 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| What is the purpose of law? |
| Justice!! |
|
3% |
[ 1 ] |
| Reflection of society's will!! |
|
10% |
[ 3 ] |
| Societal Order!! |
|
51% |
[ 15 ] |
| Evil!! |
|
17% |
[ 5 ] |
| Other!! |
|
17% |
[ 5 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 29 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Bobby1933
Raven
![]()
Joined: Feb 25, 2008
Age: 75
Posts: 120
Location: Idaho, USA
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 11:19 pm Post subject: Why laws? |
 |
|
Appleinmyeye and dongiovanni pretty much have it nailed, I'm sorry to say.
All societies have norms or rules and some of them are necessary and benefit all members. Complex societies have laws and these generally serve the interests of the powerful. This is true even in socalled democracies. The fact that Marx said it doesn't necessarily make it wrong. The government is the executive committee of the ruling class/
_________________
Nun: I believe I am God.
Meister Eckhart: Praise be to God! |
|
| Back to top |
|
slowmutant
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 14, 2008
Age: 29
Posts: 6833
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 12:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Marx had a very definite bias, didn't he? His ideas are not necessarily gospel, on the other hand. He had his truth from
his POV. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 18
Posts: 3699
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dongiovanni wrote: | | Orwell wrote: | | dongiovanni wrote: | | The purpose of law should ideally be to produce utility. The purpose of law presently is to serve the ruling class. |
Well, that still produces utility, doesn't it? Just for a smaller group of people. And who exactly is the "ruling class?" In Western liberal democracies, such as the US, many people would maintain that the people are the ruling class, and so serving the interests of the ruling class is analogous to serving the best interests of society at large. |
The "ruling class" to which I'm referring is the "ruling class" in the Marxist sense, i.e. the Bourgeoisie (those that own). The reason that this doesn't produce utility is that the Bourgeoisie doesn't have an interest in maintaining the welfare of other people unless they intentionally place the stress on the Bourgeoisie. |
Well, Marxist class-warfare theory isn't taken very seriously in intellectual circles, and for good reason. Much of his whining was quite unfounded, and all of his legitimate complaints have been addressed by modern society. Heck, we've even adopted a significant portion of the program he outlined in the Communist Manifesto. The US at least (in which we both live) has enough economic opportunity that there are relatively few who you can honestly say are "oppressed" by our current system. I'm not even going to bother with this talk of "bourgeoisie."
| Quote: | Re: The Ruling Class being the People
That certainly is the case from a purely political perspective; any person has equal ability to influence the government as any other person via voting. This, however, is obscured when we examine political power as an extension of economic power. The fact is that control over resource is the ultimate form of authority. If a group of people who control the extant to which society at large can acquire an essential resource, say, petroleum, they can use it as a means of economic influence, e.g. forming trusts to create greater profit margins. Then, having these superprofits gives them the ability to fund campaigns and an equal ability to refuse funding for campaigns, which, without adequate funding, will inevitably fail. If you examine the previous two (or even three) presidential elections, the winner of the elections was always the candidate with more funding. |
OK, this is a valid point. Economic means give one greater ability to influence political decisions. BUT, there is relatively equal opportunity for people to obtain economic wealth. Besides, we have limits on campaign contributions and all sorts of crazy restrictions on campaign finance. It is false to claim that large corporations (such as Big Oil) are able to control the outcome of elections by funding campaigns, because they simply can't.
