# Law And Consequence.
**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/law-and-consequence/20743
**Category:** Philosophy
**Created:** [April 9, 2008, 5:15pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/law-and-consequence/20743 "2008-04-09T17:15:54Z")
**Posts on this page:** 16
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Joker](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Joker)
#### Post date: [April 9, 2008, 5:15pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/law-and-consequence/20743/1 "2008-04-09T17:15:54Z")
Society thrives on the master slave relationship of people.
In otherwords society thrives on conflict of interests and violent forms of competition between those existing within it.
Is it realistic to outlaw malign dispositions within whole societies considering that the very root or foundation of such societies is a malicious one?
In every generation scholars, idealists, and institutionalists alike can’t seem to understand why they themselves can never eradicate crime or social deviancy but isn’t that just naivety and blind stupidity on their part?
In the absurdity of society’s whole existence it itself thrives on the conflict of others and the many violent forms of competition that follows where it’s own foundation is a malign one yet amongst all of this simultaneously it creates laws outlawing malice within it’s own citizenry beyond the malign actions it itself operates on.
It is a classic example of hypocrisy and double standards.
If we conclude that society’s foundation rests upon a malign intention or framework where it thrives on conflict within other people and that by outlawing malicious actions within it’s own citizenry that it itself partakes in is absurd, what exactly is the real function of law beyond all the propaganda?
It is almost like society itself has a child like mentality in that it partakes and thrives on inequality itself yet absurdly expects and believes that all it’s members within it play nicely in a cooperative manner without hostility simultaneously upon it’s own whim.
---
### Author:  [@Joker](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Joker)
#### Post date: [April 10, 2008, 4:22pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/law-and-consequence/20743/2 "2008-04-10T16:22:30Z")
:-"
---
### Author:  [@realunoriginal](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/realunoriginal)
#### Post date: [April 10, 2008, 5:11pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/law-and-consequence/20743/3 "2008-04-10T17:11:46Z")
> [@Joker](#):
>
> Society thrives on the master slave relationship of people.
This is true on a social level in our American society. Does anybody remember which country built their wealth and prosperity on the destruction of a whole nation of people and the backbones of Southern blacks, then glossed over these facts in their history books? Hmm, I wonder why the truth is too much to handle? Oh yes, that’s right, we’re a society of “good” and “holy” individuals who could never commit such “atrocities”!!! (Thank you morality–I was beginning to feel bad about myself! Now I can sleep better, spend my time watching TV, and spend my money at the shopping mall!)
> [@Joker](#):
>
> In otherwords society thrives on conflict of interests and violent forms of competition between those existing within it.
Competition breeds ‘excellence’, whether it is violent or not doesn’t even matter.
> [@Joker](#):
>
> Is it realistic to outlaw malign dispositions within whole societies considering that the very root or foundation of such societies is a malicious one?
I’m not sure.
On one hand, it’s an impossible task to “root out the evil”. It’s an absurd job for the moralists, since they delude themselves the most.
On the other hand, I get to enjoy the benefits of society and morals in my day-to-day life. If somebody steals from me, rapes my women (wife/child/family/friend), or kills my companions (or me), then I don’t have to spend my time and money getting revenge (although I would likely take matters into my own hands anyway)–I can just call the cops to take care of this revenge for me.
However, it’s ironic that I can’t take my own revenge if I want to under the law. That may or may not stop me though depending on how and if I can get away with retribution.
> [@Joker](#):
>
> In every generation scholars, idealists, and institutionalists alike can’t seem to understand why they themselves can never eradicate crime or social deviancy but isn’t that just naivety and blind stupidity on their part?
Yes I believe so–these individuals need to “grow up”.
> [@Joker](#):
>
> In the absurdity of society’s whole existence it itself thrives on the conflict of others and the many violent forms of competition that follows where it’s own foundation is a malign one yet amongst all of this simultaneously it creates laws outlawing malice within it’s own citizenry beyond the malign actions it itself operates on.
It’s absurd; I think that’s the best way to describe it. In this world, there are many legal ways to treat another person maliciously, which aren’t outlawed. From my perspective, laws and rules are quite arbitrary and should be taken with skepticism. Only some of them should stand depending on which ones are practical. If I am the fatal victim of random violence, then it would be pleasing to know that complete strangers will exact revenge on my killer even when I am a complete stranger to them.
Though, I would prefer to take matters into my own hands and enact the “rights” of the “judge, jury, and executioner”.
> [@Joker](#):
>
> It is a classic example of hypocrisy and double standards.
Welcome to America! Enjoy your stay! (here’s the knife which you’ll use to stab others in the back–and a rag to wipe off the blood)
> [@Joker](#):
>
> If we conclude that society’s foundation rests upon a malign intention or framework where it thrives on conflict within other people and that by outlawing malicious actions within it’s own citizenry that it itself partakes in is absurd, what exactly is the real function of law beyond all the propaganda?
The real function of the law is to serve the social elite. We should not forget where laws are written and broken on a daily basis–at the top!
> [@Joker](#):
>
> It is almost like society itself has a child like mentality in that it partakes and thrives on inequality itself yet absurdly expects and believes that all it’s members within it play nicely in a cooperative manner without hostility simultaneously upon it’s own whim.
These are just the ‘childhood’ dreams of our times. It seems like the more and more I learn everyday from ILP, people recognize this delusion. Hypocrisy is easy to see in deed and word. The moralists want what they cannot have–their time is quickly coming to an end on this earth.
I can’t wait to see the reaction of the world when the masses snap out of our dream worlds and start to question the “pecking order”. Why should the poor be so damn poor (globally) when they are the ones with the true power (the will to die for whichever cause they choose)…?
I am interested to see how the social elite would react to a global revolution where the masses, including all the poor and the army itself, turns against them…?
---
### Author:  [@realunoriginal](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/realunoriginal)
#### Post date: [April 10, 2008, 10:47pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/law-and-consequence/20743/4 "2008-04-10T22:47:22Z")
I had a thought today:
Law was created by a man. This man assumed that his law was absolute and that it should be placed over my life in order to control me. Thus, I shall abide by no law, except my own. I will only restrain my actions where I believe respect is due and earned.
There is no such thing as ‘law’. It is just another delusion–an ideological ‘rule’ that I can break freely.
I am the lawmaker. I am the judge, jury, and executioner in one. I am the God of my own destiny and I am truly free.
---
### Author:  [@north](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/north)
#### Post date: [April 13, 2008, 8:31pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/law-and-consequence/20743/5 "2008-04-13T20:31:25Z")
> [@realunoriginal](#):
>
> I had a thought today:
>
> Law was created by a man. This man assumed that his law was absolute and that it should be placed over my life in order to control me. Thus, I shall abide by no law, except my own. I will only restrain my actions where I believe respect is due and earned.
>
> There is no such thing as ‘law’. It is just another delusion–an ideological ‘rule’ that I can break freely.
>
> I am the lawmaker. I am the judge, jury, and executioner in one. I am the God of my own destiny and I am truly free.
```
actually law was created by men not man and for a reason , to give justice to the victim who has worked hard to get what they have
law only controls you if you step out of line
you can break the law but is to break the law worth your freedom ? that is the question
```
---
### Author:  [@Joker](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Joker)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2008, 5:19pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/law-and-consequence/20743/6 "2008-04-17T17:19:02Z")
> [@north](#):
>
> > [@realunoriginal](#):
> >
> > I had a thought today:
> >
> > Law was created by a man. This man assumed that his law was absolute and that it should be placed over my life in order to control me. Thus, I shall abide by no law, except my own. I will only restrain my actions where I believe respect is due and earned.
> >
> > There is no such thing as ‘law’. It is just another delusion–an ideological ‘rule’ that I can break freely.
> >
> > I am the lawmaker. I am the judge, jury, and executioner in one. I am the God of my own destiny and I am truly free.
>
> ```
> actually law was created by men not man and for a reason , to give justice to the victim who has worked hard to get what they have
>
> law only controls you if you step out of line
>
> you can break the law but is to break the law worth your freedom ? that is the question
>
> ```
> [@](#):
>
> ```
> actually law was created by men not man and for a reason , to give justice to the victim who has worked hard to get what they have
>
> ```
For what? Some illusional ideal of equality? The victim deserves to die if they are weak since might and power is the law of the land.
Justice exists for a couple or so reasons if we look at it neutrally without abstract biases or the foolishness of morality:
1. It exists for the interests of other people beyond the defendant in order that they may enact their revenge out of selfishness of themselves.
2. It exists to protect society’s collective biases, prejudices and active segragational procedures in commerce or economical factors.
3. It exists to protect the elite’s power, manipulation and control as most of them are too weak to protect themselves when their slaves revolt in marching against them.
4. It exists to protect the weak especially laboring slaves since the lower classes are deemed the elite’s and aristocracy’s commercial property needing safe guard against the attack of others in order that they may be utilized for commerical or constructive purposes constantly as the pawns that they are.
5. It exists to protect the structure of the government and state who sits in the background pretending to be omnipotent with their idealistic yet failing construction of social order all the while they monopolize other people’s lives.
---
### Author:  [@Joker](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Joker)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2008, 5:35pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/law-and-consequence/20743/7 "2008-04-17T17:35:43Z")
> [@realunoriginal](#):
>
> I had a thought today:
>
> Law was created by a man. This man assumed that his law was absolute and that it should be placed over my life in order to control me. Thus, I shall abide by no law, except my own. I will only restrain my actions where I believe respect is due and earned.
