Political Crossfire Forums

[Fido]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: I think people have first to realise, that 'freedom' and 'liberty' are far too ambigious, and that in essence very few of the liberties that we have today in modern society as buzzwords, can in essence be justified proparly.

In essence there are 3 foundational liberties, conveyed simply by existance, as to be put shortly, the existance of each being is justified in so far as his actions do not directly and physically harm the existance of other beings, as no rational being can logically be given presidence over the others, thus in simple existance we are all equal.

Freedom of Concious
Freedom of ownership
Freedom of existance.

From these we can then derive ligunistic precepts that better first our society, such as freedom of relgious, or speech. However there are many that we would hold as freedoms as mentioned earlier such as freedom to have education, that quite simply are little more than emotional constructs.

I really want to spend some time on the post previous to yours, but for the moment I must tell you I think only freedom of conscience can be justified from your list. Personal property accepted as the extension of the person who should be free in their affairs, all other property should most certainly be the concern of everyone affected. We are a Commonwealth, a federation pledged as it were by a common oath of fidelity (you may see the common root of these words, as with Fido), and no property can be had from the people against the will of the people, or against their best interest. The state holds ultimate title on every property, and the people should hold the state.
The need for existence is that which gives us the right to life, and it is the right to life that gives us all other rights, and limits all those rights. One right cannot be in contradiction of another, as the so called right to property often is. If a person is not free in the practice of religion, or in speech, or in conscience, they will not be free on the street or in their work place, and this must sooner than later result in the right to life being jeopardized.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Fido wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: I think people have first to realise, that 'freedom' and 'liberty' are far too ambigious, and that in essence very few of the liberties that we have today in modern society as buzzwords, can in essence be justified proparly.

In essence there are 3 foundational liberties, conveyed simply by existance, as to be put shortly, the existance of each being is justified in so far as his actions do not directly and physically harm the existance of other beings, as no rational being can logically be given presidence over the others, thus in simple existance we are all equal.

Freedom of Concious
Freedom of ownership
Freedom of existance.

From these we can then derive ligunistic precepts that better first our society, such as freedom of relgious, or speech. However there are many that we would hold as freedoms as mentioned earlier such as freedom to have education, that quite simply are little more than emotional constructs.

I really want to spend some time on the post previous to yours, but for the moment I must tell you I think only freedom of conscience can be justified from your list. Personal property accepted as the extension of the person who should be free in their affairs, all other property should most certainly be the concern of everyone affected. We are a Commonwealth, a federation pledged as it were by a common oath of fidelity (you may see the common root of these words, as with Fido), and no property can be had from the people against the will of the people, or against their best interest. The state holds ultimate title on every property, and the people should hold the state.
The need for existence is that which gives us the right to life, and it is the right to life that gives us all other rights, and limits all those rights. One right cannot be in contradiction of another, as the so called right to property often is. If a person is not free in the practice of religion, or in speech, or in conscience, they will not be free on the street or in their work place, and this must sooner than later result in the right to life being jeopardized.

They were comments very much in passing, the justification for them is many many pages long. Thus i am not currently able to devote the time to write it all up here yet.

Suffice to say though, I would say an early mistake you have made here, is assuming that propety is soley a socital construct.

Also in the three I have listed there is no order ot proirty of preferance, they all three at once.

[Fido]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Fido wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: I think people have first to realise, that 'freedom' and 'liberty' are far too ambigious, and that in essence very few of the liberties that we have today in modern society as buzzwords, can in essence be justified proparly.

In essence there are 3 foundational liberties, conveyed simply by existance, as to be put shortly, the existance of each being is justified in so far as his actions do not directly and physically harm the existance of other beings, as no rational being can logically be given presidence over the others, thus in simple existance we are all equal.

Freedom of Concious
Freedom of ownership
Freedom of existance.

From these we can then derive ligunistic precepts that better first our society, such as freedom of relgious, or speech. However there are many that we would hold as freedoms as mentioned earlier such as freedom to have education, that quite simply are little more than emotional constructs.

