Criminality

The Republic of Zangaro (yes, before you run off to your atlas, fictional) has recently outlawed beards. Yes, according to the People’s Democratic Republic (lol), beards are immoral and are symptomatic of insanity.

So, ten years later, this innocuous little land becomes the focus of a study, and you are all encouraged to join in. You are doing a study in criminal psychology, particularly the mind and mental processes of the criminal, what makes them commit crimes and why.

You become very well versed with the laws of Zangaro, and then, shock horror, you see a man with a nice bushy beard.
Is he mad? Is he defective? Are his genes unusual, his brain deformed or damaged?

Indeed, is there anything different about this guy at all - and is law simply an intangible fallacy?

How does that guy being subject to profiling mean that law is an intangilble fallacy?

The guy just doesn’t care about taboos. Perhaps he is really dumb, ore a revolutionary who sees how social structures should be broken.

And yes, for the most part, laws are an intangible fallacy.

Now, I think that is a huge contradiction - to say the man is a revolutionary or an anti-social rebel, then to agree that laws mean nothing.

My point was a general one - that “breaking the law” and “being a criminal” are really silly terms used by governments to create a moral climate. You tend to think that people who break the law are defective or evil - when all laws are are peices of paper in some dusty filing cabinet.

Agreed.

I’ve only been here a short while but Joker, you’re my kinda thinker. :wink:

I think you are trying to get on the right track but I believe you give government agents too much credit.

I do not think that governments try “to create a moral climate” of sorts. I just think that government agents just do what is best for themselves with the power they have at their disposal.

The concept of “law” is perfectly conceivable without a government (or any other coercive agent) to monopolize its application or enforcement. People who are completely free of government could voluntarily construct a legal system of their own. Chances are that two or more competing forms would likely develop.

To give you an idea: take a look at how gangsters operate. They rarely need government to settle their differences.

Ah, I hate to be anal about this but can you substantiate this claim?
how would you know what federal agents do and why they do it?

Are there any facts that can substantiate this assertion?

Look at the idea of Bertollionage, where “criminal types” where classified by facial bumps - as if “criminals” were a different race entirely. It’s silly, because criminals are people breaking the laws made up and maintained by other flawed humans.

Empty - in your OP. We simply don’t have enough information to make a judgement here. You have chosen a “crime” that isn’t a crime anywhere (I think). But you haven’t given us the context of the law - of why it was written. Of even the stated reason. Nor have you given us the form of government of the fictitious nation. You haven’t given us anything.

We aren’t well-versed in the laws of this land at all.

I am not a legal expert, no, but I am a person, and I am just saying that law is taken everywhere as the ultimate rule of law of the universe. If you break the law you’re seen as defective, crazy or evil. All I am saying is that law is not absolute. That’s all.

That’s crap, Empty. No one in the legal system, from cops to P.O.'s to lawyers to judges to juries thinks that. Surely legislators don’t. Laws are administered, adjudicated, changed, interpreted - all manner of stuff is done to these “immutable” laws.

“Ultimate rule of law in the universe”? Isn’t that just a touch hyperbolised?

I have been arrested and, you know, gone to court and such. Maybe you should do a crime or two - you might have a more realistic view of law.

Maybe you just watch too much CNN.

Maybe you’ve been watching too much Bill O’Reilly. Please remember that he is an entertainer, and doesn’t mean any of it.

Fess up, Empty - you’ve been watching O’Reilly, haven’t you.

Emp-ty?

Who the fuck is Bill O’Reilly?

I’ve been arrested, I’ve been in all manner of legal trouble, which is precisely why I hate how the law is seen as immutable.

He’s a radical neo-con asshole who tries to divide this country (U.S.).

Empty - maybe you needed some better lawyers. But I can see you have a personal beef with the system. I just think you are projecting.

I will not dispute that you see it that way, however.

Thanks - it’s been a while since I’ve seen a sensible and fair comment online! :smiley:

If that was your point, Empty, you didn’t go very far to make it.

I will agree that some laws make no sense. But Empty is here talking about laws in general. Or so I thought.

When you pick and choose, you are almost saying that some laws do make sense.

You can throw the baby out with the bath water, but you should really try to make a case for that, I think.

Empty asked if all laws were “fallacious”, whatever that means.

Unless you just left out a “this” in the last sentence of your OP.

Do you see what I am saying? It’s not a valid argument to show that only one or two laws are stupid, and therebyclaim that they all are. We could all list laws that we think are stupid. But that would be about those specific laws.

I am not trying to be “unfair” to you, Empty. But this is big-boy philosophy.

Okay, no it’s not.

England is becoming quite a liberal place, on the whole: as we are beginning to respect all life-styles - not much is frowned upon anymore :blush:

I am for others living the life that has been designated for them: as I would not want my life to be hindered… Laws intercept when we are compromising another’s will / right to thrive.

m-w.com/dictionary/fallacious

Empty - I think you mean that the reasoning behind laws is fallacious.

A law, by the way, is not a piece of paper.

Literacy precedes philosophy.