>
> There is no such thing as ‘law’. It is just another delusion–an ideological ‘rule’ that I can break freely.
>
> I am the lawmaker. I am the judge, jury, and executioner in one. I am the God of my own destiny and I am truly free.
Law is the selfish interests of other people trying to impose their will against your own pretending that they themselves are unassailable and infallible with ridiculous metaphors or abstractions that they themselves call benign.
Even more interesting in the courtroom you have whole people crying and moaning of their so called injustices in that they guilt the public to sympathize with their weaknesses as if all people should feel the same way as they do.
They project their short comings on the accused and with one slap of a gavel selfish revenge is enacted.
---
### Author:  [@gib](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/gib)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2008, 5:55pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/law-and-consequence/20743/8 "2008-04-17T17:55:49Z")
> [@Joker](#):
>
> Is it realistic to outlaw malign dispositions within whole societies considering that the very root or foundation of such societies is a malicious one?
It can be… if it works. You ought to remember that the lawmakers who outlaw maign dispositions are securing a safe position for themselves in society where they can’t get hurt. Are they naive? Some of them, maybe - but even if they were to “wake up” to reality, what would they do differently? Those laws they make still serve the same function - to keep them on top. So it’s in their best interests to keep playing dumb, for to admit it is to admit the rights of the oppressed to overthrow them. So I sometimes wonder how naive they really are. It’s all a big game, after all. The rules don’t only apply to what you do, but what you say and claim to believe.
---
### Author:  [@Joker](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Joker)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2008, 6:14pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/law-and-consequence/20743/9 "2008-04-17T18:14:23Z")
> [@gib](#):
>
> > [@Joker](#):
> >
> > Is it realistic to outlaw malign dispositions within whole societies considering that the very root or foundation of such societies is a malicious one?
>
> It can be… if it works. You ought to remember that the lawmakers who outlaw maign dispositions are securing a safe position for themselves in society where they can’t get hurt. Are they naive? Some of them, maybe - but even if they were to “wake up” to reality, what would they do differently? Those laws they make still serve the same function - to keep them on top. So it’s in their best interests to keep playing dumb, for to admit it is to admit the rights of the oppressed to overthrow them. So I sometimes wonder how naive they really are. It’s all a big game, after all. The rules don’t only apply to what you do, but what you say and claim to believe.
> [@](#):
>
> It can be… if it works.
For whom?
> [@](#):
>
> You ought to remember that the lawmakers who outlaw maign dispositions are securing a safe position for themselves in society where they can’t get hurt.
Obviously.
> [@](#):
>
> Are they naive? Some of them,
More like all of them. Morality, ethics, law, government and justice is one giant, “Do as I say, not as I do.”
> [@](#):
>
> but even if they were to “wake up” to reality, what would they do differently?
Probally nothing. Hence the hypocrisy.
> [@](#):
>
> Those laws they make still serve the same function - to keep them on top.
Pretty much.
> [@](#):
>
> So it’s in their best interests to keep playing dumb, for to admit it is to admit the rights of the oppressed to overthrow them.
You have to wonder…
If such a group of elite men are so weak and fragile in that they can’t protect themselves without such abstractions they would most likely die without them.
Illusional laws and abstractions coddle or protect the weak giving the illusion that they themselves are kings yet without them such people would die if the illusion was to be struck out.
That is why I like nature in that if we take such a pompous ass who describes themselves as king away from the protected enviroment of illusions that they are accustomed to and place them in a place so indifferent or uncaring like the natural wilderness they would sink into oblivion showing that they themselves were never king in the first place beyond their own delusions of grandeur in being so.
> [@](#):
>
> So I sometimes wonder how naive they really are.
Very naive.
> [@](#):
>
> It’s all a big game, after all.
A absurd game filled with kings and pawns with checkmates or stalemates.
---
### Author:  [@realunoriginal](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/realunoriginal)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2008, 6:37pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/law-and-consequence/20743/10 "2008-04-17T18:37:45Z")
Joker, this is why when the masses become enlightened in the Age of Reason, massive violence and chaos will spread. How can the rulers protect their hoarded loots from armies of citizens who no longer abide by any law except their own? How can the rulers prevent their own soldiers from turning on them?
---
### Author:  [@Joker](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Joker)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2008, 6:40pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/law-and-consequence/20743/11 "2008-04-17T18:40:12Z")
> [@realunoriginal](#):
>
> Joker, this is why when the masses become enlightened in the Age of Reason, massive violence and chaos will spread. How can the rulers protect their hoarded loots from armies of citizens who no longer abide by any law except their own? How can the rulers prevent their own soldiers from turning on them?
I’m more pessimistic on this issue than you are are Realunoriginal.
Such things have always been the case of civilization and probally always will be.
Hypocrisy and absurdity is paramount or king in civilization.
I see no future mass awakening, enlightenment or age of reason as you so boldly pronounce. To me such things are fantastic stories and myths perpetuated in every generation to give the hopeless or condemened a sense of false hope which in the end inevitably let’s them down without fail.
---
### Author:  [@realunoriginal](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/realunoriginal)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2008, 6:43pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/law-and-consequence/20743/12 "2008-04-17T18:43:53Z")
> [@Joker](#):
>
> > [@realunoriginal](#):
> >
> > Joker, this is why when the masses become enlightened in the Age of Reason, massive violence and chaos will spread. How can the rulers protect their hoarded loots from armies of citizens who no longer abide by any law except their own? How can the rulers prevent their own soldiers from turning on them?
>
> I’m more pessimistic on this issue than you are are Realunoriginal.
>
> Such things have always been the case of civilization and probally always will be.
What I predict happening is like The Matrix–eventually all the people are going to ‘wake up’ and want to fuck over our socially ‘elite’ masters.
I will never bow to them. I will never bow to anybody I don’t give my allegiance to.
---
### Author:  [@Joker](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Joker)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2008, 6:47pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/law-and-consequence/20743/13 "2008-04-17T18:47:08Z")
> [@realunoriginal](#):
>
> > [@Joker](#):
> >
> > > [@realunoriginal](#):
> > >
> > > Joker, this is why when the masses become enlightened in the Age of Reason, massive violence and chaos will spread. How can the rulers protect their hoarded loots from armies of citizens who no longer abide by any law except their own? How can the rulers prevent their own soldiers from turning on them?
> >
> > I’m more pessimistic on this issue than you are are Realunoriginal.
> >
> > Such things have always been the case of civilization and probally always will be.
>
> What I predict happening is like The Matrix–eventually all the people are going to ‘wake up’ and want to fuck over our socially ‘elite’ masters.
>
> I will never bow to them. I will never bow to anybody I don’t give my allegiance to.
> [@](#):
>
> What I predict happening is like The Matrix–eventually all the people are going to ‘wake up’ and want to fuck over our socially ‘elite’ masters.
My pessimism disagrees… 😕
> [@](#):
>
> I will never bow to them. I will never bow to anybody I don’t give my allegiance to.
Then don’t but know that beyond your own ego it is unlikely that others will agree with you or follow in your own footsteps.
I learned a long time ago to put self interests first before useless crusades.
You can’t focus on other people but instead only focus on yourself.
---
### Author:  [@realunoriginal](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/realunoriginal)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2008, 6:55pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/law-and-consequence/20743/14 "2008-04-17T18:55:11Z")
> [@Joker](#):
>
> Then don’t but know that beyond your own ego it is unlikely that others will agree with you or follow in your own footsteps.
>
> I learned a long time ago to put self interests first before useless crusades.
>
> You can’t focus on other people but instead only focus on yourself.
You’re right, but I do understand people’s ignorances.
I don’t know what will happen in my lifetime within this world, but I predict that there will be a few fun things to watch for.
---
### Author:  [@gib](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/gib)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2008, 7:26pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/law-and-consequence/20743/15 "2008-04-17T19:26:29Z")
> [@Joker](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > So I sometimes wonder how naive they really are.
>
> Very naive.
You really think so? I think they’re a group of evil geniuses. They know how people work. They know exactly what to say, when to say it, to whom to say it, and how to say it. That’s their master craft. They create the beliefs for the masses to consume and they design those beliefs very carefully. They know what they’re doing.
---
### Author:  [@Joker](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Joker)
#### Post date: [April 18, 2008, 1:48pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/law-and-consequence/20743/16 "2008-04-18T13:48:15Z")
> [@gib](#):
>
> > [@Joker](#):
> >
> > > [@](#):
> > >
> > > So I sometimes wonder how naive they really are.
> >
> > Very naive.
>
> You really think so? I think they’re a group of evil geniuses. They know how people work. They know exactly what to say, when to say it, to whom to say it, and how to say it. That’s their master craft. They create the beliefs for the masses to consume and they design those beliefs very carefully. They know what they’re doing.
> [@](#):
>
> You really think so? I think they’re a group of evil geniuses.
Maybe at the start of the creation of laws where one day a man sitting in the woods came up with a ingenious Trojan horse of defeating his enemies with the construction of god, law, morality and such but where the stupidity or naivety arises is that such a person fool hardedly believed that such a creation wout last indefinitely thoughout the ages without consequences which is just ridiculous.