I really want to spend some time on the post previous to yours, but for the moment I must tell you I think only freedom of conscience can be justified from your list. Personal property accepted as the extension of the person who should be free in their affairs, all other property should most certainly be the concern of everyone affected. We are a Commonwealth, a federation pledged as it were by a common oath of fidelity (you may see the common root of these words, as with Fido), and no property can be had from the people against the will of the people, or against their best interest. The state holds ultimate title on every property, and the people should hold the state.
The need for existence is that which gives us the right to life, and it is the right to life that gives us all other rights, and limits all those rights. One right cannot be in contradiction of another, as the so called right to property often is. If a person is not free in the practice of religion, or in speech, or in conscience, they will not be free on the street or in their work place, and this must sooner than later result in the right to life being jeopardized.

They were comments very much in passing, the justification for them is many many pages long. Thus i am not currently able to devote the time to write it all up here yet.

Suffice to say though, I would say an early mistake you have made here, is assuming that propety is soley a socital construct.

Also in the three I have listed there is no order ot proirty of preferance, they all three at once.

If property is not primarily a social construct, or what I would call a form of relationship, then what might it be? The fact that our relationships in regard to property, and the fact that our concepts of property have changed indicate it has no essential existence that does not involve culture or society. Ultimately property is no defense of behavior, and in fact, for the most part it exists as a right in conflict with rights per se, and so must be qualified as property rights. Rights in property are no right, and are nothing without the support of society.

[demt]

so like i said you wont no what freedom is untill a few home truths sink in like there is abetter alternative to what we got
n their are a set of rules to better bring about change without getting carried away
n how tocarry on whilst most is rong

want a few truths worth repeating visit

demt http://www.twra5t.co.uk blog page theres music vids chat n links there2

[Fido]

demt wrote: so like i said you wont no what freedom is untill a few home truths sink in like there is abetter alternative to what we got
n their are a set of rules to better bring about change without getting carried away
n how tocarry on whilst most is rong

want a few truths worth repeating visit

demt http://www.twra5t.co.uk blog page theres music vids chat n links there2

Is that some sort of computer shorthand or is your keyboard broken?

[Gus]

It is really contingent upon an agreed definition of "freedom."

[Fido]

Gus wrote: It is really contingent upon an agreed definition of "freedom."

Yes, freedom is social, and an agreed upon social quality that societies and individuals in societies feel the need of and fear the want of. If you can imagine a person in absolute isolation, perhaps as the last man on the planet; what use of freedom would he have, and what meaning would he give to it. Freedom has its value as a form of human relationship, and is a standard of correct behavior as much as morality is. Too free people are hunted down and caged, and people forsworn from freedom by religion are hardly citizens as they seek constraints upon all. Ultimately, freedom as an ideal, and freedom as a reality are always in flux, and always in the process of a definition that will not hold to people any longer than they hold to it.

[StrikeEmd15]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Ultimate, 100% freedom is ideal.

That is, you have the freedom to do whatever you want as long as it does not infringe on others' freedoms.
Isn't that kinda controversial? Any freedom, or right, always infringes someone elses' through some way, big or small. It's hard to describe how. Now, for the question "How much freedom is enough?", that's hard to answer. If we had infinite freedom, it'd be like the Feudal Era of Japan, except everyone's a warlord. They'd think it would be okay to rampage through the countryside, killing whoever they want, taking whatever they want. That's why totalitarian governments were in place. Now, trying to "return freedom to the people" is a double-edged sword. You give too much, people become complacent and lazy. Give too little, they become angry and violent. Of course, governments try to control people through laws and certain other things, but it never is gonna be good enough to actually do good. Also, governments screw up, and then when the people the governments are supposed to serve find out, they get pissed. I'm gonna guess you know what happens after that.

[Fido]

StrikeEmd15 wrote: Demonic Spoon wrote: Ultimate, 100% freedom is ideal.

That is, you have the freedom to do whatever you want as long as it does not infringe on others' freedoms.
Isn't that kinda controversial? Any freedom, or right, always infringes someone Else's' through some way, big or small. It's hard to describe how. Now, for the question "How much freedom is enough?", that's hard to answer. If we had infinite freedom, it'd be like the Feudal Era of Japan, except everyone's a warlord. They'd think it would be okay to rampage through the countryside, killing whoever they want, taking whatever they want. That's why totalitarian governments were in place. Now, trying to "return freedom to the people" is a double-edged sword. You give too much, people become complacent and lazy. Give too little, they become angry and violent. Of course, governments try to control people through laws and certain other things, but it never is gonna be good enough to actually do good. Also, governments screw up, and then when the people the governments are supposed to serve find out, they get pissed. I'm gonna guess you know what happens after that.

