If You Had One Law to Implement, What Would it Be?

[Aquitaine]

Because... dehumanizing insults regarding those you disagree with will get you everywhere?

Wait, do you think that was aimed specifically at you?
You alluded to us humans as being dishonest, and I wasn't using the word "creature" in a derogatory manner.

 

[Aquitaine]

By attaining a healthy, active and thriving social conscience.

How exactly would a society do that?

 

[gnomon]

By attaining a healthy, active and thriving social conscience.

And that social conscience would be described as what........laws?

 

[gnomon]

Yes, I do. It would never have had any traction before the community developed some measure of acceptance of the afrodescendants' rights.

And because it was enforced before that acceptance became more widespread, there was hell to pay in the form of internal conflicts.

And would you describe that law as repressive? Many considered it so.

But so many more did not. As that law directly led to an end to .... servitude.

I'm sorry but everything you've suggested in this thread is that laws are unnecessary and that by some ... goodness ... of humanity as a whole that a repressive society shall overcome it's own ignorance from it's base culture. Which rarely happens in history.

Yet.....the laws in this very nation enacted to allow integration, for example, were called for and supported by the community. To repress the ignorance of others.

And to be more specific......I offered up laws providing voting rights and you responded with suggesting that there are laws against taking mind altering substances.

Sorry....but it's confusing.

edit: No. Seriously. I'm confused. I want to agree with you and disagree at the same time. A human being shouldn't have to live this way. I mean.......I have to work tomorrow! There's something missing. It's an at the tip of my tongue situation. Not you. You are not at the tip of my tongue. Thank something for that. But there is something. Out there. Yet...I feel like I'm dancing around something. I hate dancing. But it's there. That something...with the tongue...and I'm there but just missing the right step. Which makes me think I'm about to twirl around and.......agree with you. But I don't know why. There's black magic going on here. I'm going to go read a Garfield sketch to dumb down now. Be back on this topic after watching the snowmen Calvin created to be the White Walkers. Now I've got it. Nope......just lost it. I'm seriously confused because....I feel like I'm agreeing with what you write but just wanting to disagree. For Steve's sake!

 

[LuisDantas]

And that social conscience would be described as what........laws?

No, not at all.

When the social conscience is attained, the laws are pointless and it may even be rude to propose them even in the abstract.

 

[LuisDantas]

How exactly would a society do that?

It is a matter of nurturing, expressing and developing the right living attitudes.

There is no shortcut to that.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I was thinking, I think I may pass an "Imagine bill," which would have the world coming together as one with no Heaven above or Hell below and no countries to fight and die for.
And then we could get on with the Star Trek bill.

 

[ShivaFan]

You really like burning money don't you?

I like saving money. Hordes of illegals coming in for "cheap labor" is only cheap for the benefactors of the donors to the Democratic and Republican establishment - we the taxpayers pay for all of the social services et all for these invaders who need to leave, it is not cheap for us and it is burning money of services that belong to Americans including those who are in need. You fools who actually need help from social nets will see all of it taken and looted by certain demographics who horde in as the "chosen" while others cannot legally immigrate. The costs are enormous and at some point will bankrupt us and all of you who are welfare types but actual citizens will see what little you get in help depleted as these illegal aliens and criminal aliens sink the boat, the boat is already full. Get them out and stop letting in illegal aliens who are not undergoing health checks and are bringing in diseases and plagues that will also have huge costs. Anyway, you will see, Americans have had enough of this and those who have done this to us will pay US, yes YOU will be taxed for the damage you have done.

 

[Nietzsche]

I like saving money. Hordes of illegals coming in for "cheap labor" is only cheap for the benefactors of the donors to the Democratic and Republican establishment - we the taxpayers pay for all of the social services et all for these invaders who need to leave, it is not cheap for us and it is burning money of services that belong to Americans including those who are in need. You fools who actually need help from social nets will see all of it taken and looted by certain demographics who horde in as the "chosen" while others cannot legally immigrate. The costs are enormous and at some point will bankrupt us and all of you who are welfare types but actual citizens will see what little you get in help depleted as these illegal aliens and criminal aliens sink the boat, the boat is already full. Get them out and stop letting in illegal aliens who are not undergoing health checks and are bringing in diseases and plagues that will also have huge costs. Anyway, you will see, Americans have had enough of this and those who have done this to us will pay US, yes YOU will be taxed for the damage you have done.

How long has your family been here?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I like saving money. Hordes of illegals coming in for "cheap labor" is only cheap for the benefactors of the donors to the Democratic and Republican establishment - we the taxpayers pay for all of the social services et all for these invaders who need to leave, it is not cheap for us and it is burning money of services that belong to Americans including those who are in need. You fools who actually need help from social nets will see all of it taken and looted by certain demographics who horde in as the "chosen" while others cannot legally immigrate. The costs are enormous and at some point will bankrupt us and all of you who are welfare types but actual citizens will see what little you get in help depleted as these illegal aliens and criminal aliens sink the boat, the boat is already full. Get them out and stop letting in illegal aliens who are not undergoing health checks and are bringing in diseases and plagues that will also have huge costs. Anyway, you will see, Americans have had enough of this and those who have done this to us will pay US, yes YOU will be taxed for the damage you have done.

