction of an average audience would be receptive to that idea before the beginning of the story, and it would be really difficult to present a convincing argument to get the rest to become more receptive to the idea because it goes against people's deep beliefs about human nature and what society is for.

 

You appear to be hostile to my viewpoint, sir. Thus, I feel I must explain it.

 

What's the purpose of law, sir? Is it to protect the well-being of those living under it? No, it's to protect the interests of those writing it, even if that is to the detriment of those living under it. While most laws are benign, once examined benign laws serve no purpose. Practically nobody would do any of the outlawed actions in benign laws if they were legal, and those who would aren't going to follow the law anyway. Heroin, for instance, is a horrible drug. It's understandable to decide that nobody should use it, and most people would never use it legal or not because of how absurdly harmful it is. To the few that would, illegality is not a significant additional downside to make it a dealbreaker, especially since most of them have enough common sense to know the chances of them ever being punished for it are extremely low. All making it illegal does is create a black market for it, which actually increases the amount sold, the price it is sold for, and the profits of those selling it. Since the presence of a black market is also a safety hazard, this law does a great deal of harm and no good. And that's how law always functions. If it's actually a bad idea, most people won't do it legal or not. The few that will are not going to be deterred by law. The important laws to my standpoint, however, are malign laws. They're something that will always exist, because they're what law is for. Their purpose is to protect the interests of the writers or the masters of the writers, regardless of its impact on the people beneath it. Laws like the provision in the NDAA 2012 that allow the US military to detain any individual, even US citizens, for an unlimited amount of time without trial or charge as prisoners of war. Or the law that allowed them to do that to prisoners of war in the first place. Better known (but actually a lot less evil) are SOPA and PIPA, which were thankfully shot down because it was rather clear that there would be war in this country before those laws passed. (Then the government went and exercised the power these bills would have given them anyway.) These laws are clearly harmful to those living under their charge, but their purpose is clear. SOPA and PIPA are attempts to allow the US to censor and regulate US citizens access to the internet, which is beneficial to those in power as it allows them to choose what information reaches their people. That provision in NDAA 2012 serves to provide a pathway to bypass the legal system overtly without having to cover it up. Since this basically means they can arrest people and imprison them without having to prove they did anything illegal, they can use it for any purpose should they deem it worth their time and the inherent bad press. This includes silencing dissenters, of course. Other examples, including the Patriot Act, come to mind as well, but I don't have all day and neither do you.

 

Frankly, the only way law can ever be applied that is to the benefit of the people living under it is if it is set up to protect their rights, rather than remove them. That's not its intended purpose, but if we restricted everything to its intended purpose we wouldn't get anywhere. The best possible approach is summed up in the quote "The right to swing my fist ends where another man's nose begins." Laws that act only to draw a clear line between exercising your rights and infringing on another person's are laws with a good purpose. And of course, there aren't very many of them. Part of this is that the purpose of law is different, part is that you don't need too many laws. It's a lot more complex than "just don't hurt anybody" but it's still fairly simple and doesn't need the intentional obfuscation present in modern law because even if it's completely transparent, there's no points within it to attack. Adding on a few necessary evils, such as taxation, would allow a nation to sustain itself and maintain society without any further law, but that's never going to happen. The reason it'll never happen is because there will always be people in power who want more power, more money and more privileges, and will create more laws to get them, even if this is entirely detrimental for their followers. And people won't have any say in the matter, either. Especially since most won't know a law contains any such elements until it passes, because the people are kept intentionally misinformed.

 

And if you could decide a society wasn't worth its laws and leave, then I wouldn't have as big of a problem with law. Then it's just be a consensual agreement, and even if it was overall detrimental to those agreeing to it, that would be their choice and I wouldn't take issue with it. It would still taste of extortion, but such is the nature of power. But that's not how it works, is it? You don't get a choice, you abide local law or those in charge will destroy your life and everything you ever hoped for. You can't leave civilization or find another country to live in, and you can't choose to give up benefits in exchange for not having to follow laws. The difference between a contract and law is the difference between sex and rape. It's not consensual, and that's a problem for me.

 

In summary:

1. Law is non-consensual. That alone makes it wrong as far as I am concerned.

2. Law is intended to further the interests of those in power, rather than those under its jurisdiction. (And if you think those in power are under its jurisdiction, you haven't been paying attention.)

3. Laws that appear to be in the interests of the public usually do more harm than good. Stupidity or malevolence, it's still harmful. 

4. Laws are written in a manner that intentionally obfuscates their contents. This doesn't sit well with me.

5. Laws that are abnormally evil, even by the standards of law, are passed without the public's knowledge or consent. It's a rarity the public becomes aware, and when they do they can seldom do anything about it.

 

If that is not enough for you to understand my viewpoint on law, you are not considering it.


#2Jeremy Williams

Posted 06 June 2013 - 10:07 AM

The point your trying to get across is that law is inherently immoral? 

 

As I said, it's not in any of the planned games, it's just an example.

 

No wonder people don't get it unless it's spelled out and grumble about it if it is spelled out.  Only a small fraction of an average audience would be receptive to that idea before the beginning of the story, and it would be really difficult to present a convincing argument to get the rest to become more receptive to the idea because it goes against people's deep beliefs about human nature and what society is for.

 

You appear to be hostile to my viewpoint, sir. Thus, I feel I must explain it.

 

What's the purpose of law, sir? Is it to protect the well-being of those living under it? No, it's to protect the interests of those writing it, even if that is to the detriment of those living under it. While most laws are benign, once examined benign laws serve no purpose. Practically nobody would do any of the outlawed actions in benign laws if they were legal, and those who would aren't going to follow the law anyway. Heroin, for instance, is a horrible drug. It's understandable to decide that nobody should use it, and most people would never use it legal or not because of how absurdly harmful it is. To the few that would, illegality is not a significant additional downside to make it a dealbreaker, especially since most of them have enough common sense to know the chances of them ever being punished for it are extremely low. All making it illegal does is create a black market for it, which actually increases the amount sold, the price it is sold for, and the profits of those selling it. Since the presence of a black market is also a safety hazard, this law does a great deal of harm and no good. And that's how law always functions. If it's actually a bad idea, most people won't do it legal or not. The few that will are not going to be deterred by law. The important laws to my standpoint, however, are malign laws. They're something that will always exist, because they're what law is for. Their purpose is to protect the interests of the writers or the masters of the writers, regardless of its impact on the people beneath it. Laws like the provision in the NDAA 2012 that allow the US military to detain any individual, even US citizens, for an unlimited amount of time without trial or charge as prisoners of war. Or the law that allowed them to do that to prisoners of war in the first place. Better known (but actually a lot less evil) are SOPA and PIPA, which were thankfully shot down because it was rather clear that there would be war in this country before those laws passed. (Then the government went and exercised the power these bills would have given them anyway.) These laws are clearly harmful to those living under their charge, but their purpose is clear. SOPA and PIPA are attempts to allow the US to censor and regulate US citizens access to the internet, which is beneficial to those in power as it allows them to choose what information reaches their people. That provision in NDAA 2012 serves to provide a pathway to bypass the legal system overtly without having to cover it up. Since this basically means they can arrest people and imprison them without having to prove they did anything illegal, they can use it for any purpose should they deem it worth their time and the inherent bad press. This includes silencing dissenters, of course. Other examples, including the Patriot Act, come to mind as well, but I don't have all day and neither do you.

 

Frankly, the only way law can ever be applied that is to the benefit of the people living under it is if it is set up to protect their rights, rather than remove them. That's not its intended purpose, but if we restricted everything to its intended purpose we wouldn't get anywhere. The best possible approach is summed up in the quote "The right to swing my fist ends where another man's nose begins." Laws that act only to draw a clear line between exercising your rights and infringing on another person's are laws with a good purpose. And of course, there aren't very many of them. Part of this is that the purpose of law is different, part is that you don't need too many laws. It's a lot more complex than "just don't hurt anybody" but it's still fairly simple and doesn't need the intentional obfuscation present in modern law because even if it's completely transparent, there's no points within it to attack. Adding on a few necessary evils, such as taxation, would allow a nation to sustain itself and maintain society without any further law, but that's never going to happen. The reason it'll never happen is because there will always be people in power who want more power, more money and more privileges, and will create more laws to get them, even if this is entirely detrimental for their followers. And people won't have any say in the matter, either. Especially since most won't know a law contains any such elements until it passes, because the people are kept intentionally misinformed.

 

And if you could decide a society wasn't worth its laws and leave, then I wouldn't have as big of a problem with law. Then it's just be a consensual agreement, and even if it was overall detrimental to those agreeing to it, that would be their choice and I wouldn't take issue with it. It would still taste of extortion, but such is the nature of power. But that's not how it works, is it? You don't get a choice, you abide local law or those in charge will destroy your life and everything you ever hoped for. You can't leave civilization or find another country to live in, and you can't choose to give up benefits in exchange for not having to follow laws. The difference between a contract and law is the difference between sex and rape. It's not consensual, and that's a problem for me.

 

In summary:

1. Law is non-consensual. That alone makes it wrong as far as I am concerned.

2. Law is intended to further the interests of those in power, rather than those under its jurisdiction. (And if you think those in power are under its jurisdiction, you haven't been paying attention.)

3. Laws that appear to be in the interests of the public usually do more harm than good. Stupidity or malevolence, it's still harmful. 

4. Laws are written in a manner that intentionally obfuscates their contents. This doesn't sit well with me.

5. Laws that are abnormally evil, even by the standards of law, are passed without the public's knowledge or consent. It's a rarity the public becomes aware, and when they do they can seldom do anything about it.

 

If that is not enough for you to understand my viewpoint on law, you are not considering it.


#1Jeremy Williams

Posted 06 June 2013 - 10:01 AM

The point your trying to get across is that law is inherently immoral? 

 

As I said, it's not in any of the planned games, it's just an example.

 

No wonder people don't get it unless it's spelled out and grumble about it if it is spelled out.  Only a small fraction of an average audience would be receptive to that idea before the beginning of the story, and it would be really difficult to present a convincing argument to get the rest to become more receptive to the idea because it goes against people's deep beliefs about human nature and what society is for.

 

What's the purpose of law, sir? Is it to protect the well-being of those living under it? No, it's to protect the interests of those writing it, even if that is to the detriment of those living under it. While most laws are benign, once examined benign laws serve no purpose. Practically nobody would do any of the outlawed actions in benign laws if they were legal, and those who would aren't going to follow the law anyway. Heroin, for instance, is a horrible drug. It's understandable to decide that nobody should use it, and most people would never use it legal or not because of how absurdly harmful it is. To the few that would, illegality is not a significant additional downside to make it a dealbreaker, especially since most of them have enough common sense to know the chances of them ever being punished for it are extremely low. All making it illegal does is create a black market for it, which actually increases the amount sold, the price it is sold for, and the profits of those selling it. Since the presence of a black market is also a safety hazard, this law does a great deal of harm and no good. And that's how law always functions. If it's actually a bad idea, most people won't do it legal or not. The few that will are not going to be deterred by law. The important laws to my standpoint, however, are malign laws. They're something that will always exist, because they're what law is for. Their purpose is to protect the interests of the writers or the masters of the writers, regardless of its impact on the people beneath it. Laws like the provision in the NDAA 2012 that allow the US military to detain any individual, even US citizens, for an unlimited amount of time without trial or charge as prisoners of war. Or the law that allowed them to do that to prisoners of war in the first place. Better known (but actually a lot less evil) are SOPA and PIPA, which were thankfully shot down because it was rather clear that there would be war in this country before those laws passed. (Then the government went and exercised the power these bills would have given them anyway.) These laws are clearly harmful to those living under their charge, but their purpose is clear. SOPA and PIPA are attempts to allow the US to censor and regulate US citizens access to the internet, which is beneficial to those in power as it allows them to choose what information reaches their people. That provision in NDAA 2012 serves to provide a pathway to bypass the legal system overtly without having to cover it up. Since this basically means they can arrest people and imprison them without having to prove they did anything illegal, they can use it for any purpose should they deem it worth their time and the inherent bad press. This includes silencing dissenters, of course. Other examples, including the Patriot Act, come to mind as well, but I don't have all day and neither do you.

 

Frankly, the only way law can ever be applied that is to the benefit of the people living under it is if it is set up to protect their rights, rather than remove them. That's not its intended purpose, but if we restricted everything to its intended purpose we wouldn't get anywhere. The best possible approach is summed up in the quote "The right to swing my fist ends where another man's nose begins." Laws that act only to draw a clear line between exercising your rights and infringing on another person's are laws with a good purpose. And of course, there aren't very many of them. Part of this is that the purpose of law is different, part is that you don't need too many laws. It's a lot more complex than "just don't hurt anybody" but it's still fairly simple and doesn't need the intentional obfuscation present in modern law because even if it's completely transparent, there's no points within it to attack. Adding on a few necessary evils, such as taxation, would allow a nation to sustain itself and maintain society without any further law, but that's never going to happen. The reason it'll never happen is because there will always be people in power who want more power, more money and more privileges, and will create more laws to get them, even if this is entirely detrimental for their followers. And people won't have any say in the matter, either. Especially since most won't know a law contains any such elements until it passes, because the people are kept intentionally misinformed.

 

And if you could decide a society wasn't worth its laws and leave, then I wouldn't have as big of a problem with law. Then it's just be a consensual agreement, and even if it was overall detrimental to those agreeing to it, that would be their choice and I wouldn't take issue with it. It would still taste of extortion, but such is the nature of power. But that's not how it works, is it? You don't get a choice, you abide local law or those in charge will destroy your life and everything you ever hoped for. You can't leave civilization or find another country to live in, and you can't choose to give up benefits in exchange for not having to follow laws. The difference between a contract and law is the difference between sex and rape. It's not consensual, and that's a problem for me.

 

In summary:

1. Law is non-consensual. That alone makes it wrong as far as I am concerned.

2. Law is intended to further the interests of those in power, rather than those under its jurisdiction. (And if you think those in power are under its jurisdiction, you haven't been paying attention.)

3. Laws that appear to be in the interests of the public usually do more harm than good. Stupidity or malevolence, it's still harmful. 

4. Laws are written in a manner that intentionally obfuscates their contents. This doesn't sit well with me.

5. Laws that are abnormally evil, even by the standards of law, are passed without the public's knowledge or consent. It's a rarity the public becomes aware, and when they do they can seldom do anything about it.

 

If that is not enough for you to understand my viewpoint on law, you are not considering it.


PARTNERS