The Purpose and Execution of Law

Discussion in 'Debate Corner' started by Makaze, Dec 21, 2011.

  1. Makaze Some kind of mercenary

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Location:
    The Matinée
    1,207
    Think about something you’re better-than-average at. Better yet, something you’re good at. Now imagine being required by law – backed by the threat of violence for failure to comply – to dumb yourself down to the level of the average. Performance at a higher level puts you in violation – and subject to punishment.

    Ridiculous?

    Of course. But that doesn’t prevent it from being the basis of traffic law (and other laws besides).

    Consider “jaywalking.†The law says this occurs when a pedestrian crosses a street before an “ok to proceed†light tells him he may. The legal premise is that the average person is too low-performance to gauge when he may safely cross the street. And he may well be. But – and here’s where it gets interesting – rather than using the situation as a teaching moment, our system immediately, reflexively, puts up a crutch (the “walk/don’t walk†light) and – much worse – turns a punitive eye toward the able and competent pedestrians who don’t need the light. Incentives, on the one hand, are created that encourage passivity (mindless compliance) while on the other, another salvo is fired at the exercise of initiative for the sole purpose of defeating it and encouraging an ever-more-passive populace.

    Think about it.

    And I choose the word think very deliberately.

    Why, if the way is clear, should one not cross the street – irrespective of signs and lights? Because it is The Law, will be the reply of the authoritarian equalizer type I call Clovers. And The Law does not consider it relevant whether, in fact, the street was devoid of cars and it was safe therefore to cross. Not only reason but a defense based on the assertion of no harm done is no defense at all. Submit and Obey. That is what’s required. No matter how arbitrary, no matter how unreasonable. Just – do as you are told.

    Laws against speeding are now similarly premised. There used to be a legally viable defense which amounted to convincing the judge that even though you may have been driving faster than the posted speed limit, the speed you were driving was not unsafe for conditions. The road was a major highway; the day was clear, traffic was light. You get the cop to concede your car was under control, that you were not weaving, drifting or otherwise doing anything obviously dangerous to others.

    Forget about trying this line of reasoning today.

    Because today, most speed limit laws are what lawyers call per se speed limit laws. It means you’re guilty of “speeding†regardless of whether it was safe under the specific conditions. In other words, your actual driving is irrelevant. All that matters, legally speaking, is that you have been caught exceeding whatever speed the bureaucrats have posted. Guilty. $300 fine plus court costs. We’ll be sure to let your insurance company know, too.

    It’s exasperating because it’s both unjust and corrosive. Unjust, because arguably, no one should be subject to punishment absent provable harm having been committed. A truly guilty person (provided he’s not a sociopath) will feel guilt if he has done something to cause harm to another person. And he will accept his punishment with equanimity.

    After all, he deserves it.

    This is – or was – a fundamental tenet of Western (and American) law. It found expression in the old saying – no harm, no foul. That has been upended. Now people who do no harm are routinely judged “guilty†who have committed no foul – no harm – at all. And they resent it – rightly. You are just driving along, in full control of your vehicle, in no way causing or threatening to cause harm to anyone. But you are traveling faster than an arbitrarily decreed number. A cop observes you, not driving dangerously, merely driving faster than legally allowed. He pulls you over with much sturm und drang (usually accompanied by a cant-choked lecture about The Law) culminating in the issuance of a piece of paper ordering you to pay a large sum of money for no reason at all – other than your having “exceeded the posted speed limit.â€

    It makes you angry. Think about this. Most of us – who are not sociopaths – would not be angry at being caught (and punished) for having done something to harm others. But to be threatened by an armed man (or woman) merely for flouting some arbitrary convention – some “law†– when you know in your heart (and mind) that you were no threat to anyone? That “the law†in question is a technicality at best and an absurdity at worst? That will make any reasonable person very angry indeed.

    And righteous anger of that sort is no good for the health of the system. It undermines legitimate law – and legitimate enforcement. It creates enmity where none ought to exist. It is responsible for the transformation of what used to be peace officers into law enforcement officers. Note the distinction. It is important. Peace officers maintain the peace. This is something all but the sociopaths among us would probably agree is desirable. But what does it mean to be a “law enforcement†officer? It means, to be a guy (or gal) with a gun and a badge who enforces whatever law happens to be on the books. To be callously, robotically indifferent to reason.

    It does not matter to an “LEO†whether you are peaceful and harming no one. Whether you are competent – and your judgment sound. Whether – as in our original example – there was no traffic around and it was perfectly safe to walk across the street, even though the “walk†light hadn’t turned white yet.

    All that matters to the LEO is – you guessed it – The Law.

    Your judgment, even if provably sound, makes no difference. Your demonstrated ability to handle something with skill and competence – especially, higher skill and competence than the officially decreed “safe†average (however defined) – will only cause you problems if exercised. Slow down. Stop thinking so much. Wait for the light.

    Submit. Obey.

    What are your thoughts on this?

    I favor any system that makes use of reason and a no harm, no fowl—no victim, no crime—policy. Causing harm to someone who has done no harm is the basis for what we call "crime". If that is the case, then why should we do it in the name of stopping crime?

    The individual is far more important than any rule by them on principle. Wouldn't you agree?
     
  2. Gultigargar Hollow Bastion Committee

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Location:
    Europe, Denmark
    25
    591
    Wow, someone got really ****ing angry about getting a speeding ticket...

    Despite how sound one may believe ones own judgement to be, I'd really rather be safe than sorry. Just because you deem the road to be totally safe doesn't mean it is. A car or pedestrian can easily come out of nowhere, and should such a thing occur then everyone is better off if you are not driving at high speed.
     
  3. Makaze Some kind of mercenary

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Location:
    The Matinée
    1,207
    You ignored the argument.

    You have sped. You were not a danger, and you did not cause harm.

    You are still harmed via a fine.

    What do you mean by 'rather safe than sorry'? There is no sorry other than the fine. No one was harmed, and yet you are being harmed.

    No peace or safety is being made here, only an angry person who is out of some time and money.
     
  4. KeybladeSpirit [ENvTuber] [pngTuber]

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    Gender:
    Girl ️‍⚧️
    Location:
    College
    2,178
    Your reasoning seems to be "Risk=Crime."

    If you look at it that way, then most everything that puts someone other than yourself at risk could be considered a crime. Is it really just to outlaw something based on a ~10% chance that it will cause someone to be wronged? If so, then SOPA is very much justified. If I'm speeding and I get caught but nobody was harmed, then there should be no crime. If, however, I hurt someone other than myself as a result of my driving, then I should be fined for reckless driving.
     
  5. Noroz I Wish Happiness Always Be With You

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2011
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Norway
    199
    Even though I may consider speed limits to be low in many cases, I still believe that if you are speeding, you are subject to being fine.

    If you're driving by yourself, you may not consider that you are putting other lives in danger, while on the contrary, you are. If you lose control of the car (after driving for some time, I've realized that it is easier than you'd actually think) you have no idea whether or not there is anyone in the direction your car may bounce.

    I've seen results of people losing control of their car, and it's not pretty. They were speeding as well. Regardless of only your own life is lost, the possibility of hurting/killing others is great enough to deserve a fine.

    And yes, risk = fine. That's logic. If you are only fined after actually hurting someone, that would be idiocy. By giving fines to avoid accidents, you prevent at least some accidents.
     
  6. Makaze Some kind of mercenary

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Location:
    The Matinée
    1,207
    Then you must support the NDAA? They use the same logic that you do to justify it.

    Preventive punishment is not good policy. If you cannot prove guilt beyond all doubt after a crime, then how can you expect to argue it before it happens?
     
  7. KeybladeSpirit [ENvTuber] [pngTuber]

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    Gender:
    Girl ️‍⚧️
    Location:
    College
    2,178
    I didn't say risk=fine. I said Risk=Crime. Should you be branded as a criminal just because you were in a hurry and there was no way you could hurt anybody by going a couple miles per hour over the speed limit?
     
  8. Patman Bof

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    France
    672
    Speed limitations weren' t established for security reasons in my country, they cared little about that back then. It was established right after the oil crisis to put a halt to fuel consumption. For the sake of this discussion let' s ignore the ecologic reason to enforce speed limits.

    The problem with letting people judge what is safe or not is that most people are fools. As intelligent as you may or may not be sooner or later you' ll make a judgment mistake. Saying that it will serve as a lesson is not okay when your actions put other people' s life at stake, not just your own. Yes, even by crossing the street you put other lives than your own at stake.

    Furthermore cops have objective ways to measure your speed, they don' t have any objective way to measure the danger you put yourself and others into when you go faster than allowed. They can only enforce what they can objectively observe. Did you break a law yes or not ? If we were to listen to the endless complaints of people who got busted most of them would probably feel they had a perfectly good reason for breaking the law (even though they have no objective way to tell for sure if it' s a good enough reason). It' s not like we can afford to have a trial over every single little infraction now, is it ? Besides, if you got caught then in itself it' s proof your assessment of the situation was flawed.

    The people who established the speed limit law did it because they estimated than saving lives was more important than your right to be in a hurry, I' d say it seems perfectly reasonable, wouldn' t you ? Of course we could probably find a law you don' t agree with (say, totally randomly, the right to smoke in public areas), the system isn' t perfect, it can' t be perfect, but neither can people.

    That brings us to the fact that cops are people too. They aren' t machines, they can be wrong, but they can also be understanding. If there are overwhelming evidences that your actions were inoffensive they might not tell you anything. It happened to me several times, even for major infractions. I' m aware that cops often twist the original purpose of the law to, basically, collect taxes, and I look less kindly to that, but even then they still act as a deterrent for a law that is, overall, perceived as being useful.

    At the end of the day, if we weight the bad and the good, from where I stand our laws seem to bring more good than harm. Our laws don' t alienate people, I seem to recall a law that oblige every citizen to go to school and learn to think by themselves. If you are as smart and independent as you pride yourself to be then surely adding the risk to get caught, in a "wise" law-breaking move, to your assessment of a situation should be easy peasy.
     
  9. Noroz I Wish Happiness Always Be With You

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2011
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Norway
    199
    It's not preventive if you break the law. And how the hell can you possibly compare the NDAA to speed limits! If your initial reply is "the principle is the same," well it's not. Speed limits are rules to follow, and if you don't, you are breaking the law. You must be able to differ Receiving a fine from actually breaking a set law, and being indefinitely imprisoned due to suspicion. The limit is allegedly for your and others safety. The difference is that if you speed, you are actually breaking a law. I don't question the rule of speed limits, I question the limit set.

    I meant risk = fine. I don't consider it a crime to go a bit over the speed limit, however, it is an infraction (However, mainly I'm thinking of speeding more than just 5 miles over the limit). As I mentioned before, I don't question the speed limit, I question the limit set.
     
  10. Makaze Some kind of mercenary

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Location:
    The Matinée
    1,207
    I lost my essay post because my laptop died. Joy! Slander and calumny.

    I will be less verbose this time around, I think.

    How strange. I think I could agree with that reasoning if you could prove that driving either above or the below the limit lowered fuel efficiency. In that case it would not matter if you had harmed anyone individually, because no matter the circumstances speeding would harm everyone.

    I agree, many are stupid. I simply assert that 'no harm, no fowl' applies; you should not harm someone unless a person's life is directly affected; being at stake is not being harmed, and harming someone who has done no harm is not ethical and serves only to anger them and cause them loss.

    I would also need to see proof that accidents go down because of speed limits. In other words, I would need to see proof of their stupidity rather than your cynicism if I were to concede to it fully. Everyone makes mistakes. Everyone also thinks that others make more mistakes than they do, and they tend to be more careful than they think others are being. Those who do not are the kind who ignore street signs anyway. You are no exception. I would like to see people become more reckless just because there are no signs before I accept your assessment.

    I agree. Therefore, they should not enforce it at all unless a disturbance actually occurs.

    This is completely irrelevant to your previous argument. Anything can be made a law. You cannot justify a law by appealing to itself.

    Then we agree! I still assert that you should not harm someone unless you can objectively prove that they have harmed someone else. This cuts out a lot of costs, doesn't it?

    What? How does that follow? Do you believe that slaves who were caught off the plantation were wrong to do so because they were caught?

    No, I would not. There are no such things as 'rights'. A 'right' is a 'freedom to' something. 'Liberty' is a better term, as it denotes a 'freedom from'.

    There is no 'right to live' nor a 'right to hurry' for either party, only our liberty, or our freedom from being harmed by the other. If I infringe on their liberty, then of course I must compensate; I have created an imbalance and caused loss. However, if they fine me for doing something that could, under other circumstances, have caused them a loss of liberty, then they are infringing on my liberty when I have not infringed on them, and they are the ones guilty of causing an imbalance and loss.

    Rights allow people to justify revenge (a 'right to hit back') or any other action as long as they can appeal to the emotions of a judge or jury, while liberty does not. Rights are an obsolete concept because of this.

    For the purposes of what you said, yes, I agree that their liberty is more important than my convenience, but unless I did infringe on their liberty, then 'no harm, no fowl' applies.

    ... Why did you say this? I was under the impression that I was suggesting a revision of the execution law so as to be in line with its purpose. I can only see this as blanket defense of status quo rather than an argument against the purpose I proposed. Is this your intention?

    Again, why are you saying this? My intention was to discuss the purpose of law. We are discussing the policy of the organization rather than the integrity of its individual employees. It is completely irrelevant to the law if an individual enforcer has a mind of his own.

    If you wish to contest the idea that they have become 'enforcement officers', then you will have to do more than offer exceptions to the rules, because the rules are what we are discussing, not the people enforcing them.

    That is ridiculous, I am sorry. Let me ask some questions that might help. How are the drug laws in your country? How does your country handle protesters? Does your country force people to apply for an eventual draft, or conscript people into the military? Is is involved in any wars? What does it do with people who refuse to contribute to its existence?

    Do you honestly think that the welfare and healthcare systems make up for all of that? If not, then what good could they possibly do to make up for the harm that they cause to nonviolent people? If so, then how so? I do not see it, no matter what country you live in.

    Oh, you dug your own grave with this one. Allow me to break your sentence down.

    The bit "a law that oblige" seems to be saying that a law enforces an obligation, you are obligated to do whatever comes next.

    Then we have "every citizen to go to school". So, you are obligated, by law, to be taught a curriculum that is constantly assessed and approved by the employees of the body that made that law.

    Third comes "and learn to think for themselves." I honestly laughed at this. People are being obligated to learn how to think... For themselves. Oh, the paradox of it. If you do not get the joke, please tell me, because I am finding it hilarious at the moment.

    You are right about one thing, this does not alienate people... Citizens, sorry. But that should be the least of your worries when you think that any kind of mandatory education helps you think for yourself.

    Excuse me, did you just say what I think you said? That I should accept a law because I can get around it? What kind of ethics is that?

    What are you talking about? Is there some mystical property that makes this true?

    Drug laws exist in order to prevent one from committing other crimes, yes?

    Speed limits and traffic laws exist in order to prevent one from causing wrecks, yes?

    Curfew laws exist to prevent various activities from occurring after a certain time, yes?

    In fact, a great deal of laws can be put down to 'loss prevention'.

    Now, let us move on.

    I can compare them very easily. Under this act, it might soon become policy, or law, that if an officer finds you suspicious, you may be detained without trial.

    In a similar way, officers may pull you over without having read your speed because they 'thought you were speeding'.

    If this becomes a law, your defense will be completely useless, because in being suspicious, you will be breaking the law. That is how it is.

    This is completely arbitrary. You respect the idea of a speed limit on the basis that it prevents crimes, while you deny that things such as the NDAA are valid even though the same reasoning is being used for them. It appears as if you are handpicking speeding limits instead of holding to your argument, making your respect for speed limits an arbitrary choice that I cannot take seriously.
     
  11. Noroz I Wish Happiness Always Be With You

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2011
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Norway
    199

    I said preventive laws. If you break the preventive law, making the chance of whatever attempted to be prevented, you will be punished accordingly.
    The idea that due to the NDAA, suspicion means punishment becomes valid in all cases is merely an assumption of yours.

    So due to the principle, you consider them equal? I don't agree with the NDAA, but I have not seen many cases people are stopped if they were not read. Unless, of course, it is excessive speeding.

    Well, of course! There is a difference between paying a $50 fine for actually speeding, rather than being imprisoned indefinitely. Once again, I don't agree with the NDAA, but you're trying to compare NDAA to a speeding ticket, which you can't do! I'm not saying it's right to pull over someone under suspicion of speeding, I'm saying it's right if they are speeding.

    And I must add, your idea of the "no harm - no fowl, no victim - no crime" is extremely flawed. What if someone shot at you to kill you, but missed you and the bullet was instead wedged into a wall. Should they not be punished, as no harm was put onto you?
     
  12. Makaze Some kind of mercenary

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Location:
    The Matinée
    1,207
    Exactly. And the NDAA is a preventive law.

    Rather, it is an assumption of yours. I said that it would become policy, not that it would apply in all cases.

    The principle is the same, as I said. Allow me to expand on this below.

    Of course. And you harm no one by speeding itself, it is simply going past an arbitrary limit defined by the state.

    If you act suspiciously, you will actually be acting suspiciously according to the law. You can replace speeding with acting suspiciously and you have the same argument.

    If you had been able to say that they actually caused an accident and damages, then I might see where you are coming from. But it being illegal does not make it an 'actual' offense by any means. That is the point.

    Again, what if you are being suspicious? It is functionally the same as speeding; they fine you for speeding because they find it reason to suspect a threat, not because the threat actually came to pass.

    I am not sure why you do not understand.

    They should not be penalized for killing you, no. Penalized for damages to the wall, yes, and trauma, perhaps, but that is shaky grounds. Intent to harm factors in, of course, but I do agree that if someone causes you no losses at all, then you have no reason to cause them losses. It would instead become a question of whether this person continued to pose a threat to you and others. Your notion of 'punishing' this person is based in a 'right to' revenge, not anything like compensation for losses incurred. I do not agree with such rights.
     
  13. Patman Bof

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    France
    672
    Holy crap ! I' m not gonna complain, the mere thought of answering you gave me a headache as soon as I saw your "short" answer.
    I' ll try to keep it "short" too.

    Yes, that' s it. The faster you drive the less distance you' ll be able to travel.

    According to studies backed by the department of energy, the average car will be at its advertised MPG at 55 mph. But as the speed increases:

    - 3% less efficient at 60 mph
    - 8% less efficient at 65 mph
    - 17% less efficient at 70 mph
    - 23% less efficient at 75 mph
    - 28% less efficient at 80 mph


    http://mpgforspeed.com/


    I would hardly describe speed limit fines as "harming", especially when every car crash statistics I' ve read tend to prove that they save lives indeed (not that one needs to be a genius to realize that speed has a huge influence over car crash casualties).

    I tried to find statistics to illustrate this and stumbled on the first counter-example I' ve ever seen :
    http://articles.sfgate.com/1998-11-02/news/17735730_1_speed-limits-mph-limit-death-rate

    There are so many things that could go wrong when we drive ... You seemed to imply that some people are car-smart, that they have enough skills and brains to make an objective assessment of their situation and safely bypass speed limits. I disagree. I' ve known lots of people who died in car crashes. Some were smart, some were skilled, some were cautious, cars are a ****ing morbid lottery. The fool' s idea is to drive a car to begin with.

    Some French schools tried to get rid of grades (people suggested that grades potentially discriminate and alienate some kids). This experience turned out to be an utter failure, even the best pupils became slackers in no time. Not that this one isolated experience is enough to draw broad conclusions of course. My stance would be to keep a "better safe than sorry" approach until it' s proven it isn' t needed because, well, better safe than sorry.

    Just like Noroz I think the "no harm no foul" policy is extremely flawed. Not that I believe in revenge, I believe in deterrents.

    Huh ? No, it' s just that if you couldn' t tell you were gonna be busted then what else couldn' t you tell ? I was underlining how the whole situation could be seen as a humility lesson, nothing more.

    Maybe, just maybe, some people would be reluctant to drive if everyone was allowed to drive as recklessly as they want ?

    My country doesn' t force people into the army anymore, this decision made me really euphoric at the time. My knowledge of laws is, let' s face it, quite poor. I can' t think of an overwhelmingly unjust law in my country, which I realize isn' t saying much given my unimpressive knowledge on the matter.



    No, the irony isn' t lost on me ! ^^
    In my country teachers aren' t allowed to expose their political or religious colors.
    Although there are some mold-folding elements in our education I was also given the tools to think by myself (I' m mostly thinking about logic and philosophy), warnings about political manipulations, and libraries to pick whatever subject I might feel curious about. That' s quite paradoxical indeed ! I was assuming the American education wasn' t wildly different, am I mistaken ?

    Besides, all the knowledge we gain in school isn' t coming from the teacher' s mouth. As JK Rowling said it even a bad teacher is, in itself, a lesson. Our grade systems have the same flaws that our laws, one doesn' t need to be a genius to realize that his exercises have redundant patterns and don' t actually require him to fully understand the lesson, or to figure out what X would like to read in his copy. Surviving school bullies is also taught ... in a way.

    Basically law enforcement is a reasonably priced tool that gets a good part of the job done. I don' t doubt that a less robotic enforcement could be thought of, I just wonder if it would have at least the same price/efficiency ratio.

    No, I' m saying you can cheat, manifest, write articles or get into a political career. The counter power is us. Our government and laws are chosen by people for people, if they let us down somehow we have ways to deal with it.

    "Chaos is found in greatest abundance wherever order is being sought. It always defeats order, because it is better organized." - Terry Pratchett
     
  14. Makaze Some kind of mercenary

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Location:
    The Matinée
    1,207
    Let us hope that it does not happen again. My text was twice as long last time.

    Very interesting. Thank you for telling me.

    Why not? Does it not cause a loss? Does causing a loss not imply harm?

    You imply that one harm cancels out whether or not another is harmful. Do you have a reason to assume this? If you are going to go to end results, then monetarily, more losses are incurred upon society for speeding than the lives that would be lost if they did not enforce it. It is more profitable for the police if they fine people, but society has no reason to value a single life over the money of hundreds of 'speeders' who did not get killed in accidents.

    I imply that one should be assumed car smart until proven otherwise. This is a far more efficient way to handle it. When someone causes a disturbance, then you know they are not car smart. Revoke their license on top of damages? Give them strikes? But not before they prove it. Perhaps you should be more efficient in your licensing tests. If a license fails to prove that you are car smart, or as a basis to assume such then what use is it? That would make more sense if you were honestly concerned about efficiency. But you would not make as much money off of that as incompetence, would you? Oh, shame.

    My safety is my responsibility. If someone else harms me, then they are at fault. If I fail to do well, then I was at fault. If no ends up with a loss, then no one is a victim, and there is no fault, so there is no need for an enforcement of what is otherwise an arbitrarily posted sign.

    Ahaha! The first problem with such an example is a massively false premise. Children are not necessarily punished for getting bad grades, and fellow drivers do not give one fines. What they did was add a band-aid to the problem. If children are put in a setting where they have to care about whether or not they will be attacked or disliked by those around them, changing the standards for the task are not going to help. It seems terribly obvious to me what the problem is. Ah, well...

    You support harming people who have caused no harm. Harm on the basis of making examples or propaganda is similar to revenge. I am sure you can understand?

    Exactly how was it humiliating? I am not contesting regarding my ability to avoid detection. I am contesting the efficiency and legitimacy of what they think they should do if I am detected.

    Who says they would be allowed to drive as recklessly as they want? Fine those who cause accidents, and that will take of those who are 'too reckless'. People will only be allowed to be reckless as long as they do not cause problems. The distinction between the former 'peace officers' and the new 'enforcement officers' is an important point in the essay. Peace officers settled disputes if and when they happened. Were there more disputes? Why do you believe this? Why do you believe that people would be more reckless with the lives of others if they were not stolen from regularly? Regret is a great motivator. Do not underestimate it.

    A rather ridiculous outlook, but I suppose the state that made those laws did teach you about them. They have been have been very positive and vague about their own work, as expected of them.

    That is not the question, I could speak of parents' influences if that were the issue.

    Warnings about political manipulations...

    That, in itself, is the irony. A school's curriculum is reviewed and approved by the state, you are required to attend a state approved school, and you also must pay for this school, or your parents must. This school will necessarily teach you things that make you wish to further support its existence later in your life. The political manipulation exists in the warning itself. First, it makes you assert that the political figure (teacher, principal, head of education, et cetera) saying it is not swaying you, and that he or she is objectively right. It almost sounds caring, like they wish for you to not fall prey. And that is an incredible ploy. It will work on nearly any child, no matter the person saying it or their particular structure. Told often enough, he or she will believe that everything the school tells them is meant to help them make an unbiased decision.

    History is a wonderful example of where major revisions occur. Other than in philosophy and especially political philosophy classes, history makes the most... Offenses. If your country has anything in its history that might make it obviously worse than a country next to it, or simply make it out to be a disreputable country, it will be white washed. Or, it is reported, then the country next door will be reportedly even worse. Anything that might make you disgruntled with the system that is teaching you will be glanced over. The system exists not to help you, but to generate revenue. When you are educated in the right things, you become an efficient taxpayer, but they have to make sure that you grow up to become a taxpayer. So they teach you things that will help them reach that goal. It only follows.

    I was not speaking of either the grades or the quality of teaching, but rather the structure; it is not built as a charity. Would you claim that it is? If not, then it takes in money, and must be a business or a front for a business. A business is out to make profits. The system is set up so that it will do so. That is where I have problems.

    School bullies exist largely because the social setting of schools exists. You do not encounter such settings anywhere else in your life, and the bullying that you encounter is not even close to the same as that you got while in school. Or at least, not in the cases of anyone I know. "God gave me a tail to keep the flies off, but I would sooner have no tail and no flies."

    You assume that what we have in our countries embodies the concept of law enforcement itself, and that we were discussing the legitimacy of law enforcement on principle... This is not the case. I fail to see why you keep getting hung up on it.

    You must include fines in the price. A lot of the money that they get comes from fining and repossessing property. The efficiency would match the cost only if they charged others after they had caused losses instead of before. It would also help if the fines were proportional to the losses caused, that ties in. When it is not, the cost to society is far higher than what is gotten back in 'saved lives' that you cannot prove you saved. It is given that causing losses when no losses incurred is not proportional, so of course it is being ruled out.

    High hopes were once formed of democracy; but democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people, by the people, for the people.” ~ Oscar Wilde

    Why exactly are you saying this...? Honestly not sure what you are insinuating, or where you are coming from in insinuating it. You somehow think that challenging the system that raised you is challenging the notion of order itself? How self-righteous can you get?

    This is a paradox. It seems he does not understand chaos. Perhaps he means a network without hierarchy? Not the same thing. Called out as chaos, but chaos it is not, by nature of being better organized. Order begins to sound rather more like 'enforced hierarchy' when you use a quote like that. It implies that there is somehow chaos when people organize to depose 'order'. Is there not already order if they move to stop a 'ruler' from 'enforcing' his own? It seems to follow. I mean, that would obviously be the case. But then, the quote could be an expression of this irony, taken out of context. Oh, well...
     
  15. NemesisPrime Hollow Bastion Committee

    Joined:
    May 4, 2011
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The World That Never Was
    68
    523
    In a perfect society your argument would be legit and sound and might very well BE law.

    Notice how I say PERFECT.

    Such a thing does and never shall exist.

    The world and America by it's nature today is all about MONEY. Your sense of right and wrong is irrelevant. The state the country it's in has driven it to the point where they will do ANYTHING to increase revenue even if it's stupid.

    Why? Simple. Money talks.

    Doesn't relate? No. It has ALOT to do with it.

    You could be perfectly in the right maybe going a little faster but still in total control as you have pointed out BUT it doesn't matter as you were breaking the law and as such a target for monetary income.

    Summed up: What once was "You are alright, you knew what you were doing. Just be careful." Has become: "Sorry sir, you have known what you were doing but the law clearly says...So I'm going to have to arrest you."

    Common sense? Don't need it! Make decisions for yourself? As If!

    Lesson: Be a good little drone and do as your told.

    I might be wrong but I see little evidence that proves otherwise.
     
  16. Makaze Some kind of mercenary

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Location:
    The Matinée
    1,207
    What I read: Stating how you see 'the way things are'. Stating that things never change in spite of centuries of change.

    While I agree that you cannot simply change the laws and overthrow the corporatism at the heart of the system, you simply need an ethical definition of law in the eyes of public to have these things. You cannot rely on a third party to decide what is right for you.

    You also need to understand that they created said money. I understand very well how they work. Have you read my other posts so far?

    Perfection by nature does exist, but better does exist. Calling my ideas out as idealistic makes it easier for you to shrug them off, but think about this.

    Person A (you) sees that they are good ideas, but claims that they will never work because the others are too greedy or evil.

    Person B sees that they are good ideas, but claims that they will never work because the others are too greedy or evil.

    Person C sees that they are good ideas, but claims that they will never work because the others are too greedy or evil.

    In fact, every potential Person that you know sees that they are good ideas, but claims that they will never work because the others are too greedy or evil.

    Is there anything stopping all of these people from banding together and simply exercising these good ideas other than their own greed and paranoia? Who among you actually thinks that they are invalid instead of some kind of impractical? Who are they? If all of the people who agreed that they were ethically sound gave up their small-mindedness and lived that way, then what would be the problem, exactly?

    Arguing that it will never happen is the very thing that makes it less likely to happen. A self-creating position without merit. Please drop it as soon as you can.

    The lesson for you: "Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people." ~ George Bernard Shaw
     
  17. Patman Bof

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    France
    672
    It is kinda harming, I guess, it' s just that whining over the freedom to drive at 140 kmh instead of just 130 seems really trivial to me. People who drive fast are already throwing their money down the carburetor anyway, maybe we should focus on a better example. As for the "crossing the street" example I' ve never heard of anyone being fined for crossing the street the "wrong" way. Maybe we should try to find a more striking example ?

    They save lives and gain money doing so. Two birds, one stone. Cops can' t live of fresh water, love and good will, money has to be collected at some point. In my area cops can only use two hours worth of fuel per night for their cars, despite the "riches" they take from us. I certainly agree that their collecting methods can seem ... peculiar.

    Yes, money money money.

    It was more a concern about not giving bad graded children a false feeling of uselessness at such a young age.
    Basically they thought the more bad grades a kid gets the less he' ll try to get better ones.

    I do understand how the same principle could lead to genuinely awful things.

    Same as you I guess, it' s just my personal hunch ?

    In my country in order to study laws decently you have to chose a law related career, this particular study subject is awfully large.

    Yes, I realized all this ... at school ...

    Public schools are free here until (college??) you' re eighteen. But yes, everything is built around profit, wouldn' t our lives revolve around material needs anyway, whith or without schools, laws or states ?

    I' d say it' s even, but that' s certainly extremely subjective.

    Because you asked what we thought of it ? Noroz already exposed the problem I have with the "no harm no foul" policy so I don' t really have anything to add.

    Was it ever attempted in the past ? If it was I' m unfamiliar with it.

    Wait what ? How did you get from what I' ve said to what you said ?
    I' m saying if you' re not happy with the system presented to you as "order" don' t forget you' re part of the system and your actions can influence it. Not yours alone, not overnight, but you can do things. I guess talking about it on KHV is already a small stone in the wall.

    Dude, it' s Terry Pratchett, not Oscar Wilde. ^^
    It was a joke, the "because it is better organized" part being the joke. Basically however carefully we plan things the universe has a way of sending us some unforeseen cosmic joke that thwarts it all somehow, no one will ever fully control anything. Not us, nor states.
     
  18. Peace and War Bianca, you minx!

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Gender:
    Cisgender Male
    1,282
    The laws on automobiles are either lax or strict depending on the country you visit.

    90% of road deaths are encountered in countries that are mid or low income such as Africa's low income countries, and China and india being mid income (though those countries are constantly in flux anyway). A correlation between these countries is that the higher the income of the country, the more restrictions on road users there are.
    For example, the UK has around 3,000 road deaths in a year on average whilst India has about 150,000 amount of road deaths on average, where they are the leading country in road deaths.

    In my opinion, from driving experience, and from statistics, I would say the speed limits that we have to abide by are fine. Not to say I alsways keep to the speed limit, but I keep into the reach of my ability of driving. When no one is around I may go over, if i'm slightly tired Ikeep to the speed limit or slow down more, and even a few rare times if I think another driver is driving dangerously I overtake them infront and slowing down to force them to do the same.
    Speed does not equal death, but it is a related statistic that can affect the likelihood of road deaths.
    But I know fromt he number of drivers out there that if the driving laws weren't as ridged as they are, our likely deaths on the road would increase a considerable amount, something I doubt many people would consider is a benefit outwaying a cost.

    But concerning other laws I would have to here each case, individually.
     
  19. KeybladeSpirit [ENvTuber] [pngTuber]

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    Gender:
    Girl ️‍⚧️
    Location:
    College
    2,178
    After taking a good long look at everything in here, I only have a two things to say.

    First: Seeing as how everyone thinks that the speeding ticket example is flawed, I wish to give a different example. Seat belt laws. Does the government have a right punish you for putting yourself in danger?
    Another example: Laws against suicide. Should you be treated as a criminal because YOU made YOUR choice to end YOUR life and just happened to fail? Had you succeeded, would you have caused any harm to anybody besides yourself? Granted, you would be obligated to pay back any hospital fees that were spent on you if you survived, but beyond that?

    Second: Let's turn this around. Instead of laws preventing our rights from being taken away, what about laws that force us to exercise our rights?
    For example, suppose a law is passed that states all married couples must, unless one partner is sterile, have at least one child within 20 years of their marriage license being validated. Now suppose you and your wife do not wish to have children before the 20 year cutoff date. Is it right to charged a fine for not exercising your right to have children? I propose that it is not.

    I believe a better quote may have been:
    "The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry."
    ~Robert Burns
     
  20. Makaze Some kind of mercenary

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Location:
    The Matinée
    1,207
    You have not? Over here, you can be fined for what we call jaywalking; walking across a street without a cross section. It does not happen often, but it is on the books all the same.

    More, this kind of thing allows them to falsify claims in order to add to their paychecks. Police departments the world over have quotas for arrests and fines to fill, and they have incentive to arrest and fine people even if everyone is acting perfectly. A system in which you profit from each instance of pulling someone over has huge potential for abuse. How exactly do you argue with an officer about how fast you were going?

    Someone said it was objective earlier, but of course, there is no way to tell if an officer is telling the truth, and he has incentive to cheat you. A much better pay system would be to raise the prices for licences, plates and so on. If you must individually force people to pay you in order to get your paycheck, then you will do so.

    False premise. School life is far more important to the average child than their performance. Teachers do not pick on them when they get bad grades, and it is not usually the smarter kids who pick on others.

    I discredit it on principle. If it is not valid in one instance, then it is not valid in another. There is an obvious alternative of not fining people even if you give them a warning. It is just as awful to steal a hundred dollars from a person's pocket as it is to steal their house, on principle. It is the same crime.

    Not quite valid. Would you call yourself an intuitive person? I have never known someone to be intentionally reckless with their driving around other people. I am not so closed minded and self-righteous as to think that no else is safe like I am. We are mostly the same on the road, and what I trust myself to think, I should trust others to think as well until they fail. Equal playing ground.

    You not need to know the books to find the harmful laws, they tend to be obvious. The drug laws, war policies and how they handle protesters should be obvious as they could affect your life or those around you directly. What happens to those who refuse to fund the laws they dislike is even more obvious. Are people arrested and jailed for refusing to contribute to government programs? Do you have taxes?

    If you realized this, then why did you give school as an example of a state's profit to society? Unless I misunderstood why you gave it.

    Explain? You do not have to pay for schools at all? No school district tax? No education tax? Nothing like that?

    When you say until eighteen, do they simply hold it off until after you turn eighteen, or do neither you nor your parents have to pay for the school? If so, then how can the school afford to exist? A front for a business was mentioned for this reason.

    They probably would, unless people made a drastic change and went for a more communistic structure. I am not against the idea that profit is good. I am simply pointing to that trend and stating that there is no such thing as good will in mandatory education. Teachers might mean well, but not being able to teach kids anything but a government approved program is rather limiting.

    I'm guessing you were not subject to a lot of it during school?

    I did no such thing. I posit that purpose of law and the current executions of law are in conflict on a fundamental level. At no point did I ask you what you thought of getting rid of laws themselves (as laws exist only when enforced).

    ... You are not familiar with a time when they did not have speed limits and road signs?

    I am not looking to influence this system. It is built on a fatal flaw. I am looking to undermine it... I guess they could be seen as the same thing, but you assume that I wish to tweak this system. Nay, we have had hundreds of variations of this system throughout history. If you start with a ruler, someone or a group of someones given legal sovereignty, then you will always meet the same end of the stick. Decentralization is more than influencing the centralized point, it is dissolving it.

    I am influencing it, and will continue to do so throughout my life.

    I was not confused, I gave a quote of my own before countering yours.

    Oh, see, I took it as 'chaotic people are more organized than orderly people' in the context of this conversation. Which is a paradox, clearly...

    Order, according to the citizen, is always 'what wins in the end'. What you have right now is what won, or is winning in your country. That is why you call it order. It may change to another system, and that system will be order then, accepted as readily as what you accept now. Whatever happens to be in place at the time is what you call orderly. If your system loses out to mine, then mine will, by having beaten yours out, be more orderly. That is how it works. So the quote becomes moot. It applies to nature as well. Nature by definition cannot be chaotic. It is simply more complex. If it beats out your order, then your order was more chaotic than nature intended. That is all.

    I am simply... Ahead of the curve.

    While I agree on principal, what I disagree with is a mindless execution of the law, and especially fining someone who has done no harm. Pull them over, write them up, but when you take away their funds when they have caused no one loss and you have crossed a line.

    I certainly feel that being pulled over is enough to make me more cautious. Why should I be punished when I hurt no one on top of that?