Yes the ability to settle your own affairs with others would be a nice freedom to have. Seems we rate a poor second to the most humble savage in not having that right, and then having to depend upon government to give us justice when it is good and ready, like never. Still, everyone ought to have recourse to law. Even the worst person deserves due process, as long as everyone understands it is really between two people who have in their hands the power to make or break contracts, and especially to make an issue of justice at any time and place it becomes an issue. Talk about the ways governments screw up. For one, law is supposed to be a medicine for vengeance, but the death penalty is pushed as vengeance, and racial vengeance at that. The police, no matter how numerous cannot catch even a part of the criminals, so they punish those they catch as an example to those they do not out of all proportion to the crime. Being used as an example is no aid to rehabilitation, and criminals are criminals because they cannot take an example and learn from it. Either punish to fit the crime, or punish to terrorize the lawful from the lawful use of their social power and right. Don't say your aim is rehabilitation when that should begin with justice, and not with some greater injustice. But spare the population the notion you are really doing anything to reconcile the lost with the flock. The power to imprison is the most abused power our government has. And no one should believe any evidence when the government's ability to manufacture evidence is far greater than any ones ability to defend themselves. Police powers should be at the recommendation of the government, controlled with a purse string.

[Arcenius I]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Ultimate, 100% freedom is ideal.

That is, you have the freedom to do whatever you want as long as it does not infringe on others' freedoms.

Isn't what you just said contradictory??

How can you have 100% freedom when you are still restrained from doing someone else harm?

Why isn't there the "freedom to kill" or the "freedom to cause pain?"

There is a reason why freedom always has to be monitored and limited, because when extended far enough, freedom is counterproductive to its own goals. That is why 100% freedom cannot exist, unless you believe that killing is justified.

[Fido]

Arcenius I wrote: Demonic Spoon wrote: Ultimate, 100% freedom is ideal.

That is, you have the freedom to do whatever you want as long as it does not infringe on others' freedoms.

Isn't what you just said contradictory??

How can you have 100% freedom when you are still restrained from doing someone else harm?

Why isn't there the "freedom to kill" or the "freedom to cause pain?"

There is a reason why freedom always has to be monitored and limited, because when extended far enough, freedom is counterproductive to its own goals. That is why 100% freedom cannot exist, unless you believe that killing is justified.

You cannot possibly be free with prior restraint. You cannot be free without the real power to do wrong. You cannot be good unless evil is a possible choice. Certainly, when people prove themselves anti social they should be denied the power to do harm. If people do harm they should be punished within the bounds of justice. Your statement that 100% freedom does not exist may be a fact of nature, but if one does not have 100% of the freedom of others, as much, and in equal portions then they are not free. Social freedom knows no other limits. With arbitrary limits it too soon becomes tyranny or slavery, and without the limits of equality it is license, or privilege that is tyranny demanding slavery of all.

[greeneye]

Arcenius I wrote: Demonic Spoon wrote: Ultimate, 100% freedom is ideal.

That is, you have the freedom to do whatever you want as long as it does not infringe on others' freedoms.

Isn't what you just said contradictory??

How can you have 100% freedom when you are still restrained from doing someone else harm?

Why isn't there the "freedom to kill" or the "freedom to cause pain?"

There is a reason why freedom always has to be monitored and limited, because when extended far enough, freedom is counterproductive to its own goals. That is why 100% freedom cannot exist, unless you believe that killing is justified.

Freedom is only as free as the structure and the model that chooses to adopt its principles. In America that model is called the United States Constitution. And within that document and the Declaration of Independence, freedom, as outlined, does have some restrictions. Though they are broad they are, nevertheless there. And those restrictions are spelled out in what we, in America, call the "Rule of Law" that this country is governed by and our justice system is suppose to be based upon.

And yes, I would agree with you that 100 percent freedom is counter productive in a modern society that has yet to realize a "perfect Utopian" state.

[Fido]

greeneye wrote: Arcenius I wrote: Demonic Spoon wrote: Ultimate, 100% freedom is ideal.

That is, you have the freedom to do whatever you want as long as it does not infringe on others' freedoms.

Isn't what you just said contradictory??

How can you have 100% freedom when you are still restrained from doing someone else harm?