| Quote: | Re: Victimless Crimes
It can be argued that, as the purpose of law is to produce social good and the banning of victimless crimes can produce social good, victimless crimes ought to be banned (using the drug example, the argument could be that banning of drugs maximises health). However, this calls into question the definition of social good. The paradigm of social good that Mill is happiness. Ultimately, all of what we try to achieve via health, education, law, and all social institutions is to maximise happiness. The issue that we run into with the above argument for the banning of victimless crimes (e.g. drug use) is that it places other values (health) as the highest value. The fallacy is that health is only an intermediate value to happiness. Therefore, I would argue that banning of victimless crimes does not produce utility. |
A different perspective in your analysis than I would bring, but I agree with your conclusion. Crimes have victims.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
slowmutant
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 14, 2008
Age: 29
Posts: 6833
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Drug use is not a victimless crime. Drug-addicts are their own victims, but there's also the people they steal from and terrorize to get more drugs. The whole of society suffers on account of drug-use. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 18
Posts: 3699
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| slowmutant wrote: | | Drug use is not a victimless crime. Drug-addicts are their own victims, but there's also the people they steal from and terrorize to get more drugs. The whole of society suffers on account of drug-use. |
This is true. I should clarify: according to my libertarian ideals, one has responsibility for oneself. You may do anything that does not harm a person without their consent. As you obviously can not harm yourself without consenting to it, a crime where the victim is also the culprit would be considered de facto victimless by me. The social issues of drug use are harder to tackle. I suppose the easiest answer is that any crime committed should be punished. Stealing is illegal, and it is wrong because it harms other people. Therefore, theft should be punished, but simply using drugs is not actually the same thing as theft.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
Dox47
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 29, 2008
Age: 26
Posts: 579
Location: Bainbridge Island
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: | | slowmutant wrote: | | Drug use is not a victimless crime. Drug-addicts are their own victims, but there's also the people they steal from and terrorize to get more drugs. The whole of society suffers on account of drug-use. |
This is true. I should clarify: according to my libertarian ideals, one has responsibility for oneself. You may do anything that does not harm a person without their consent. As you obviously can not harm yourself without consenting to it, a crime where the victim is also the culprit would be considered de facto victimless by me. The social issues of drug use are harder to tackle. I suppose the easiest answer is that any crime committed should be punished. Stealing is illegal, and it is wrong because it harms other people. Therefore, theft should be punished, but simply using drugs is not actually the same thing as theft. |
What Orwell said x2. I might also add, that many of the negative effects of drugs are a result of the drug trade, and would be reduced and or eliminated if legalization destroyed the profits of the drug trade. As it currently stands, an ounce of cocaine is worth more than an ounce of gold, only because the gold isn't illegal. If that same Bolivian marching powder cost $10 an ounce, as opposed to the current $500 or so, people wouldn't have to steal in order to support their habits, and the violence associated with the drug trade would drop. I imagine that the economies of several unnamed Latin American countries would collapse, but hey, that whole continent is already trashed anyways  . |
|
| Back to top |
|
skafather84
Platypus God
Joined: Mar 21, 2006
Age: 24
Posts: 4686
Location: Los Angeles, CA
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: | | slowmutant wrote: | | Drug use is not a victimless crime. Drug-addicts are their own victims, but there's also the people they steal from and terrorize to get more drugs. The whole of society suffers on account of drug-use. |
This is true. I should clarify: according to my libertarian ideals, one has responsibility for oneself. You may do anything that does not harm a person without their consent. As you obviously can not harm yourself without consenting to it, a crime where the victim is also the culprit would be considered de facto victimless by me. The social issues of drug use are harder to tackle. I suppose the easiest answer is that any crime committed should be punished. Stealing is illegal, and it is wrong because it harms other people. Therefore, theft should be punished, but simply using drugs is not actually the same thing as theft. |
i smoke pot. if i were in any other part of the country, i'd be arrested for this. i do nothing wrong. i don't hurt anyone, don't start any fights, don't drive wrecklessly...but in most every other part of the country, could get arrested for it. don't hurt anyone but could be arrested for it. that's messed up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
slowmutant
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 14, 2008
Age: 29
Posts: 6833
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Cocaine is illegal with good reason. Legalizing cocaine would encourage the drug trade to increase exponentially. If cocaine were harmless, it would not need to be trafficked and sold by criminals. For the same reason, issuing a blanket de-criminalization on all firearms everywhere would be a very bad idea. Dangerous things are controlled as they are with good reason. Having said that, the illegal trade of dangerous things has law enforcement to thank for keeping the demand high for these products.
Funny how that works, isn't it? Crime & Law need each other to survive. But that's a whole other thread ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
Dox47
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 29, 2008
Age: 26
Posts: 579
Location: Bainbridge Island
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| slowmutant wrote: | | Cocaine is illegal with good reason. Legalizing cocaine would encourage the drug trade to increase exponentially. If cocaine were harmless, it would not need to be trafficked and sold by criminals. |
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner for faulty logic! That bolded phrase just cracks me up, but I digress...
No, cocaine is not harmless, but the question is whether the damage done by the illegal trade in it outweighs the damage that it would do to people if it were legal. Don't delude yourself Slow, it's perfectly available to anyone who wants any, I can make one phone call and have some delivered to my door within the hour. Used occasionally in moderation, it's not that awful, some people just can't handle it. Just like alcohol, and we know how successful banning that was.
How much of the appeal of cocaine is derived from the fact that it is illegal, and thus cool? If blow where suddenly legal, would you be rushing out to try it? I doubt that many people who haven't all ready done so would be all that interested in trying it if it were suddenly legal. Maybe some, but hardly the skyrocketing demand you are imagining.
Also, without the profits, who's going to want to deal with the stuff? If a key of snow is suddenly worth a couple hundred bucks, as opposed to the several thousand it used to be, why even bother with it? Cocaine is a multi-billion dollar industry, but like all crime, if it didn't pay better than honest work people wouldn't do it.
The current situation only serves to enrich criminals, and ruin the lives of people caught up in the justice system because of it. If you measure the cost of keeping cocaine illegal against the damage that a legal cocaine would do, I believe that on the whole things would be better with legalization. People wouldn't have to steal or sell themselves to afford their habits, innocent people wouldn't get shot in turf wars, neighborhoods wouldn't be blighted by the refuse of the drug trade. All of that isn't even touching all the money we could save by ending the drug war, and even more savings from the drug offenders we're not incarcerating anymore. Hell, with all that extra money, we could pay down W's war debt, and still have enough left to invade that worthless country to our north, and sell it to the Red Chinese. I hear they need room for population growth, and we could finance another war with the money. I think it's high time that France pays for it's uppity ways... |
|
| Back to top |
|
slowmutant
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 14, 2008
Age: 29
Posts: 6833
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| My logic is sound. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 5720
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| slowmutant wrote: | | Cocaine is illegal with good reason. Legalizing cocaine would encourage the drug trade to increase exponentially. If cocaine were harmless, it would not need to be trafficked and sold by criminals. For the same reason, issuing a blanket de-criminalization on all firearms everywhere would be a very bad idea. Dangerous things are controlled as they are with good reason. Having said that, the illegal trade of dangerous things has law enforcement to thank for keeping the demand high for these products. |
Not likely. I think that nicotine ends up being more addictive with high majorities of first time users later becoming addicted. I am not certain about the variations in the intensity of addiction. Really though, illegality does not necessarily precede great danger as marijuana is not very dangerous at all but is still sold illegally. Dangerous things are controlled as they are with certain reason, but that is no reason to assume the reason is good. There have been economists who have questioned the drug war and who seem to think that legalization and perhaps sin taxation would be the best solution. Nobel Laureate Gary Becker for example, has suggested that legal cocaine at a really high tax rate might even reduce consumption than illegalization, and one of his specialties is economics and law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 18
Posts: 3699
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| slowmutant wrote: | Cocaine is illegal with good reason. Legalizing cocaine would encourage the drug trade to increase exponentially. If cocaine were harmless, it would not need to be trafficked and sold by criminals. For the same reason, issuing a blanket de-criminalization on all firearms everywhere would be a very bad idea. Dangerous things are controlled as they are with good reason. Having said that, the illegal trade of dangerous things has law enforcement to thank for keeping the demand high for these products.
Funny how that works, isn't it? Crime & Law need each other to survive. But that's a whole other thread ... |
You really do not seem to trust people to run their own lives, do you, slowmutant?
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 5720
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not only that, but really slowmutant, what you propose is simply another barrier to trade as you are just attacking certain currencies based upon what you prefer. I believe in freer trade, and I do not want the US banning another group's currency just because you do not like it!
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/06/colombian-town-where-cocaine-is-only.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
Dox47
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 29, 2008
Age: 26
Posts: 579
Location: Bainbridge Island
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| slowmutant wrote: | | My logic is sound. |
So far, the evidence is to the contrary. Unless your definition of sound is a house of cards built on quicksand, because that's about how sturdy your logic is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Odin
Supreme Genius
Joined: Oct 13, 2006
Age: 22
Posts: 1885
Location: Moorhead, Minnesota, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have a friend who has a master's degree in Economics and in his (IIRC) Master's Thesis he argued that the legalization of drugs would get rid of much of the crime related to them. His reasoning was based on the fact that because of the drugs' addictive nature their demand would be inelastic, that is, addicts would want to satisfy their addiction no matter what the cost. Now, what the "War On Drugs" drugs does, he argues, is both drastically raise the price as well as pushing it's sale into the hands of gangsters and drug lords. Since the addict will do anything to pay for the drug addiction they will be often be driven to crime as a way to find the money to pay for the drugs.
_________________
My Blog: http://selzshaven.blogspot.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
