I think we can all accept what law is, an organisation of rules to keep peace and maintain a healthy society. However I feel that the aims of law have been lost over the centuries and that when you actualy think about it, law is a rather absurd concept.
We are born into law, born into a contract we never even signed let alone read. Law is just generaly accepted as something for the better, something we should follow. Few people actualy consider the laws themselves… they just accept them because thats the way things are and thats the way they always will be.
Furthermore, does anyone on earth actualy know everysingle law currently existant? Even the best of lawyers dont know everysingle
law. Shouldnt we know the law if we are expected to follow it? Now I grant that it is impossible to know everysingle law, but if you we cant know the laws then we shouldnt have to follow them. We shouldnt be expected to play a game we dont know.
However, the laws are generaly known well enough not to break any major ones. But its the principle… the principle that we are expected to follow laws we dont even know of.
I feel as if society itself has over-complified and is distancing itself further and further from mankinds original nature. Laws are laid down with the idea that they are what people want, what they agree with, what is best for them. But the laws we follow are all arguable. There is no universal law, we should have the freedom to do as we wish. By now I realise I may be sounding like an extreme anarchist. But just hear me out. Law does not stop murder… murder still happens. Law does not stop rape, rape still happens. It is generaly accepted that without living in an Orwellian state… it is impossible to eradicate such acts. The main issue here is whether or not law works.
Imagine a world without law… you probably imagine chaos, murder, rape, war. But isnt the modern world already like this already? Im not suggesting a world without laws. Im suggesting less complicated laws, im suggesting we “regress” for the sake of evolving.
For some reason I feel some what suffocated by law and I feel many accept it for the simple reason that there is no other option. Man feels the need to organise, but this need to organise has taken us as far as we can go before we end up self destructing.
argh… ugh… G’ah!
Too… many… erch… holes… ugh… can’t… fix… it… 
As pointed out by detrop: an authority only has power in so far as it has influence, that is, when and where it fails to uphold the legal process it has no ‘right of interference’…
edited
well, everything is rather absurd if you think about it. you see upside down and you live on a spinning ball.
I can think of many an example, downloading musical illegaly from the internet. They prosecute the smallest fraction of music downloaders, I wouldnt call that upholding the law.
Law is impossible, it is based on somebody elses moral’s and after all morality is relative. Even when masses of people disagree with a law, that isnt to say it will change anytime soon.
Weve survived before without law and im sure we can again, law does bring many benefits. There are privilages we wouldnt be able to endulge with if it wasnt for law. But I want the right to choose whether or not im going to follow the law. And I want the laws to be less complicated, there are too many useless laws.
edited
And what is your point?
edited
I wasnt criticising your point, what ever it was, I was just asking what it was. Because im afraid you havnt made it very clear.
edited
Im afraid were beginning to fall into the word trap. Forget petty differences.
I said that law was based on morals, and if afterall you agree that law is based on ethics and ethics based on morasl, then in turn law is based on moral’s. I honestly dont see a disputable point here.
Did anyone ever question the ten commandments? Couldn’t God explain why these were for our best interest, and PROVE it? Why is force nessessary, or threats?
Go’s back again to forcing and threatening others not to touch a hot stove. My God wouldn’t resort to that, why would He need too? Would yours?
Gods out of the question here. If I did believe in God then i would argue that the purpose of life IS God… so if God tells you to follow certain rules you follow certain rules. But the idea of God is even more absurd than law.
edited
So now youre taking the utilitarian approach. But why should I agree to follow laws based on pleasing everyone if it conflicts with my morals? I prefer this logical approach to law than the moral approach, since logic is a universal truth. However humans being as selfish in nature as they are, why should they do what pleases everyone?
Well?
edited
angst-ridden
a great thread! just to further you point, law is simply the will of the powerful. a law is not a law unless there are powers to back it up, in the power aspect, law is distinguished from rules.
i am curious, are a British nationalist? do you love Britain? its people? and its tradition?
It has been suggested that each and every case of unjustice be examined and judged by a group of people. Much like the current court, albeit without the laws.
However this raises to many questions, it is essentialy as flawed an idea as law itself. But I have no alternative suggestion to law at the moment, I just feel as though we all deserve the right to choose whether or not we follow the law. Those that follow it deserve governement protection and rights within the society. Those that dont, made outcasts.
PoR, I frown upon nationalism because of the doctrines it often entails. However I am often inclined to feel proud of my country and its achievements. In my rather arrogant opinion, I believe that Britain was and still is leading the development of mankind. America is a fancy distraction from the real country that matters.
Britain as a place is rather drab, the people are great and the food is great. I think being proud of your country is essential for prevention of globalisation, although I do like to embrace other cultures.
From the above you can determine that I am indeed a walking contradiction.