Why isn't there the "freedom to kill" or the "freedom to cause pain?"

There is a reason why freedom always has to be monitored and limited, because when extended far enough, freedom is counterproductive to its own goals. That is why 100% freedom cannot exist, unless you believe that killing is justified.

Freedom is only as free as the structure and the model that chooses to adopt its principles. In America that model is called the United States Constitution. And within that document and the Declaration of Independence, freedom, as outlined, does have some restrictions. Though they are broad they are, nevertheless there. And those restrictions are spelled out in what we, in America, call the "Rule of Law" that this country is governed by and our justice system is suppose to be based upon.

And yes, I would agree with you that 100 percent freedom is counter productive in a modern society that has yet to realize a "perfect Utopian" state.

Ya. Right! You think you can be half free, 99% free, or 1% free. If you are not free entirely you are all slave. If you are free to do right and wrong even if there are consequences for each then you are free. Your rule of law is the destruction of rule by people, the people, and all citizens. Human beings give their lives trying to breathe life into dead laws made by dead people who have no right in burdening the population with their leadership after death. If the dead are free to govern the living through laws where are the living who are free?

[yojimbo22]

People within society should have the freedom to act in any way they please as long as that freedom doesn't cause other people within that society unnecessary pain and suffering...

Broad, I know, but that should be a pretty reasonable answer i would think... personally I don't succumb to the belief that 100% freedom is good, what with all the pedo's, rapists and murderers running around...

[Fido]

yojimbo22 wrote: People within society should have the freedom to act in any way they please as long as that freedom doesn't cause other people within that society unnecessary pain and suffering...

Broad, I know, but that should be a pretty reasonable answer i would think... personally I don't succumb to the belief that 100% freedom is good, what with all the pedo's, rapists and murderers running around...

What does the phrase- cause other people within that society unnecessary pain and suffering- mean? What part of pain caused by others would you personally consider unnecessary? I rate all my pain cause by others as unnecessary even though I do find myself saying, Gee- I needed that...
There will always be some person scandalized by the actions of others, but what should really scandalize all of us is the sight of people injured without outrage from the witnesses in the larger society. There are many acts we accept daily without the least regard for whether or not anyone is injured. Without doubt, too many of these are moral issues to moral people, and to the rest a blind eye sees best. For all of us, moral and a-moral alike, we justify injustice to ourselves to the same extent that we justify it for others. So, as well, for freedom, that we deserve that which we allow to others. If I am moral and am scandalized by your immorality it is up to me to prove a social harm, and to produce an injured individual; other wise society should always err on the side of freedom and stand firmly in support of mutual respect and affection for all within society.
You know that child abuse is a product of law, and that this mistreatment of all children has grown up with law. There is no record of any similar mistreatment of children among primitive peoples. They would recognize it as an example of violence and deal with it immediately. It is because those who are wronged under law have no recourse but law, and no freedom to seek justice because law puts a premium on peace and a small price on justice that such people can be allowed to walk free. It is not because of freedom that we must endure so much crime, but because freedom is rare, and wealth is rare, and poverty teaches hate.

[yojimbo22]

ok, sorry - couldn't find the right word.. "excessive" then isntead...

child abuse? enshrined in Law? how? I don't know much on this. so could you please tell me?

[Fido]

yojimbo22 wrote: ok, sorry - couldn't find the right word.. "excessive" then isntead...

child abuse? enshrined in Law? how? I don't know much on this. so could you please tell me?

