NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been banging my head against the wall :headbang: over this one for a while now. I can't seem to get a definitive or general answer that applies.

What do we hope to accomplish with governments and the laws they produce?

For now, I'll leave out the context of my quandry in order to ensure that it doesn't influence people's replies. I may make a poll to go with this, too, once I start getting some answers that make sense.

Laws are passed to govern a country and to uphold order. Some laws seem odd and do not follow this simple concept, but in general laws are the means of the government conducting business. Some laws are passed as statements to the world, the recent anti-secession law in China was a strong statement against Taiwanese secession and made the West aware that the Chinese are tougher than they appear.

I assume you talk of that sort of laws and not just criminal law. Anyway criminal law is supposed to prevent and punish criminal acts, or behaviour deemed appropriate for that particular society. Criminal law differs from country to country. In Singapore corporal punishment is used while in most Western societies you cannot be punished by death, caning, or many other punishments. The US is the only Western(read wealthy nations -Japan and Australia, basically) country I know of that still uses the death penalty.

You might want to post an example to make it easier to discuss. The way you put it I think the top of my post puts it in a good way.

The law's purpose is to protect the populace from those who would harm them or take from them without their consent.

to make lots of money for lawyers.

Thanks for the reply. This all seems quite reasonable.

However, I feel as though we're just scratching the surface of the issue. Why do countries need to be governed? What does it mean, in its most general sense, to "uphold order"?

We can get to the weird laws later. For now, let's pretend we're 100 or so people stranded on a desert island. Would we form a government of any kind? Would it create laws? And to both of those questions, why?

To maintain the social contract. To insure that people are allowed to enter and live in a society without losing basic freedoms and autonomy.

At least that is what they should be for.

I actually have wondered this myself too. Laws deny people
of doing stuff. (If you put it widely) Usually they are
reasonable. Like murder is illegal. But if murder wasn't illegal
I think it would still considered morally wrong. Those who
have no problem with that, commit crimes. (Usually).

The point I'm getting is. Would their be increase of wrong
things if they weren't illegal? I'm not stupid I know there would
be increase. But how much. I know law isn't the thing what's
keeping me out of murder. I wouldn't do it even if it was
legal. The 'removal' of laws doesn't mean removal of
'right and wrong'. I'm actually pretty happy with current
system of justice. I wouldn't be the first one to remove it.
But one tends to wonder why it is there.

If you are talking more about what Kardova said I get
back to you later (If I'm not too tired)

Good thread :)

In the desert island scenario, there would be no need for a government. All the people need is a contract to protect basic rights like not being killed or stolen from. Below is a link to a good article on a non-state nation.

http://libertyunbound.com/archive/2005_05/maccallum-utopia.html

Thanks for the reply. This all seems quite reasonable.

However, I feel as though we're just scratching the surface of the issue. Why do countries need to be governed? What does it mean, in its most general sense, to "uphold order"?

We can get to the weird laws later. For now, let's pretend we're 100 or so people stranded on a desert island. Would we form a government of any kind? Would it create laws? And to both of those questions, why?

Specifically, I suggest that four basic laws need to exist in order for society to be properly protected.

It is illegal to harm another person without their consent.
It is illegal to threaten someone with harm in order to make them do something.
It is illegal to take from another person without their knowledge and consent.
It is illegal to use fraudulent methods to convince somebody to give something or do something (and thus it is illegal not to carry out the terms stipulated in a contract which you have signed with another consenting individual).

Specifically, I suggest that four basic laws need to exist in order for society to be properly protected.

It is illegal to harm another person without their consent.
It is illegal to threaten someone with harm in order to make them do something.
It is illegal to take from another person without their knowledge and consent.
It is illegal to use fraudulent methods to convince somebody to give something or do something (and thus it is illegal not to carry out the terms stipulated in a contract which you have signed with another consenting individual).

Great! The problem arises when people use government for thier own benefit. A good example is eminent domain being used by communities to raise more revenue from bigger business.

I've been banging my head against the wall :headbang: over this one for a while now. I can't seem to get a definitive or general answer that applies.

What do we hope to accomplish with governments and the laws they produce?

For now, I'll leave out the context of my quandry in order to ensure that it doesn't influence people's replies. I may make a poll to go with this, too, once I start getting some answers that make sense.

That is a complicated answer, and depends heavily on the views in question...

First, you have two seperate types of legal systems... "Civil" and "Common"

Europe is mostly civil... In their system, the purpoe of law is basically by autocratic or democratic positioning... Law is codified, and the code stands... Courts make determinations from the codified law...

Canada, Australia, the UK and US are "Common Law".. in this system the basic ideals are expressed through codification, but the code is not considered the complete law... and instead the law is both "written" and "unwritten"... The courts job is to uphold the principles of the law, even if the actual code says otherwise.. and sometimes to overturn the code in favor of principle...

Secondly, there is three views on outcome:

The first is rehabilitative... In this system the laws are seen to attempt to take actions against wrongdoers so as to re-integrate them into society..

The second is restitutional... In this system the courts seek to reward damages to the wronged at the expense of the criminal... No concern exists for the Criminals rehabilitation or re-integration, and the penalty is imposed in the concept of equity, to undo the act... The concern of the court is to protect the rights and propert of the wronged....

The third is retributive... In this system the law acts to condemn the accused for actions outside of accepted order. No concern exists for equalizing the acts of the criminal, and instead it is the state who takes from the criminal for violation.

_
Now, depending on your initial start of order in these seperate concepts, will determine how you view law...

For example, the extreme right generally sees things in a "Civil Aspect" in combination with "Retributive" principles... The extreme left sees things in Civil with rehabilitative principles.... Libertarians tend to view things in Common aspect with restitutional prinicples....

If I may, I heard a great quote once about law and order (not like the TV show, but about the system of law creating order *aka, not chaos*) and it was liking the governance of people to how a ship sails. There are certian things that MUST be done in order to keep the ship on top of the water. If you do not follow the simple rules of governance of a ship, you'll soon find it at the bottom of the ocean. I'm sure I completely butchered that, but, in esscence... People, or Societies, rather, need a certian bit of governance in order for things to move smoothly and operate in a way that creates minimal friction and damage to the rest of the vessel of society. It's not meant to be a choking restrain, so much as a gentle boundary of moral concept. Trust me, there will be very few that see the moral framework of society the exact same way as you or I do. That moral concept drives us in our daily actions. Law is meant to create a loose frame where everyone is held to the same level of accountability. Ha, there, I think I said it the way I meant!

In the desert island scenario, there would be no need for a government. All the people need is a contract to protect basic rights like not being killed or stolen from. Below is a link to a good article on a non-state nation.

http://libertyunbound.com/archive/2005_05/maccallum-utopia.html
This is an interesting page here. I haven't read it all yet, but from what I've seen so far, I'm going to thoroughly enjoy reading this. Thanks!

This is an interesting page here. I haven't read it all yet, but from what I've seen so far, I'm going to thoroughly enjoy reading this. Thanks!

You're welcome! The article has some deep questions in it.

That is a complicated answer, and depends heavily on the views in question...

First, you have two seperate types of legal systems... "Civil" and "Common"

Secondly, there is three views on outcome:
_
Now, depending on your initial start of order in these seperate concepts, will determine how you view law...

*snippy*

This is an interesting perspective, and if I'm understanding most of it the way you intended, it does help flesh out a detail or two on the question at hand.

I think we're still too focused on details, though, and that there's something much broader and general, some underlying principle here.

I'm trying to think of a question that will ellicit the kind of concept in your minds that I'm trying to solve (true communication always takes such effort!). Here's my latest attempt:

Why do we need this "law" thing, anyway? Who needs government?

I mean, yeah people are gonna misbehave and kill one-another, and steal and stuff. But what do all of those things have in common that the concept of law solves?

