From my perspective the many seem to want an end to crime and in doing so feel that they must force the few who comit crime to change…
But there is another way if the many would remove the laws then there would also be no crime, achiveing the same goal,
we try to change others when the easy way is to change yourself, in this case if the many have a goal then they should change themselfs to achive that goal as the many have this power to do so, because law and crime coexist with each other remove one and you remove the other.
No Way! An anarchist’s dream. Not all humans are rational, and would murder each other for gold, prestige, control over others. No laws – we will be thrown into anothe Dark Age.
Where do I begin? Is this going to be one of those threads that ends with the original poster writing “Oh, heck. I didn’t mean it, anyway, it was just a mental exercise”?
You’ve got these two terms here, “crime” and “law” that depend upon each other for their definition - they truly are paired opposites - the words themselves. But ending the crime of “murder” does not end killing. You have a purely definitional argument - remove the definition and the problem is solved. But you are only talking about normative words, and not about their referents.
What I mean is that this cannot possibly make sense as an argument, even if you can, indeed, construct an argument that does. It is as if to say "Let’s get rid of ‘down’ - by getting rid of ‘up’ ". You can still fall.
That’s just a matter of immaturley twisting law syntax and interpretation.
Of course there would be no OFFICIAL crime. But if this happened and I raped your daughter and put a bullet between her eyes I bet you’d still consider it a crime.
OK you kill and rape my daughter, she laying there dead in front of me, why would i assume unfairness has bestoaed her
Also if you did murder my daughter, can you prove that my daughters murder didn’t come about because of a rule, can you actualy kill someone without some rule to give you reason to do so.
By society having laws is it giveing people or groupes reason to attack it,
If it’s killing according to the rules, whatever rules count, how can it be murder in the first place? Murder is killing in violation of the rules. I do not understand your terminology here.
