User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 41

  1. #1
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,152

    Default Laws confuse me.

    Laws confuse me. Apparently, I must do as other people wish or face consequences of their determination. Sure, there is some leeway that occurs within the system...but ultimately the premise remains the same..."do what we want you to do or suffer".

    I don't understand this. Were we not all put on to this earth on equal standing? No one knows, really, what purpose existence promises...so I fail to see how a person can justify affecting another persons life in any way. We only get 80-100 years, if we're lucky...and that's all anyone has. How does another human being, no better, no worse, look me in the eyes and tell me "Do as I say...or else"? This is, selfish as it may seem, my life and ultimately I'm the only one responsible for it. If I choose to live it in a way that you don't find particularly appealing then you have your life and you are free to do with it as you please. But I will defend my life with my life and I fully expect you to do the same. If not, then really, what is your purpose?

    So, I'm not sure what anything's legal status has to do with anything. As far as I'm concerned one of the few things all humans have in common is that we ultimately can't get beyond our own consciousnesses and percieve an actual reality. We will always be boxed in by our limitations...until we aren't. And until that day comes (Something I would love to see happen, though perhaps not participate in)...no one can tell me that my reality is in any way more flawed than anyone elses... nonetheless punish me for thinking so...and acting on those thoughts.

    Of course this isn't to say there shouldn't be consequences to actions...only that those consequences shouldn't be determined by laws written by people with whom I may or may not agree. Otherwise, am I not nothing more than a slave to those people? And, as a slave, do you believe, even for an instant, that I will not fight for my freedom...or die trying? It's ridiculous...

    Laws...they mean nothing. Words on a page, pages to a book, books in a library, the owners of which I couldn't give a damn. I live my life with my expextations firmly at the forefront...and really do marvel at those who either can't or won't do the same. My wants and wishes, by my estimation, aren't particularly outlandish...but as I pursue those things I have very little time to consider what some legal mind of my time has to say about my actions. Who died and made him my master? Was he not just as idiotic as everyone else who existed? Why should his perception of reality affect my own, particularly without my consent?

    Yet, for practical reasons, I can see the merit of laws existing and being followed. I just can't follow them myself. The consequences of unlawful thoughts and actions are nothing compared to the consequences of a life lived in ways I do not accept. I have very little patience in explaining the way in which the reality I percieve operates...and ultimately I don't think it should be of any consequence to anyone anyway. I just assume that the system will evolve to incorporate my way of living...and if not, I honestly do not see a more noble fate a person can achieve. I'd be content and would go out insisting that it's ended for me...such that perhaps a better effort can be one day acheived.

    My only question, really, is what this means for my future.
    Last edited by xisnotx; 03-22-2012 at 11:01 PM.

  2. #2
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    This is ridiculous.

    Having a robust legal system is one of the hallmarks of (modern) civilization.

    Our legal system owes itself mostly to English common law that worked for centuries before it was even properly enumerated.

    Our legal code is the product of more than 200 years of court decisions, and vigorous legislative consideration.

    You're contention that law, or more specifically its punishments are spurious because of your lack of common ground with its authors, is patently ridiculous.

    Apply your thought process to the population generally, and think how that would affect the country.... the world.

    That world is not a place I would want to live.

  3. #3

    Default

    More adolescent anarchism.

    Anyway, the law is better than the primitive chaotic state which preceeds it.

    In most modern, western, liberal democracies the law aims to be in congruence with consequentialism and reasonableness. Its difficult to see as a result, given that those are reflective of major underpinning norms or practical reasoning with almost universal validation, how it could be considered objectionable.

    Perhaps, on the grounds of its ultimate support for or complicity in structural inequality, although that is a reflection of the political or social order and in democracies it is possible to organise to change the political or social order without legal sanction or punishment.

  4. #4
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    So then I am nothing more than a slave to the thoughts of those who came before me? I'm not free to do as I wish...even if my wishes aren't particularly harmful to anyone? A cog in a system condemned to live out my fate as dictated by men prior? As are my children...and their children?

    Hardly an existence worth living in the first place.

    Practicalities aside.

  5. #5
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    I think realistically there is always going to be an established process and legal system overseeing human societies of any real size. There are just too many benefits to having a standardized system of behavior to create a consensus within the culture on what should be allowed, not allowed, and how things should be regulated. This doesn't mean everyone will agree, but such a standard will still exist and be maintained.

    I think then that you don't really get a choice of "no system," what you get a choice in is the role you play in that society. Are you a lawmaker or a lawbreaker? Do you support and enforce the system, or do you oppose it? To oppose the system of course carries consequences but also plays a role in the system's evolution. You just don't really get a choice to "ignore it" -- which is the same as throwing out the system. You get to choose among a few potential roles rather than having limitless freedom.

    (it's kind of like language -- you're born into it and imprinted with a particular language, and that becomes your original native tongue and frames a lot of things for you.... you don't really get the option, if you are active in human society, of never having picked up a native tongue.)
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  6. #6
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    More adolescent anarchism.

    Anyway, the law is better than the primitive chaotic state which preceeds it.

