Law vs Agreement: What Are the Key Differences and Similarities?

[dr-dock]

can you point out the similarities and the differences between the terms LAW and AGREEMENT?

show some examples,please

 

[Iacchus32]

I guess you can agree to settle out of court? I don't know, I'm not sure what laws you're talking about? The laws of man? Or the laws of nature?

 

[Dissident Dan]

Well, laws have to be instituted by certain bodies that are deemed as legislative. Agreements need no such designated body. People are subjected to laws without agreeing to them.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Well, laws have to be instituted by certain bodies that are deemed as legislative. Agreements need no such designated body. People are subjected to laws without agreeing to them.

Except in a true Democracy, right?

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by dr-dock
can you point out the similarities and the differences between the terms LAW and AGREEMENT?

show some examples,please

An agreement can be a simple attitude of acceptance which is never explicitely expressed. For example, my dog might agree with me that running feels good, yet never express this exclicitely.

Laws can cover anything from the laws of physics to the laws of the state. In both cases, laws are fundamentalist in character. That is, they are based on abstract fundamental principles such as a belief in good and evil or cause and effect which, again, need not ever be explicitely expressed in any way.

Thus, laws and fundamentalism in general focus on the past and future while agreements need not.

 

[dr-dock]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Laws can cover anything from the laws of physics to the laws of the state.

why do you put those two in same basket?
i can brake the laws of the state in some cases without consquences.
for example I'm 26 YOA.by the law i have to have id which i don't since years ago.i never paid any bill cause of that.people in the parlament debated and voted persons (18 or older) have to have id. this is at the end sort of agreement.i'm only sorry cause some one else agreed on this in my name but i am the one to cary the consequences if I'm naughty.

BUT

i cannot break the laws of physics no matter how hard i try no matter how much time i have to do it.this is just different.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by dr-dock
why do you put those two in same basket?
i can brake the laws of the state in some cases without consquences.
for example I'm 26 YOA.by the law i have to have id which i don't since years ago.i never paid any bill cause of that.people in the parlament debated and voted persons (18 or older) have to have id. this is at the end sort of agreement.i'm only sorry cause some one else agreed on this in my name but i am the one to cary the consequences if I'm naughty.

BUT

i cannot break the laws of physics no matter how hard i try no matter how much time i have to do it.this is just different.

See what I mean now about fundamentalism characterizing laws? Good is never evil, truth is never falsehood, guilt is never innocense, and the laws of physics can never be broken.

Your statement that the laws of physics can never be broken reflect classical physics and logic, which are fundamentalist, not modern physics. Quantum Mechanics revolves around the idea everything is utterly random. The "law" of gravity could be repealed at any moment, the atoms in your butt can line up with those in the chair and you'll fall through to the floor, etc.

As Stephen Hawking said, Quantum Mechanics is a theory about what we do not know. What it strongly implies, is underlying all the order we perceive is utter chaos without cause. Particles appearing out of nowhere, and then just as quickly disappearing again. It may well be that much of the order we perceive today even will eventually fade into paradox upon closer scrutiny.

This seems to be case currently for example with astronomy. At first it seemed a puzzle that on the largest scales we could view the universe should display so much order while on the smallest it displayed utter chaos. Now with significant investment into telescopes we are again perceiving weirdness at the largest scales we can see. The universe inflating out of virtually nothing, galaxies inexplicably accelerating as they fly apart, etc.

If you think those are immutable laws, then the word has no meaning.

 

[dr-dock]

Originally posted by wuliheron
See what I mean now about fundamentalism characterizing laws? Good is never evil, truth is never falsehood, guilt is never innocense, and the laws of physics can never be broken.

Your statement that the laws of physics can never be broken reflect classical physics and logic, which are fundamentalist, not modern physics. Quantum Mechanics revolves around the idea everything is utterly random. The "law" of gravity could be repealed at any moment, the atoms in your butt can line up with those in the chair and you'll fall through to the floor, etc.

As Stephen Hawking said, Quantum Mechanics is a theory about what we do not know. What it strongly implies, is underlying all the order we perceive is utter chaos without cause. Particles appearing out of nowhere, and then just as quickly disappearing again. It may well be that much of the order we perceive today even will eventually fade into paradox upon closer scrutiny.

This seems to be case currently for example with astronomy. At first it seemed a puzzle that on the largest scales we could view the universe should display so much order while on the smallest it displayed utter chaos. Now with significant investment into telescopes we are again perceiving weirdness at the largest scales we can see. The universe inflating out of virtually nothing, galaxies inexplicably accelerating as they fly apart, etc.

If you think those are immutable laws, then the word has no meaning.

those failures are not failures of the physical laws them selfs but they belong to our interpretations of the same.
it's just another classic case of breaking the convinience/agreement and geting away with it.in this case the matter is the naughty one.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by dr-dock
those failures are not failures of the physical laws them selfs but they belong to our interpretations of the same.
it's just another classic case of breaking the convinience/agreement and geting away with it.in this case the matter is the naughty one.

Ahhh, another fundamentalist. Next you'll be randomness is order. Nice paradox. If you like that one, try explaining existence. :0)

 

[dr-dock]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Ahhh, another fundamentalist. Next you'll be randomness is order. Nice paradox. If you like that one, try explaining existence. :0)

from

"the matrix movie".

Noe is at the oracle's place looking how that kid (candidate to be the chosenone) twists a spoon without touching it and after that the kid explains its self:
"You cannot twist the spoon with your hands.It's impossible.Instead try to realize the truth for the spoon and you'll realize that it's not the spoon that is twisting but it's only your self".
Noe gets the point,tries to twist the spoon and actually (in the matrix) the spoon twists.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by dr-dock
from

"the matrix movie".

Noe is at the oracle's place looking how that kid (candidate to be the chosenone) twists a spoon without touching it and after that the kid explains its self:
"You cannot twist the spoon with your hands.It's impossible.Instead try to realize the truth for the spoon and you'll realize that it's not the spoon that is twisting but it's only your self".
Noe gets the point,tries to twist the spoon and actually (in the matrix) the spoon twists.

A twisted Buddhistic fundamentalist. :0)

 

[dr-dock]

let's get back to the main point.
do you agree that law is something unbreackable while agreement is breackable?

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by dr-dock
let's get back to the main point.
do you agree that law is something unbreackable while agreement is breackable?

Agreements are harmonious by definition. Laws can be harmonious, can include agreements, but they can also be dischordant and include disagreements. Therefore to say agreements can be broken is not describe agreements so much as to assert a law about agreements.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by dr-dock
let's get back to the main point.
do you agree that law is something unbreackable while agreement is breackable?

Laws are not unbreakable. They are broken all of the time. They are as breakable as agreements, IMO, because both agreements and laws require that those subject to them obey them, or else... If someone doesn't care about the "or else", they don't have to obey the law or the agreement.

 

[Iacchus32]

The Matrix ...

Originally posted by dr-dock
from

"the matrix movie".

Noe is at the oracle's place looking how that kid (candidate to be the chosenone) twists a spoon without touching it and after that the kid explains its self:
"You cannot twist the spoon with your hands.It's impossible.Instead try to realize the truth for the spoon and you'll realize that it's not the spoon that is twisting but it's only your self".
Noe gets the point,tries to twist the spoon and actually (in the matrix) the spoon twists.

This is really strange! Because I just rented that movie and watched it for the first time last night (Sunday, April 27th), and this was one of things that really stuck out in my mind. Wow, maybe the matrix really does exist and, that somebody (from the other side?), prompted this to happen?

Whereas I do know for a fact, of at least one person who is capable of "honing in" on my own personal reality (by telepathy if you will or, similar to the experiments conducted by the CIA regarding "remote viewing"). I also know that he happens to exist on this very forum board, under any several of aliases. Do you think I'm crazy? Well let's just say we leave it at that.

The guy's name in the movie was "Neo" Anderson by the way.

 

[zimbo]

Let's not confuse between 'law' in the legal sense (eg government laws) and 'law' in the scientific sense. The first is mainly prescriptive ('you must do so and so or else . . .') while the second is descriptive.

It is impossible to go against 'natural law' because since we are natural beings (instead of supernatural), whatever we end up doing is in accordance to the laws of nature. The same clearly cannot be said about laws made by institutions.

But I think in the original post, the contrast between law and agreement seems to suggest that law is to be taken as the 'rules & regulations' meaning. A law is something explicitly set down that applies universally to a group of people (eg people in a country or a society) and is enforced by collective consent. An agreement is usually between a small number of people and may or may not be legally binding, although it may be 'morally' binding depending on what code of morality one adopts.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by zimbo
Let's not confuse between 'law' in the legal sense (eg government laws) and 'law' in the scientific sense. The first is mainly prescriptive ('you must do so and so or else . . .') while the second is descriptive.

It is impossible to go against 'natural law' because since we are natural beings (instead of supernatural), whatever we end up doing is in accordance to the laws of nature. The same clearly cannot be said about laws made by institutions.

But I think in the original post, the contrast between law and agreement seems to suggest that law is to be taken as the 'rules & regulations' meaning. A law is something explicitly set down that applies universally to a group of people (eg people in a country or a society) and is enforced by collective consent. An agreement is usually between a small number of people and may or may not be legally binding, although it may be 'morally' binding depending on what code of morality one adopts.

Exactly, and this is the kind of "law" that I was talking about in my previous post.