Somewhere in Mesopotamia, long, long ago....

Og: Thag is peeing on the pile of berries again.

Moof: Seriously? Son of a bitch, what is his problem?

Og: Dunno. We've asked him to stop.

Moof: I'm gonna go bash his head in with a rock.

Og: His mate might get mad, and his big brother. You know, the one with a pituitary disorder who refuses to put the tree down.

Moof: Well, I have a good reason. When he pees on the berries, the smell makes it difficult for all of us to eat them. This is a reasonable action to preserve our group.

Og: Maybe, but can you just bash his head for that? Is that a proportionate and reasonable response? Also, Doogie pees NEAR the berries, but you aren't going to bash his head in. Is it fair? How can we rely on headbashings to regulate our collective behaviour if there's no clearly defined and commonly understood set of actions and consequences?

Moof then bashed in Og's head.

Law, and government, exist because people are naturally bad. No, Confucius was wrong. Look at war. War is the one event that erases law and order. The reason there are rapes and looting in war is because there is no law. Riots are a good example too. It starts out with what could be frustration with a group of people and turn into a big lootingspree. Thieves have always existed and always will.

If there was no government no one would make sure everyone is safe(generally the government does that). I believe the Postman(I think that's the name of the movie) shows what the world would look like without government. Bands/clans would reign over common people and fight each other. What we call anarchy. Chaos. Laws are necessary to control people and government to uphold the laws.

I have a good example. Sometimes you really feel like just punching someone in their face. Why don't you usually do that? Consequences. If you do you are likely to go to jail. This doesn't always prevent people from doing it, but if it prevents even just a small percentage it is justification enough.

Business conduct is also important to regulate. Big businesses will always try to screw people. They will succeed always without regulations. With regulations they do it sometimes but not always.

Human morals have never prevented crime. Law is an ancient invention(as is government) and it was, and always will be, crucial for society. Government first appeared as a chieftain of a tribe and has developed for millennia, and still is.

I believe that the adversary system the US has is inferior to a system where the court is supposed to find out the truth. Of course many other Western legal systems are similarly flawed. The best court proceedings I have read of was the system used in the Soviet Union, where the judge actively took part in the trial(asking questions and such) and the court didn't release people on technicalities.

Law is what people have created to describe the ideal state of things, how people are supposed to behave towards each other and any penalties for failure to do so.

Government is the system people create to organize their groups, thus making them more efficient and capable of survival than just a bunch of people loosely bound together.

The Greeks described humans as the "zoo politikon", the animal that makes politics, because creating a social order and a government happens almost espontaneously whenever two or more humans get together.

The Greeks described humans as the "zoo politikon", the animal that makes politics, because creating a social order and a government happens almost espontaneously whenever two or more humans get together.

Just take families, what family does not have unofficial(sometimes even official) rules. Curfews for kids, who takes a shower when, when do the smaller kids go to bed, etc. We NEED to be regulated.

This is an interesting perspective, and if I'm understanding most of it the way you intended, it does help flesh out a detail or two on the question at hand.

I think we're still too focused on details, though, and that there's something much broader and general, some underlying principle here.

I'm trying to think of a question that will ellicit the kind of concept in your minds that I'm trying to solve (true communication always takes such effort!). Here's my latest attempt:

Why do we need this "law" thing, anyway? Who needs government?

I mean, yeah people are gonna misbehave and kill one-another, and steal and stuff. But what do all of those things have in common that the concept of law solves?

Well, that also plays into the differing "legal" concepts before mentioned...

Those in the civil mentality, think government and law is there to restrict the populace for thier own good...

Those in the Common-Law mentality, think government exists to ensure the freedoms of the people...

Within the realm of the Rehabilitative thinkers... The purpose of government is to better the people...

Within the realm of the Restitutional Thinkers... The purpose of government is to arbitrate between the people...

And within the realm of Retributive thinkers.... The purpose of government is to give order to the people...

So much of it sources from the exact school of thought you subscribe to along those two facets of law and government...