    In most modern, western, liberal democracies the law aims to be in congruence with consequentialism and reasonableness. Its difficult to see as a result, given that those are reflective of major underpinning norms or practical reasoning with almost universal validation, how it could be considered objectionable.

    Perhaps, on the grounds of its ultimate support for or complicity in structural inequality, although that is a reflection of the political or social order and in democracies it is possible to organise to change the political or social order without legal sanction or punishment.
    Anarchism is it? I ws thinking more along the lines of a system more fluid in nature and not bound necessarily to times past. A system that focuses more on the future.

    It's most objectionable feature is that I didn't sign up for it and therefore if I'm bound to it unwillingly it is nothing more than just a form of imposed servitude. So I was born a slave?

    If that's the reality then I'll learn to live with it...but other options should be explored. My personal wishes can more than likely be met by this system but not everyone will be as easy to please. If they decide to do something about it, they'll have my support (though it wont be particularly helpful). It's not hard to understand their motivations.

  7. #7
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    therefore if I'm bound to it unwillingly
    But you're not bound to it.

    You can choose to (like most of us do) follow those laws which you agree with, and not follow those you don't.

    In doing so, you must accept the potential consequences of such actions.

  8. #8
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xisnotx View Post
    Anarchism is it? I ws thinking more along the lines of a system more fluid in nature and not bound necessarily to times past. A system that focuses more on the future.
    What would that actually look like? A law not based in precedent?
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xisnotx View Post
    Anarchism is it? I ws thinking more along the lines of a system more fluid in nature and not bound necessarily to times past. A system that focuses more on the future.

    It's most objectionable feature is that I didn't sign up for it and therefore if I'm bound to it unwillingly it is nothing more than just a form of imposed servitude. So I was born a slave?

    If that's the reality then I'll learn to live with it...but other options should be explored. My personal wishes can more than likely be met by this system but not everyone will be as easy to please. If they decide to do something about it, they'll have my support (though it wont be particularly helpful). It's not hard to understand their motivations.
    I suppose in response to the piece I'd highlighted I'd have to raise a big Why? Seriously why? Why make that "past bad, future good" value judgement? Is that not simply the conceit of the present day?

    The next point I would make would be that there is no servitude involved in compliance with the law in a global sense, no interference with the life anyone or an average individual would live, in fact it has probably been directly or indirectly of service to you more often than it has placed any obligation upon you requiring thinking or acting upon your part.

    Would it be possible for such a system, requiring the explicit "signing up", of each individual member be possible? That is applying the logic of the country club or private members club to that of civil society and citizenship, its a category error to do so.

    It is presumed or implicit in your post that the individual is ontologically a priori to society, owes no obligation to others or experiences no social reciprocity, that is complete and utter abstraction, useful to liberals and capitalists but objectively wrong, language and nothing else could have developed were it the case.

  10. #10
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    @DiscoBiscuit
    I'm bound to it not because I can't ultimately do as I please...but because if I were to do so the consequences would be, personally, too adverse to consider. Purposefully so, those doing the binding are well aware of that...it is, after all, a purpose of lawfulness. (Either that, or it's just the "right" thing to do..)

    @Jennifer Those are the practicalities that I haven't considered.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I suppose in response to the piece I'd highlighted I'd have to raise a big Why? Seriously why? Why make that "past bad, future good" value judgement? Is that not simply the conceit of the present day?

    The next point I would make would be that there is no servitude involved in compliance with the law in a global sense, no interference with the life anyone or an average individual would live, in fact it has probably been directly or indirectly of service to you more often than it has placed any obligation upon you requiring thinking or acting upon your part.

    Would it be possible for such a system, requiring the explicit "signing up", of each individual member be possible? That is applying the logic of the country club or private members club to that of civil society and citizenship, its a category error to do so.

    It is presumed or implicit in your post that the individual is ontologically a priori to society, owes no obligation to others or experiences no social reciprocity, that is complete and utter abstraction, useful to liberals and capitalists but objectively wrong, language and nothing else could have developed were it the case.
    Possible? At what point will it matter if it's possible? It's achievableness will be realized if it gets achieved. Until then it's all speculation..

    More importantly the value judgement (though it is it one, yes) isn't "past bad, future good"...but rather "past important, future more so". Why? Anti-stagnation..progress..hell, we're human and things need to be shaken up some or we risk going back to the caves (or whatever the modern day equivalent would be). Making an argument why human progression is paramount is something I'm not sure I have the time to do...for me it is though. Again, perhaps selfish, but I only have 80 years or so to affect things...it might as well be positive.

    If human development wouldn't occur under any other system then yes the current way of regulating human interaction would be acceptable. But I rather think that there are better ways to regulate human interaction...ways that would be ultimately "more free" and spur human development quicker.

Similar Threads

  1. [ISFP] ISFP confuses me-- shed some light?
    By markscol in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 12-07-2016, 04:49 AM
  2. [ENFP] ENFP girlfriend confusing me! Help!
    By fecaleagle in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 295
    Last Post: 11-17-2016, 01:44 PM
  3. How to win back an ISTJ male? HE IS CONFUSING ME!!
    By CocoB in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-26-2010, 08:15 PM
  4. Socionics site confused me.
    By phobosdiemos in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-04-2009, 12:17 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO