|
| Thread: Law and Rules |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · NEXT» |
|
Nebdar
Promising
Supreme Hero
Generation N
|
posted January 27, 2010 06:19 PM |
|
Edited by Nebdar at 22:13, 02 Feb 2010.
|
Law and Rules
What kind of understanding and usage of the law is more important for nation?(so is the best in process)Is it:
1. The Law and Rules are strict and in all cases and situation it must be obayed by everyone in the community. No matter of all the background situation when you commited a crime, you broke the law this and this paragraph and you have this kind of punishment that is written in this and this paragraph
2. The Law and Rules are just the guidelines foundation of community but usage of those law and rules and depends on situationa and whole background. It doesn't obey because it must adn of sentence period but it is obeyed because it serves a purpouse for community
or maybe there is a 3 and 4 option and so on..
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 27, 2010 06:51 PM |
|
|
Laws should be made with the people's views in minds, protecting individuals as a whole not entities or special interest groups. Or else you have this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted January 27, 2010 07:05 PM |
|
|
The reason laws have to be enforced by humans is that they are by nature not all-encompassing. There will always be exceptions or different cases even if rarely that are a matter of interpretation. Have you heard of Dracon? He had a nice set of laws. You murdered? Death penalty. You stole? Death penalty. You sneezed? The same. Hardly an appropriate example but there will always be a clash of the spirit and the letter of the law, loopholes are oh so easy to manipulate if you have a good lawyer. That is where a law enforcer with a good sense judgement comes in.
Of course all things considered the law should treat everyone equally as long as they have acted the same and under the same circumstances.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 27, 2010 07:26 PM |
|
|
Laws should be made with two goals in mind. In order of importance:
1. To protect people from aggressing against each other.
2. To address the public goods problem.
Unfortunately, we can talk about laws all we want, but the reality is that the government exists to gain more and more power and intrude into our lives - regulate what we eat, what we watch, what we buy, what we do in our bedrooms, read our e-mails, listen to our phone conversations... and yet it's still better than anarchy.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 27, 2010 07:56 PM |
|
|
I wonder why my answer was deleted and by whom. In general it would be advisable to read stuff before deleting it.
Anyway, I'll repeat it - it's not that it was awfully long:
It depends on the (quality of the) laws whether people should keep to it to the letter or not.
I may add, the more just and fair the law is, the more people should stick to it. Especially, people should not do what they wouldn't want to see others doing.
For example, why is tax evasion ok when a specific person does it, but not for everyone else?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 27, 2010 08:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
For example, why is tax evasion ok when a specific person does it, but not for everyone else?
I'm inclined to say that if a specific person uses less of said tax's outcome, it might provide an argument. Example: a person who hates/doesn't have a car paying for road tax.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted January 27, 2010 08:20 PM |
|
|
@JJ
Nebadar's previous thread was moved to the vw so he made a new one.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 27, 2010 08:31 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 20:40, 27 Jan 2010.
|
laws shouldn't be followed blindly (infortunately, it seems it's what we are expected to do)
there are cases where following laws causes more bad than good, that's why you should think before doing something just because other people said it has to be that way.
there was a fitting quote from lao tzeu, but I only have it in french. basically it says it's better to follow your heart than to follow rules. of course, it is considering you are following the way of God, that is to say, you will not do something which may harm other people.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted January 27, 2010 08:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Unfortunately, we can talk about laws all we want, but the reality is that the government exists to gain more and more power and intrude into our lives - regulate what we eat, what we watch, what we buy, what we do in our bedrooms, read our e-mails, listen to our phone conversations... and yet it's still better than anarchy.
Snow your incompetent incapable goverment which has failed yet again. That is all I got to say.
No wait, its not. What I got to say is that the law is nothing more than what keeps a wheel moving. Gravity is a law of nature, so its not a "law" in a certain sense of the word.
In the end all laws are made to do something, around ideas. Hording up something is illgegal in 1 socity, yet in another one its the common norm of what to do. In yet another one they use teeth as currency and bar fights are holy by the law. After all this absurdity of it all, who are we to judge something we do not understand?
____________
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 27, 2010 08:53 PM |
|
|
maybe we should abolish laws and just follow the human rights.
but seeing how people seem to have trouble thinking for themselves and seem to find it much easier to follow the masses, it may just fail because the government won't be making choices for them.
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted January 27, 2010 09:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
maybe we should abolish laws and just follow the human rights.
"Human Rights" don't exist, nature has the final say in everything 
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 27, 2010 10:08 PM |
|
|
@ Elvin
Oops, sorry, my fault not to see it. Sorry.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 27, 2010 10:14 PM |
|
|
del_diablo:
Quote:
Snow your incompetent incapable goverment which has failed yet again. That is all I got to say.
My government? Show me one government for which what I said isn't true.
Fauch:
Quote:
maybe we should abolish laws and just follow the human rights
The problem with that is, we need the law to codify what human rights are, to see definitely if they're being violated or not. Otherwise, it's too vague.
JJ:
You meant "@Death", right? Because I agree with what you're saying.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 27, 2010 10:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ:
You meant "@Death", right? Because I agree with what you're saying.