For example, I am libertarian... I believe government exists to arbitrate contests between persons... Provide the enviroment of their liberties and freedoms, and ensure equity amongst all in matter of this arbitration...

Not to say the US has all the answers, but I felt that the preamble actually answers your question as to why we need laws and goverment.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Now if we could just follow our own bloody document...

law is the codification and imposition by the ruling elite of a combination of social norms and customs that would exist without any law at all, and a large number of things that are to the advantage of the elite at the expense of the rest of us.

Law, and government, exist because people are naturally bad.

no, people are just people. there's no need to moralize about it.

If there was no government no one would make sure everyone is safe(generally the government does that).

of course, the state also happens to be the biggest source of death, destruction, and misery humanity has come up with. you know those "naturally bad" people you were talking about - who do you think winds up in charge of this giant sprawling institution that calls it's violence legitimate and right and just?

Law is the public expression of the private morals of the lawgiver. In the case of autocracies, it's the personal mores of the Ruler. In democracies, it is what society as a whole has decided is "right" and "wrong".

The trouble starts when one part of society has a different opinion from another as to what's "right" and "wrong". The test of a civilized society is whether the party whose opinion is currently out of favor with the lawgiver (either the Ruler or the majority of the electorate) is willing to live with that situation for the time being and try to change it peacefully, rather than resorting to violence.

Yes government is controlled by people, looking at the election campaign last fall in America proves that humans are bad. Look at the name calling!

Do you honestly want anarchy? I prefer a bad government above no government at all.

Take the police. There are many police officers that should not have a badge. Everywhere. But we need them. Would you feel safe if there was no police? I can feel a yes coming up, but think about it seriously. If you were robbed, would you like to have to go after the criminals on your own? Lynch mobs acting as cops? I prefer corrupt police officers!

Without any sort of government there is no way of keeping order. Just having a village council is a form of government. Every family you might say have a government. Sometimes the oldest male will do as he pleases and sometimes it will be more democratic.

Government sanctioned violence is terrible but compared to no government it is better.

The law's purpose is to protect the populace from those who would harm them or take from them without their consent.

...to quote my law teacher:

"Law exists simply to keep us from killing each other."

Do you honestly want anarchy? I prefer a bad government above no government at all.

yeah, you're rather new here so you wouldn't know this already - i'm one of a number of vocal anarchists around these parts.

and no, you really don't. it takes a state to organize a genocide.

Without any sort of government there is no way of keeping order. Just having a village council is a form of government. Every family you might say have a government. Sometimes the oldest male will do as he pleases and sometimes it will be more democratic.

i prefer not to use the term government when discussing these sorts of issues, as all it does is lead to arguments about definitions - for example, i would argue that it is ridiculous to talk about the government of a family. so i'll stick to talking about the state if you don't mind.

...to quote my law teacher:

"Law exists simply to keep us from killing each other."

well then the law has failed miserably and its time to try something else.

Ok, I'll drop the family for now.

Without government many KKK members could roam around killing people without law enforcement stopping them. After all, without government there is no one to organise law enforcement. Any body with the power to organise it would become a government. Government was born in tribal leaders who became kings and after a long time republics became a very common sight. The reason is simply that humans need government.

The truly perfect society is that of ants. Ants have no government in our way of speaking. At least, not as far as we know. Ants have alliances, when queens are related the societies are allies. They give food and eggs when another needs them and there is no crime, no unemployment. It is because ants are perfect. They do not have a human side, the greedy, ambitious, bad side.

Democracy may or may not be a good form of government, that is irrelevant. A government is necessary to keep people in line and keep them safe. Of course since governments are controlled by humans they suffer from the same weaknesses. But since humans are ambitious you have those who want to remain in office by upholding order and keeping people in line.

I think the American preamble puts the reasons of government pretty good, that this is sometimes ignored is an other matter. Anarchy at this point would only lead to army generals and bands of citizen militias would take over and set up their own governments which might even be worse. Anarchy will never work. Governments have to be set up to make sure that people are fed.

Without government many KKK members could roam around killing people without law enforcement stopping them.

and when the kkk wasn't a sad joke, the law didn't stop them either. they ran the state. they were the cops and the judges and legislators - and possibly even had a president or two among their ranks. that's what allowed them to do what they did.

Any body with the power to organise it would become a government. Government was born in tribal leaders who became kings and after a long time republics became a very common sight. The reason is simply that humans need government.

one problem. the history of humanity doesn't actually look like that. humanity spent the vast bulk of its time without any formal institutions of rule and hierarchy.

I've been banging my head against the wall :headbang: over this one for a while now. I can't seem to get a definitive or general answer that applies.

What do we hope to accomplish with governments and the laws they produce?

For now, I'll leave out the context of my quandry in order to ensure that it doesn't influence people's replies. I may make a poll to go with this, too, once I start getting some answers that make sense.
Laws are the codified outcomes of the belief systems of a nation's people.

Humans are social animals, when ever there are two or more humans, a society forms. This is the cornerstone of Human Nature, the hard coded instinct that (along with "Nurture") designates what a Human IS.

Law is the social manifestation of a facet of our Nature commonly known as intolerance. The very simply concept of what a society (in the instance of Democracy, the people or in the instance of despotism, the one) will and will not tolerate. Intolerance creates law, law creates civil order, and civil order creates a civilized society. Tolerance on the other hand degrades law, which degrades civil order, which finally destroys the civilized society. This is the nature of Anarchy, what follows is something that too is governed by another facet of Human Nature, brutality. The "barbarian instinct" takes over and ruthless bloodshed rules. However, this condition defies Man's social nature and as such gives way to new Laws which evolve into a new civilization. The result is the rise and fall of civilization through the ages, if a society does not destroy itself (which under these conditions can safely be said to be eventually inevitable) it will be destroyed by the barbarians who indeed give credence to "Might Makes Right."

At this point I would like to make something clear. I do not think that intolerance is a "good" thing or that tolerance is a "bad" thing. I do not think that brutality is a good or bad thing. Nor do I think that a love of peace is a good or bad thing. Obviously intolerance taken to an extreme is utterly destructive; my point is that tolerance taken to an extreme is just as utterly destructive. Brutality is a self-defeating idea if left unchecked and pacifism is a invitation to be brutalized. Now, I would like to make something perfectly clear. Vilifying ANY facet of Humanity is the single most pathetically idiotic failure of Humanity! To often do I see people try to disassociate themselves from Humanity, step to the side lines and condemn the race that they refuse to come to terms with the fact that they belong too! To often do I see people picking a facet of Humanity and railing against it with rabid ferocity while wallowing in denial that they share what they despise! THIS is why societies fail. Those that condemn intolerance as evil unbalance the course and send it spiraling to brutal Anarchy. Those who condemn the tolerant as weak set the course to Tyranny. Both ways the spiraling rise and fall of humanity continues. I suppose you could call this Yin and Yang or Black and White if you want...

What I personally advocate is balance. This requires Humans too come to terms with their Nature. Back to the topic of Law, a line must be drawn and that line must not move. If you shift the weight in either direction it will roll towards destruction. This is why we have bloodshed in our schools and cities. The barbarians aren't at the gates anymore; they are THROUGH the gates and into civilization where they may wreak havoc. Leniency in law is what breeds civil disorder which in tern fosters untempered brutality. However, if you foster both a love of peace and a cultivated and tempered "warrior spirit" (the willingness to engage in violence when required) then once more, the equation balances out and the result is peace capable of defending itself. Unflinching Law and Order is THE ONLY WAY to maintain a stable society and it is the business of every single citizen of a free nation. Draw the line, and maintain the damn line with some backbone.


Ok, reading back that was a bit of a rant. I'll shut up now. I'm pretty sure I answered your question though. :D

Don't you just hate it when you spend over an hour typing something that ends up killing the thread? :mad: