Art said:
Uh, I thought US law was based on old English law.
I think what either is 'based on' is, in practice, redefined on as
potentially often as a daily basis, by political posturing, and whether it
succedes or not depends on whether the 'audience' allow it.
It isn't the responsibility of laws to teach. It's the responsibility
of parents, and to some extent school systems. In a larger sense, it's
the responsibility of all civilized persons and responsible citizens
to teach.
Yes, in an ideal world. It's like the various ideas that there should be no
laws for this, that, or at all. In reality, most people are intellectually
lazy and the *first* idea they have on how to address a social problem is
also their last, though first ideas usually overlook some terribly obvious
error that laziness has failed to spot. Even the smart make such errors if
all they want to do is get the boring stuff over with and get back to
interesting matters like who to invite to a party, who to try to shag, what
to pilfer from work, how to con the kids into doing better at school. Most
people will adjust their ideals to give them an advantage in their personal
lives, which often means 'believing the mutually exclusive' or the like.
Almost always means overlooking hypocrisy.
Only a undeducated fool believes in "perfect" laws.
But most dishonest people, most crooks (read most politicians, many lawyers)
will exclaim that such *does* exist and should be striven for. Juries are
generally chosen to eliminate members such as mathematicians, physicists and
the like because they have more accurate - though not necessarily more
'realistic' - notions of reasonable doubt etc. Prosecution want an
easily-swayed mob who'll agree with whoever best stirs up emotion,
cultivates the desire for revenge, offers the possibility of it and of
giving it a name that sounds as though it isn't really revenge they seek,
but Justice.
I say that the necessity for impartial laws was identified by the thinkers
and that most others who adopted it did so either for political expediency,
or are genuine in their belief in impartiality, just too unimaginative or
too busy to take the ideas further.
Then you're an outlaw. Methinks you've been overly influenced by Robin
Hood and other popular fairy tales rather than by sound teachings.
Yes, I would be an outlaw - that's my point. Revenge should be against the
law. As for influence - well I suppose as a kid I was influenced by the like
of Robin Hood. As a teen I was more interested by the notions of a Biker's
Code, Bushido and the Camorra. I like to think I've seen through much of the
contradictory philosophy and adapted the three to my individual code of
honour. I feel we must all develop our own, individual, code of honour. To
thine own self be true. Just do it with some learning, especially of the
nature of self-deceit.
If you wish to not waste your life rotting in jail, I suggest that you
rethink your "philosophy". Here in the US, we believe in due process
of law ... not taking the law into ones own hands.
From here - outside the US - it never looks like that. I'm sure you do, Art,
as well as a number of other intelligent and friendly Americans I've met via
these groups, but a very large number of US citizens *do* believe in taking
the law into their own hands. Strange Fruit being a rather easy example. As
for others I suggest we stay away from the political. Luckily most people of
such a venous nature are also craven and tend to obey whoever makes it look
like a bad idea not to.
But it is illegal and irresponsible. And to a civilized person, it is
morally corrupt and ignorant as well.
This is my argument - Law is, in part at least, guideline - we are animals,
not words. I find it deeply suspiscious if someone who's loved family member
has been murdered, does *not* to want to personally take revenge. At best, I
suppose, it's putting the State before family. The only way to satisfy both
is to have the Law answerable to the Lynch Mob, which is really
reprehensible.
I say that not to want revenge is a dangerous subversion of human nature.
Law is about Society. However, individuals must not subsume themselves to
Society. It's a contradiction. In the end you have to decide the issue for
yourself. If someone has to die - and State sanctioned execution is
institutionalised barbarity to my mind - then the Law-loving individual has
to decide, assuming he/she possesses the capability in the first, whether
it's worth losing one's own liberty over (not think in terms of evading
detection or apprehension) and if the answer is 'yes', do it.
Stealing is both wrong and illegal. Seems some of you Brits have some
very peculiar and barbaric views indeed.
I don't think so, Art. I think, perhaps, the definition of stealing is
possibly too loosely applied.
Or maybe put it another way: In the '80's we had the Poll Tax, a deeply
unpopular tax, imposed upon us. I remember Willy Whitelaw - a respected
Govt. minister of the time - arguing that if a Law is perceived as 'Bad', it
should nonetheless be obeyed. It will be dropped according to complaints
registered - almost certainly by the simple expedient of which party gets
most votes - at the next election. That is the legal way to protest 'Bad
Law'.
Unfortunately it's bullshit - albeit bullshit believed most sincerely, by
many genuine people. The fact is that if Bad laws are obeyed, they get
incorporated and don't get a mention at the next election. Politicians are
crooks. Laws are judged by whether they get obeyed or not by the majority.
Excuse the typing. Gets too difficult. And I like to write stuff like this
on paper first but I can't use my writing hand atm. Since last night I now
have to give myself shots (something I have never done before) too. I'm
probably less rational than I'd like to think!
Shane