Oh dear, not my day it seems. Sorry, Mvass, my fault, you are completely right. I'll correct that immediately.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 28, 2010 12:34 AM |
|
|
|
I mean, just following what is said in the universal declaration of human rights
|
|
VokialBG
Honorable
Legendary Hero
First in line
|
|
posted January 28, 2010 09:15 AM |
|
Edited by VokialBG at 09:30, 28 Jan 2010.
|
Kant and later Gorgo Del Vikeo give us the moral duty. For them the justice is above the law, and the positive law must be only its form. In this case, if the law is against the moral duty (few norms: "Do only good" or the negative "Never do evil!", the moral: "Do only good to yourself!", "Never do evil to yourself!", the etic duty: "Do only good to the others!", "Never do evil to the othes!") it has to be removed.
However, Kant and Rousseau think that the humen are good in nature, unlike Spinoza, Hobbes and many others, for them the humens are evil in nature, and the law exist to protect the freedom in other words to protect the individuals from the natural freedom. In the nature humen are not equal, some are lets say physicaly stronger, and they can curtail the freedom of the weaker. In law we are equal (not on every part of the world), and the state and its law protect the freedom, by taking the natural freedom (See the Rousseaus agreement theory, anyway he isn't the first one but the most famous one)...
I'll stop here, can much explain more...
Quote:
Quote:
maybe we should abolish laws and just follow the human rights.
"Human Rights" don't exist, nature has the final say in everything
Soooo, you like Herbert Spencer?
Quote:
The problem with that is, we need the law to codify what human rights are, to see definitely if they're being violated or not. Otherwise, it's to tho vague.
Just a note here. The state itself don't give us the human rights. It do not codify it. In the Bulgarian Constitution, you can read some of them, like the right to be alive and etc, and that the state support the human rights. However, the state do not give you the rights to be alive, you have it by your nature, this count for all the human rights. Thats why the state can't take them.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 28, 2010 11:05 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Just a note here. The state itself don't give us the human rights. It do not codify it. In the Bulgarian Constitution, you can read some of them, like the right to be alive and etc, and that the state support the human rights. However, the state do not give you the rights to be alive, you have it by your nature, this count for all the human rights. Thats why the state can't take them.
Ah, that faulty conclusion again.
Just because something is a FACT it's not a RIGHT.
If something lives - human, animal, plant, whatever - it's a plain fact. It lives. However, "right" isn't something you or any being simply has, because RIGHT implifies a WRONG or FALSE as well, and everything aside the factual involes an evaluation which involves something or someone declaring a RIGHT.
Example (take the form of question): Has a deer a RIGHT to live? Has a pack of wolves the RIGHT to kill the deer? Who or what would grant or not grant that right?
RIGHT is a human word, nothing that factually exists outside the (human) mind. It's humans who DEFINE what a RIGHT actually is, and it's humans who conclude that humans SHOULD HAVE (COME WITH) natural rights. In practise (and actually) that means, that the natural right to live mutates to the right to DEFEND one's life against any try of anything to end it.
That means not more that a society acknowledges the drive tro survive.
Now, if you think that NATURE equips humans with rights, then how come that nature doesn't seem to grant this right to other beings as well. What about trees and animals? Did nature give THEM a right to live, too? Why can we take THEIR lives then? To ask more generally - why do we claim NATURAL rights, but don't accept nature es master?
Strange, isn't it?
The bootom line is, there are no natural rights, because NATURE and RIGHT (and the philosophical natural right construction) is just nonsense.
|
|
VokialBG
Honorable
Legendary Hero
First in line
|
|
posted January 28, 2010 12:34 PM |
|
Edited by VokialBG at 12:35, 28 Jan 2010.
|
Lol! JJ, cool down, human rights are not even law. They only legitimate the state positive law.
Quote:
What about trees and animals?
Lol again! Simple - trees and animals (the last on is under discussion) are NOT sabjects of the law, at least not in Bulgaria. So, don't mess them.
Its very simple, in nature, before the law, humen were like animals, after the law, the agression of the stronger against the weaker was stopped, by making all the individuals equal.
Anyway if you really think that the state and not you parents (basicly the nature) gave you live... You most likey don't undrstand me, thanks to my English, or the fact that the terms in Bulgaria are a bit different.
____________
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted January 28, 2010 12:43 PM |
|
|
In german law, animals and plants are treated as "things", and not as living being. Therefore, dogs can't inherit for example.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 28, 2010 02:35 PM |
|
|
We are talking past each other.
It has something to do with the the definition and meaning of the noun "right" and what it implies.
"Right" is quite near to "entitlement". However, the FACT that someONE or someTHING is in a state of living, doesn't per se constitute a RIGHT to continue that state. That's simply because "right" does NOT imply the workings of nature.
To give another example: just because a river is flowing, that doesn't constiture a RIGHT of said river to continue flowing, flowing in its current bed and so on.
In other words, "right" has nothing to do with living or the current state or the fact of it, but only with an EVALUATION of that fact, and that evaluation comes from the human mind, not from nature.
Saying otherwise is just trying to claim a higher authority than human reason.
Now, note that society rules, that under certain conditions humans FORFEIT the right to live (death penalty, for example). So how can HUMANS take a right when it's god or nature or whatever who gave it?
|
| |
|
|
