Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

#ActualJeremy Williams

Posted 08 June 2013 - 06:22 PM

Further, in smaller communities this isn't an issue. Nobody is going to be able to go around being a complete asshole in a lawless society because somebody else will make them regret it. Even if nobody else can, the community can do it. Even the vile, wicked murderers in the lawless old west would never ride into town and start killing people, at least not without a lot of help, because they'd have a lifespan of about ten minutes if they did and the risk clearly could never be worth whatever reward they could pull from it. (Unless they were trying to die, and law couldn't stop that. Actually, law might encourage it.)

First you say that your primary concern is dealing with laws that cover anything other than direct 1-1 physical harm to another person. You then start making a demonstrably false case that absent any law, things only get better(behold Somalia, Mr William's wonderland).

First off, I NEVER said things would get better without those laws. I said that the fear of reprisal would keep people in line anyway, even in absence of law. And Somalia HAS law. It follows Sharia, Islamic LAW, the most demonstrably evil legal system I've had the displeasure of reading. So does almost the entirety of Africa and the Middle East.

I would not be inclined to see vigilantism used to fix rape and murder cases. It does not go well in the Islamic countries that handle it that way, today.

That's because Islam blames rape victims for being raped, rather than their rapists, and those areas follow Sharia law. Those people may not be wearing uniforms, but they are enforcing the local law.

And mind you, I actually agree with you, that we have too many laws and the law should primarily deal with prevention of harming other people, rather than keeping people from harming themselves or behaving in a certain fashion. Yet even I find your case to be unpersuasive, because I can easily look to other countries in our own time and see your desired lack of law playing out. It is much worse.

Except that you can't. There's never been and never will be a society without law. It's an inevitable consequence of forming society. Your issue is that you don't know the local law and assume there isn't any. The "lawless" areas of Africa and the Middle East are still following and enforcing Sharia. Sharia is fucking evil. And it's available online, go read it. You'll see what I mean. Hell, while you're at it, go read the Bible and Koran. Keep in mind that without any formally enforced law, THAT is what people will fall back upon. And it's sick, isn't it? It's not a matter of choosing between law and no law, we just don't have the option. We just have to avoid religious law through formally enforced law, lest the entire world fall under the direct control of religion and end up looking like Africa.

The same goes for corporate law. We basically had no laws in the late 1800s and you'll never find a worse time to be an average citizen in America. It was not uncommon to work ninety hours a week and die in debt, thanks to the wonder of company towns. Labor laws are needed. Without them, nearly everyone's quality of life is absolute crap. It doesn't mean we can't go too far, but the minimum wage and overtime laws are vital to maintain a decent quality of life.

And once again, this isn't a lack of law. This is just evil laws written by evil people for evil ends.

If your goal is truly to open someone's mind to the concept that a law is not automatically moral or right, simply because it is the law, perhaps pick laws that harm people doing no wrong. Or better, relate the story to them in a way that makes it feel personal. A lot of people supported the Patriot Act because they felt it would only be used on "the bad guys". The numbers slowly fell as it became apparent that the "bad guys" were not a handful of foreign terrorists, but millions of people. And with the revelation that literally every single American citizen has the entirety of their contact history logged in intelligence agency tracking, I imagine those numbers will fall a lot more.

 

If you want to get someone over to your side, tell them why the law is bad for them or people they care about, not how it might be bad for other people. No one cares about strangers.

I'm quite aware. That's why my characters used as examples of all things, not just law doing harm, get plenty of screen time so it'll feel more personal when the time comes.

 

My second short story (about 60 pages, so it's really more of a novella) was mostly introducing a character who would be important to the setting (Justin Caige) and it used his smothering, if not malicious, parents and his smothering, most likely malicious, school as his motivation for running away from his rich neighbourhood. (Burn the bridges, salt the ashes, and then nuke them from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.) Later, the story mostly deals with tuning down how much of a total asshole he is and turning his aggression towards a productive purpose, through a girl (yeah, that's such a surprise) named Isabel. This later is followed up with a statement on biggest gripe (at the time) on modern society: the rampant corruption and abuse of power going unchecked in the police department, when... well, I'm not going to spoil it.

 

Now that I think about it, this one is actually still canon. I can just make a few minor edits to fix the non-canon details and it'll be ready to post. Granted, it's more than five years old, (fall 2007, I think) but it's still canon and that must count for something.

How many starving children could the sale of my luxury electronics and donation of money save? I don't know, but I'm very confident that number is at least "one" - yet I don't do it. Because I have distance from the issue. It would take on a whole other dimension for me if I found a homeless child rummaging through my garbage for rotten food scarps.

Here, I think I can answer your hypothetical quandry. The answer is most likely "0, because the food will be stolen by rifle-toting savages." Food shipments to the Middle East and Africa are constantly being stolen at gunpoint and then either wasted or kept to the leaders and their families. You're not going to save the starving children, you'll just help fatten the people that are gunning them down in the street.


#1Jeremy Williams

Posted 07 June 2013 - 04:38 PM

Further, in smaller communities this isn't an issue. Nobody is going to be able to go around being a complete asshole in a lawless society because somebody else will make them regret it. Even if nobody else can, the community can do it. Even the vile, wicked murderers in the lawless old west would never ride into town and start killing people, at least not without a lot of help, because they'd have a lifespan of about ten minutes if they did and the risk clearly could never be worth whatever reward they could pull from it. (Unless they were trying to die, and law couldn't stop that. Actually, law might encourage it.)

First you say that your primary concern is dealing with laws that cover anything other than direct 1-1 physical harm to another person. You then start making a demonstrably false case that absent any law, things only get better(behold Somalia, Mr William's wonderland).

First off, I NEVER said things would get better without those laws. I said that the fear of reprisal would keep people in line anyway, even in absence of law. And Somalia HAS law. It follows Sharia, Islamic LAW, the most demonstrably evil legal system I've had the displeasure of reading. So does almost the entirety of Africa and the Middle East.

I would not be inclined to see vigilantism used to fix rape and murder cases. It does not go well in the Islamic countries that handle it that way, today.

That's because Islam blames rape victims for being raped, rather than their rapists, and those areas follow Sharia law. Those people may not be wearing uniforms, but they are enforcing the local law.

And mind you, I actually agree with you, that we have too many laws and the law should primarily deal with prevention of harming other people, rather than keeping people from harming themselves or behaving in a certain fashion. Yet even I find your case to be unpersuasive, because I can easily look to other countries in our own time and see your desired lack of law playing out. It is much worse.

Except that you can't. There's never been and never will be a society without law. It's an inevitable consequence of forming society. Your issue is that you don't know the local law and assume there isn't any. The "lawless" areas of Africa and the Middle East are still following and enforcing Sharia. Sharia is fucking evil. And it's available online, go read it. You'll see what I mean. Hell, while you're at it, go read the Bible and Koran. Keep in mind that without any formally enforced law, THAT is what people will fall back upon. And it's sick, isn't it? It's not a matter of choosing between law and no law, we just don't have the option. We just have to avoid religious law through formally enforced law, lest the entire world fall under the direct control of religion and end up looking like Africa.

The same goes for corporate law. We basically had no laws in the late 1800s and you'll never find a worse time to be an average citizen in America. It was not uncommon to work ninety hours a week and die in debt, thanks to the wonder of company towns. Labor laws are needed. Without them, nearly everyone's quality of life is absolute crap. It doesn't mean we can't go too far, but the minimum wage and overtime laws are vital to maintain a decent quality of life.

And once again, this isn't a lack of law. This is just evil laws written by evil people for evil ends.

If your goal is truly to open someone's mind to the concept that a law is not automatically moral or right, simply because it is the law, perhaps pick laws that harm people doing no wrong. Or better, relate the story to them in a way that makes it feel personal. A lot of people supported the Patriot Act because they felt it would only be used on "the bad guys". The numbers slowly fell as it became apparent that the "bad guys" were not a handful of foreign terrorists, but millions of people. And with the revelation that literally every single American citizen has the entirety of their contact history logged in intelligence agency tracking, I imagine those numbers will fall a lot more.

 

If you want to get someone over to your side, tell them why the law is bad for them or people they care about, not how it might be bad for other people. No one cares about strangers.

I'm quite aware. That's why my characters used as examples of all things, not just law doing harm, get plenty of screen time so it'll feel more personal when the time comes.

 

My second short story (about 60 pages, so it's really more of a novella) was mostly introducing a character who would be important to the setting (Justin Caige) and it used his smothering, if not malicious, parents and his smothering, most likely malicious, school as his motivation for running away from his rich neighbourhood. (Burn the bridges, salt the ashes, and then nuke them from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.) Later, the story mostly deals with tuning down how much of a total asshole he is and turning his aggression towards a productive purpose, through a girl (yeah, that's such a surprise) named Isabella. This later is followed up with a statement on biggest gripe (at the time) on modern society: the rampant corruption and abuse of power going unchecked in the police department, when... well, I'm not going to spoil it.

 

Now that I think about it, this one is actually still canon. I can just make a few minor edits to fix the non-canon details and it'll be ready to post. Granted, it's more than five years old, (fall 2007, I think) but it's still canon and that must count for something.

How many starving children could the sale of my luxury electronics and donation of money save? I don't know, but I'm very confident that number is at least "one" - yet I don't do it. Because I have distance from the issue. It would take on a whole other dimension for me if I found a homeless child rummaging through my garbage for rotten food scarps.

Here, I think I can answer your hypothetical quandry. The answer is most likely "0, because the food will be stolen by rifle-toting savages." Food shipments to the Middle East and Africa are constantly being stolen at gunpoint and then either wasted or kept to the leaders and their families. You're not going to save the starving children, you'll just help fatten the people that are gunning them down in the street.


PARTNERS