Certainly. For primitive communities, community is not a concept, but is more their life. It is the source of their identity, their sole protection, the source, and place of their rights, and even their separation from all animals, even animals of the human variety. They loved their children because they loved themselves, and had pride, and thought well of themselves a part and in whole. Without discipline and only admonition and myth they raised themselves under the eyes of their old ones.
The advent of law whether in ancient Greece or middle age Europe acts primarily against the individual or clan vengeance still common in some cultures today. This can be seen in the story of Orestes in the bronze age of Homer. Law limits one of the primary virtues of children to primitive people, and that is their desire to be revenged. With law a child soon becomes a chattel having no rights and being driven to his duties. As the Native American said: We beat our horses, but not our children.
We still must beat our children, or brow beat them because we have no real authority over them such as community would give. There is no threat from others, and no common bonding as a result. There may still be group responsibility as in the case of Black people, but there is no group authority. We must fear for our children that they should cross the law from which there is no community ransom, and no moot or doom or council to decide upon guilt or punishment.
Yet, as much as we chastise our children and try to guide them with love they soon realize how powerless we are even in our own families. They threaten teachers and parents alike with the law, the same law that binds even them more than they know, and since even a brush with law is an expensive trial, the parents and adults are cowed. Law frees children from their parents guidance before they have the intelligence and discipline to guide themselves. Does this treatment mean love? It is a form of abuse, and of neglect. What is the relationship of the economic system to the law and community? Law has made property ascendant over people. It has put property and political power in the hands of a few. And what does this mean to Mr. and Mrs. workman? Two jobs which do not pay any ones way. And who raises the child while the parents are away? The T.V.? Four walls, video games. Isn't this organized and economically prostrating form of economy both neglect and abuse? Yes, and legally so.
Marx was right to say that children need protection from their parents. But his sort of parents doped their children with gin or drugs to silence their hungry cries so looms could be tended; and later when nimble fingers served the looms better than old and crippled hands -the parents sold their children's labor to factories; and is this not abuse, and legally so? For working people children are as much a curse as blessing.
If we had to count on our children to revenge our deaths, or truly celebrate our lives there would be no child injured. Child abuse at its worst is an act of a powerless person revenging himself on one more powerless still. Why in this age do so many feel powerless when the ancients did not, if not for law that the ancients had not? Where is the primitive community anywhere that would accept such for theirs. We should take revenge for our children for the terrible lives we have to give them.

[yojimbo22]

your argument was somewhat verbose, and so also a bit hard to understand, but i'll try my best to respond:

Your first paragraph is fantastic, although well spoken speculation, that has no grounding in facts. I seriously doubt anyone in this world has seen a truly primative community, and so speculation like this doesn't say anything of worth.

Also, I would argue that any potential community, in order to become a community, must take upon itself at least one law, spoken or unspoken, that they act in ways to help the group succeed...

Laws of Ancient Greece and middleage Europe were so so so so so so so so... so so so diverse, partially because both periods lasted hundreds of years and included many different states with vaslty different ruling classes, that summing it all up like this can't work.

Ancient Athens was at later stages (circa 450 BC) a democracy, and their courts tried decisions as impartialy as courts could have done those days, probably not doing badly to compare to today's courts...

Ancient Sparta on the other hand was a near communist, yet proto-democratic state, where all citizen men (not anyone else, but at that time those were the only people that "mattered"), including the two kings, were very nearly equal (the kings could have double servings at meal times in their army camps)... their laws however were in place not for the purpose of vengance, but in order to turn men into war machines...

the story of Orestes seems more myth than history, granted it talks about trials, but using more document and concrete examples like the ones above would show that laws were mostly created for legitimate purposes.

I don't know much about the middle ages, but I would assume the law there was based greatly around the laws of religion and christianity, but I won't speculate because of my next paragraph.

Your post talks about laws from civilisations that existed millenia ago, when social paradigms were very different, and their laws would easily be seen as barbaric 2500 years later. This is just a natural progeression... Saying that King Hammurabi's laws were barbaric says nothing of the laws of society today. Those laws were like that because it takes a while to perfect a system, and also because primative society has primative laws... in fact, the presence of those very barbaric laws goes very well to disprove the argument in your first paragraph of some sort of eutopia in early communities.

"What is the relationship of the economic system to the law and community? Law has made property ascendant over people... ... Isn't this organized and economically prostrating form of economy both neglect and abuse? Yes, and legally so."

this isn't abuse due to the law, just an inevitability of life... I can just as well say that when a cub's mother goes out to hunt, the cubs are experiencing a great deal of neglect, and even face the chance of being eaten... Lions do not have laws, and primative human societies (assuming they stuck with the no-laws policy), would have to face the same prospects, and so this problem would not be solved by absence of law... what you describe hear is just... life. no way of getting around it.



aside from your arguments, what would you then say about the laws against pedophelia? are they laws that limit our powers over children? certainly... can children use them to get back at someone? if they figure out how to, I guess it's plausible... does that mean we should have no laws forbidding the act? how will that make matters better?

I agree that children can take the law into their own hands and it can strike back at the parents, which is not something I am for, but that is a very weak argument against the countless protections children are given. without them, they would simply be open to the exploitation that you describe in your paragraph about Marx.

