Laws are what holds beliefs together

[mikelus]

laws are what holds beliefs together. without laws there would be no rememberance of our beliefs. Laws act as a chamber, holding time together with a perimiter of beliefs. These laws after time hold a patteren to the believer, but does that justify that their right and need no changing?

 

[nautica]

With time and education many laws need to be changed, BUT people do not like change.

Nautica

 

[FZ+]

laws are what holds beliefs together. without laws there would be no rememberance of our beliefs.

I would go further. Social laws are formalised systems of collective belief. If time means that no one believes in the ideas behind the law, then the law itself is devoid of real existence, and so must neccessarily change. Laws are emergent symptoms of society as a complex system (which have partial self-sustaining character). People are the real driver of social behaviour.

 

[mikelus]

is our system set up in a way that promotes a trully justified decision on a law based on the beliefs of our society or majority? Is congress that?

 

[wolram]

i don't know about laws in good old USA, but our laws GB,
allways seem to favour the rich and famous also,
our judges seem to hand out sentances that do not reflect
the severity of the crime, "four years for torturing a baby",
including breaking both arms and legs!
for some diabolic crimes i think the death penalty should
be the ultimate penalty, and unbreakable rules should
govern the sentance given to fit the crime, the judges
should be given no discretion.

 

[FZ+]

Opinions are not all made equal in the way they influence society, and so are exhibited in terms of laws.

Note: I am not saying that this is a good or bad thing - this is my conception of the way it works.

 

[mikelus]

I realize laws are not right or wrong they just are for a number of reasons. But do you think they are trully justified to the majority of the peoples beliefs or do you think they justified to what the government thinks.

 

[wolram]

some nations laws maybe just, but others the UK included
are there to put money into its coffers with little reguard
to "justice". why should i pay to keep a child murderer in
luxury in prison? when a bullet that costs a few pence would
rid the comunity of this scum

 

[FZ+]

But do you think they are trully justified to the majority of the peoples beliefs or do you think they justified to what the government thinks.

I think that a stable government, even a dictatorship, is a reflection of the way the people think.

some nations laws maybe just, but others the UK included are there to put money into its coffers with little reguard to "justice". why should i pay to keep a child murderer in luxury in prison? when a bullet that costs a few pence could rid the comunity of this scum

But to other people, who think differently, this is just, and the laws won't change until they agree with you. It may be right or wrong to you, but to the universe, there is not much of an entity of Justice to regard or disregard. IMHO...

 

[mikelus]

Originally posted by FZ+
I think that a stable government, even a dictatorship, is a reflection of the way the people think.


But is there a true reflection of every perspective of what makes up the government? or is it a closed minded perspective of just one view.

 

[wolram]

But to other people, who think differently, this is just, and the laws won't change until they agree with you. It may be right or wrong to you, but to the universe, there is not much of an entity of Justice to regard or disregard. IMHO...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
the problem is FZ that it is goverments that make laws not
the general public, if the government had to listen to and
action the majority oppinion, then it would be the likes of you
and me to see that the laws of the land were funded and
carried out to our satisfaction, not some octogenarian that
can hardly stay awake yet alone make sensible judgments.

 

[full-time-climb]

I find this interesting...Most of the laws and beliefs that govern us today were laid down by people that longer exist.
John

 

[mikelus]

I feel that laws that protect the rights of a living man and laws that protect businesses are what separates our system down the middle.

 

[FZ+]

But is there a true reflection of every perspective of what makes up the government? or is it a closed minded perspective of just one view.

If this was true of the government, the root cause of this is to be true of the society as well. If the state of the system is such that close mindedness is encouraged, and the people allow it to occur, then this cannot fail to happen. If the people were truly outraged and active, and prepared to sweep into an open government, this change cannot be stopped.

the problem is FZ that it is goverments that make laws not the general public, if the government had to listen to and action the majority oppinion, then it would be the likes of you and me to see that the laws of the land were funded and carried out to our satisfaction, not some octogenarian that can hardly stay awake yet alone make sensible judgments.

I am saying that governments cannot fail to listen to their people - their stability and existence ultimately rests on what the mood of society is. Without the militaristic pride of the german people, Hitler cannot have come to power, cannot have stayed in power. The figures of history are ultimately mere actors (perhaps some who take a bigger role in forcing changes, in a feedback system) - society writes the script. Even deception cannot work until the people want the lie.

 

[mikelus]

I have noticed that originally when I posted this that in my post I had no context to our own government when wrote laws.
I have always thought the root of laws are a structure set up for a purpose. If were saying that laws stem from the government Then I ask what's are governments purpose? Is it control? Is it money? Is there a purpose?

 

[wolram]

MIKELUS,

come the next election what choise do we have, in "theory"
people vote for who they want to govern them, its yes he
she seems a good sort i agree whith what he she stands for
but as soon as he she is in office his her standards fall by
the way side, and yes the people can oust a government but
what is the use within a few years thing will slide back
to how they were before.
it will take a massive push to get new laws through parliment
with the lords an "unelected body" vetoing at every step.