Actually, it isn't immigrants, legal or illegal, that have made these social nets difficult to get and utilize, it's a Conservative state government that wants to believe you're a lazy bum if you don't work and that if you get insurance from work then it will cover anything and everything you need. I didn't go a few years with a torn ligament and cartilage in my left knee because of immigrants, it was because of private insurance companies not wanting to pay for it and the state believing that having a job makes everything hunky-dory.

 

[gnomon]

No, not at all.

When the social conscience is attained, the laws are pointless and it may even be rude to propose them even in the abstract.

I have to disagree.

The laws we have today are based upon social conscience. Often culturally defined. The history of the changes in U.S. law are based upon a change in social conscience.

You offer up an idealism of human action.

Idealism.........it's overrated.

Even in the abstract a social conscience must deal with individuals who can never be members of the abstract ideal. Namely.....sociopaths.

How do you deal with the sociopaths in an abstract idealism? You lay down a prerequisite regarding the behavior of the sociopath.

Thus.....you have a law.

The idealists define a parameter in what it means to be part of their society but inevitably their are sociopaths which disrupt the moral/entertianment sense of the ideal you present.

So how do you deal with it?

Laws.

I think you possess a naivete of human willfulness.

 

[LuisDantas]

I have to disagree.

The laws we have today are based upon social conscience. Often culturally defined. The history of the changes in U.S. law are based upon a change in social conscience.

Of course. Laws that deviate too much from what a culture deems acceptable will lose what little credibility they may have.

That is still the law following the cultural expectation as opposed to improving it, though. So I am not sure why you see that as disagreeing with me.

You offer up an idealism of human action.

Idealism.........it's overrated.

Even in the abstract a social conscience must deal with individuals who can never be members of the abstract ideal. Namely.....sociopaths.

How do you deal with the sociopaths in an abstract idealism? You lay down a prerequisite regarding the behavior of the sociopath.

Thus.....you have a law.

The idealists define a parameter in what it means to be part of their society but inevitably their are sociopaths which disrupt the moral/entertianment sense of the ideal you present.

So how do you deal with it?

Laws.

I think you possess a naivete of human willfulness.

You are not alone in thinking so. I think you miss the point of laws.

 

[gnomon]

Of course. Laws that deviate too much from what a culture deems acceptable will lose what little credibility they may have.

That is still the law following the cultural expectation as opposed to improving it, though. So I am not sure why you see that as disagreeing with me.



You are not alone in thinking so. I think you miss the point of laws.

Wait a minute....you initially posted that laws will morally corrupt.

Yet, if you agree that, as I state, that laws are an expression of current social conscience, which could be another term for morality, then I can only assume you are stating that laws will morally corrupt the society that devised them.

I'm not missing the point of laws.

Respectfully, I think you are missing the gist of your initial claim that laws morally corrupt yet, and we have to add this modifier, many laws are derived from a social conscience....thus derived from the moral nature of the populace. Of course, we could make this a bit more complex by stating it's contextual based upon a system of government. Because in other contexts laws are definitely not derived from any sense of social conscience.

For the first time in my life I might feel like I'm disagreeing with an argument but agreeing while still disagreeing. Which means we need an actual context of the type of government being discussed in order to debate the concept.

I can agree that if the whole of society agrees on a concept of human action it would be pointless to proscribe a law in response to certain actions because, in that ideal environment, not a single member of that society would violate such a reproachable concept. Yet.....that's not the case. Not in any scenario. Ever.

Even if 99% of the population of any given society follows an unwritten rule....there will be those who do not follow them. And if the 99% wish to maintain their sense of order.....there is a law. An attempt to bring in line, punish the 1% or protect the 99%. Such a law does not present itself as corruption. That law is enacted to maintain the social conscience.

I still disagree. The laws enacted to correct oppression against individuals in a given society were not necessarily accepted on any sense of a large scale social conscience. But the existence of those laws helped lead to a wider acceptance. In other words, some laws actually improved the social conscience. I'm talking about laws to end the slave trade, slavery, allowing women to vote, marriage equality, allowing access to cannabis oil, etc.

Because there is a large segment of the social conscience we are ignoring here. The indifferent. They make up a large percentage, in my opinion, of any society and they will follow along with whatever the law is.

 

[LuisDantas]

Morality can't be legitimally forced on others. It must be relearned anew by every person.

 

[gnomon]

Morality can't be legitimally forced on others. It must be relearned anew by every person.

There you go. I disagreed, then agreed, yet somehow disagreed.....but I agree.

Actually, I think we are thinking on slightly divergent lines....but....I'm tired.

So......I agree.

Or did you just bamboozle me? I don't care.

I respect your zen. Leave it at that.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I can't decide if your faith in the average person is horrifying or pathetic. I'd rather we not revert to mob-law and mob-justice, thank you.

I forget who said that now, was it Chairman Mao, or Stalin?

There is a reason that most of us in the free world have more faith in a jury of average people, than a panel of government appointed judges and lawyers.

socialist states like North Korea, Nazi Germany, USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, shared your dim view of the average person, and removed 'mob justice' citizen juries from the judiciary.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

SUGAR Party … (Suffocating Under Government Accounting Regulations)

That’s good!