I also do think that some laws are taken too far - being that children learn by experience, sometimes a slap is the only thing that can "do the trick", but simply because parents and teachers have fewer powers over children is not abuse, it is overprotection... which you may argue is a form of abuse (I personally think it is just mistaken logic)

Overall - our argument does not say that the law abuses children, nor can I speculate that we create the law for the purpose of abusing children, it only examines the possibility that the laws created cause our children to be educated differently in modern society compared to a primative one, which would be logical anyway since to get from one to the other, change must occur.

Laws are mostly created for the good of the people (sometimes not, but no system is perfect), and although they are not perfect, arguing for a better world without them, something no one has any knowledge of in this world (including Marx and other philosophers, who may have thought of it, but certainly didn't experience it) is unlikely to lead very far. and as long as we have a society like today, it is highly doubtful that the removal of all laws would make the world a better place.

[Fido]

yojimbo22 wrote: your argument was somewhat verbose, and so also a bit hard to understand, but i'll try my best to respond:

Your first paragraph is fantastic, although well spoken speculation, that has no grounding in facts. I seriously doubt anyone in this world has seen a truly primative community, and so speculation like this doesn't say anything of worth.

Also, I would argue that any potential community, in order to become a community, must take upon itself at least one law, spoken or unspoken, that they act in ways to help the group succeed...

Laws of Ancient Greece and middleage Europe were so so so so so so so so... so so so diverse, partially because both periods lasted hundreds of years and included many different states with vaslty different ruling classes, that summing it all up like this can't work.

Ancient Athens was at later stages (circa 450 BC) a democracy, and their courts tried decisions as impartialy as courts could have done those days, probably not doing badly to compare to today's courts...

Ancient Sparta on the other hand was a near communist, yet proto-democratic state, where all citizen men (not anyone else, but at that time those were the only people that "mattered"), including the two kings, were very nearly equal (the kings could have double servings at meal times in their army camps)... their laws however were in place not for the purpose of vengance, but in order to turn men into war machines...

the story of Orestes seems more myth than history, granted it talks about trials, but using more document and concrete examples like the ones above would show that laws were mostly created for legitimate purposes.

I don't know much about the middle ages, but I would assume the law there was based greatly around the laws of religion and christianity, but I won't speculate because of my next paragraph.

Your post talks about laws from civilisations that existed millenia ago, when social paradigms were very different, and their laws would easily be seen as barbaric 2500 years later. This is just a natural progeression... Saying that King Hammurabi's laws were barbaric says nothing of the laws of society today. Those laws were like that because it takes a while to perfect a system, and also because primative society has primative laws... in fact, the presence of those very barbaric laws goes very well to disprove the argument in your first paragraph of some sort of eutopia in early communities.

"What is the relationship of the economic system to the law and community? Law has made property ascendant over people... ... Isn't this organized and economically prostrating form of economy both neglect and abuse? Yes, and legally so."

this isn't abuse due to the law, just an inevitability of life... I can just as well say that when a cub's mother goes out to hunt, the cubs are experiencing a great deal of neglect, and even face the chance of being eaten... Lions do not have laws, and primative human societies (assuming they stuck with the no-laws policy), would have to face the same prospects, and so this problem would not be solved by absence of law... what you describe hear is just... life. no way of getting around it.



aside from your arguments, what would you then say about the laws against pedophelia? are they laws that limit our powers over children? certainly... can children use them to get back at someone? if they figure out how to, I guess it's plausible... does that mean we should have no laws forbidding the act? how will that make matters better?

I agree that children can take the law into their own hands and it can strike back at the parents, which is not something I am for, but that is a very weak argument against the countless protections children are given. without them, they would simply be open to the exploitation that you describe in your paragraph about Marx.

I also do think that some laws are taken too far - being that children learn by experience, sometimes a slap is the only thing that can "do the trick", but simply because parents and teachers have fewer powers over children is not abuse, it is overprotection... which you may argue is a form of abuse (I personally think it is just mistaken logic)

Overall - our argument does not say that the law abuses children, nor can I speculate that we create the law for the purpose of abusing children, it only examines the possibility that the laws created cause our children to be educated differently in modern society compared to a primative one, which would be logical anyway since to get from one to the other, change must occur.

Laws are mostly created for the good of the people (sometimes not, but no system is perfect), and although they are not perfect, arguing for a better world without them, something no one has any knowledge of in this world (including Marx and other philosophers, who may have thought of it, but certainly didn't experience it) is unlikely to lead very far. and as long as we have a society like today, it is highly doubtful that the removal of all laws would make the world a better place.


We have many accounts of primitive societies, and from my reading love and affection for ones own people was the rule. Scapegoating, the putting on an individuals the guilt of a community and driving him from the village would not ever have been such an inhumanity if all did not share in the common wealth and common identity of the nation. As in the Orestia, the responsibility to revenge ones kin was an unavoidable obligation. The knowledge that one would be avenged in the event of death was a constant encouragement. If one of your deserved killing, none but your own would kill him, for to have it otherwise invited vengeance. Community was everything, with animals outside and human beings inside. If you can not comprehend the vestiges around you of a former existence live by our fathers it is because of law.

You are absolutely right that there are unspoken laws in every community. The common law of all societies forbid consanguinity, and the next forbids parricide, both of which Oedipus was guilty of, but even though he did what he did not knowing what he did he still suffered the consequences, because in ancient societies there were no excuses, and no extenuating circumstances.

I can stack western law on top of Greek and even Latin, and biblical law because there are many examples of feud and reconciliation law common to tribal peoples. Why do you believe that these two instances of parricide and punishment struck such a chord with people? Why do these two stories supply in themselves the anti hero models that most, if not all tragedies of a fully human nature (not Mythic). The fact is that all of these peoples from the ancient Greeks, and Roman, and Germans and even North American Indians of 500 years ago were alike in being honor societies, held to gether by honor, and the defense of honor, trading in a currency of honor. There is no difference between the Trojan war and the revolt of Boedaecia, or the Tain Bo Cuailgne. All were affairs of honor, and honor is of the home, of community, and family. That is why the line is quoted by Aristotle of the question asked Orestes by the chorus: Were you both willing or unwilling both. Clytemnestra seized her revenge, and a revenge the gods allowed her for the killing of her kin. By this act she reclaimed her honor, but the circumstances put her out of the community and took her honor. To retrieve the family honor the only one who could kill her did kill her, but his act was beyond acceptance.

I got to come back to this. I could hand you half my library with examples, but I hope I can give you a sense of what I am saying, because even in modern times we have societies like in the middle east which put a premium on family and respect for family honor. Part of our war with these people is that we have be so long- roughly a thousand year in Europe- apart from tribal law. Out of Cannon law our emphasis is upon peace first and then Jusitice. Justice before peace was the general rule in Europe and in pre columbian American, and is still accepted in some senses in the middle east today. I'll edit this and add more if I do not run into a problem. Thanks for your reply.

[yojimbo22]

heh, I can sympathise with your view, I myself very much like the honour systems that were evident in more ancient societies (myself I am particularly interested in ancient China and medieval Japan, but the western ones are also fascinating).

And our current legal systems do have some pretty idiotic laws.

However, could one not argue that our current legal systems, based on cannon law, talk of honouring society rather than the individual? After all, when someone dishonours another, even though it is true to say that the person deserves revenge, can't it be said that the act also dishonoured society's opinions and laws? and hence society should also be allowed to judge the individual?

interestingly, I do not believe this is in contradition with your view - society can judge in any way it pleases, choosing either justice or peace. It is just the case that our society chooses peace first.

The reverse could be possible, in fact, I would say that the idea of the duel that existed in Europe in the 19th century was one such case... I am not sure whether it was enshrined in the law that certain disputees were to be solved this way, but even if that were not the case, it would have still been a law created by society, because if it wasn't, then society would not have tolerated it and laws would have been made against the act.

It is hard for me to specualte which system is better, but it seems to me that in honour systems, although it worked, it caused society to split into classes because honour became a relative idea - offending the King's honour, or a Noble man's honour would have had very different consequences from that of offending a peasant's honour. This is probably the reason why I prefer our current legal systems, with all of its imprefections, as it does not create a strict class system (this is an opinion, not backed up by facts, but from the few societies I have studied, this seems reasonable... feel free to educate me if you know better :-D ...)

Anyway, this is all I can come up with for now, getting late... hopefully it makes at least some sense...