 

[full-time-climb]

I read a little while ago that the current system of democracy represents the majority. The majority of the money.

John

 

[FZ+]

I have always thought the root of laws are a structure set up for a purpose. If were saying that laws stem from the government Then I ask what's are governments purpose? Is it control? Is it money? Is there a purpose?

A government doesn't really have a "purpose". Let's try an analogy.

A society is a brain. Each individual is a cell in that brain, sending those signals, talking to each other. Law is the harmony with which they send those signals, and provide the structure in which the cells live and function. Law is unity. What is the government in this? That is a far more abstract idea - the government is the unifying signal of the cells. It is what would be in this case be the self - the one that is created by the many.

 

[mikelus]

Originally posted by FZ+
A government doesn't really have a "purpose". Let's try an analogy.

A society is a brain. Each individual is a cell in that brain, sending those signals, talking to each other. Law is the harmony with which they send those signals, and provide the structure in which the cells live and function. Law is unity. What is the government in this? That is a far more abstract idea - the government is the unifying signal of the cells. It is what would be in this case be the self - the one that is created by the many.

Doesn't an average joe have a purpose. Doesn't he work for his money, for a reason. Say to feed his family or feed himself or pay his bills. We need the money to live. The rest of the population needs money to live as well. So there is a sense of reliance on the government. It's like " it's there if you need it ." I think what changes our peoples out look on our government is greed. They want more and more because they are not rest assured in what they already have.
If there's a purpose within the cells or the people, then us people that make up our brain or our society really have a purpose and it is to live. To balance are energy in a way where we allow us to live life. this same definition applies to nature as well. This is a neutral statement and there are radicals on both sides. Such as really wealthy people, and really poor people. We can't have one cancelling the other out seperating us for good. So we have laws balancing the two out abalizing life to continue with no problems.

 

[mikelus]

it hard for me to say anything in referance to england,since I live in the U.S but it seems very similar.

 

[FZ+]

Doesn't an average joe have a purpose. Doesn't he work for his money, for a reason. Say to feed his family or feed himself or pay his bills. We need the money to live. The rest of the population needs money to live as well.

Yes, but that's pretty much on the scale of the function of each brain cell. Just because each cell is an ion channel doesn't mean the brain as a whole is an ion channel. The individual purposes do not directly scale up to the whole brain, let alone the mind. The cerebellum of society has its subconscious as well...

To balance are energy in a way where we allow us to live life. this same definition applies to nature as well.

I don't think this is true at all. What marks nature, and humanity is that they are permanently out of balance. As "nature" evolves, the mind/brain of society changes as well, often in unpredictable ways. Maybe the laws help keep it so that the individual cells keep closer relative to each other, but it is certainly one crazy path they all are following. But that's a side effect - the whole thing I visualise as an inevitable mode of behaviour arising out of so many adaptive systems (people) interacting with each other. Our laws are as their most fundamental, a qualitative description of these interactions.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Our laws are as their most fundamental, a qualitative description of these interactions.

Description? Laws don't seem like a description. They are normative, mostly in a negative way. Don't do that! What people actually do is discussed in sociology (or ought to be!), but laws mostly just tell us what one part of society thinks of another.

 

[mikelus]

When you step out side of are society or even world and wonder what if things don't work out. what if we destroy ourselfs through war. what if we harm our lifes in some way. Will then ask our selfs how do we advoid from hurting our selfs. How do we make peace with ourselfs, neighbors and nature.
In response to fz+ Even if we can't see the pupose of our brain or society there is a purpose staring right through at us as survival, to take any means possible for our humans to live. Today we are big enough to take out the whole world through disese's ,nukes, bombs and war. We realize there is a sense of balancing our laws and rules to our neighbors laws and rules, to make our relationship grow. Rather then fighting.

 

[wolram]

FZ, tou must live in utopia, i think that laws in the UK
are more like guide lines and are open to abuse, for a
law to be efective it must be fixed, for example an
eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth, "not my choise".
plea barganing is an abuse of law
pleading guilty and geting a lesser sentence is an abuse
of the law
where are these cop outs written and by who?
can anyone quote the maximum minimum sentence for
stealing say the equivalent of £50 in there country?

 

[FZ+]

Description? Laws don't seem like a description. They are normative, mostly in a negative way.

Heh... yes, my concept is rather counter-intuitive, at first sight. But consider this: how did the law get made in the first place? Before the thing really got strengthened into a law, it must have existed as a natural tendency of the population, which is promoted into legal status by a suitable authority. If there was no law against murder, would you run around killing everyone? Nope, millennia of educational imprinting, and maybe genetics have already created an aversion toward killing, except in certain circumstances, and the strength of this aversion is such that in most places it is formalised as a law. In many ways, this law then has a feedback effect in enhancing the aversion further to the state of taboo etc, but I think the primary role of laws are as formal descriptors, or indicators of general modes of action, evolved over time.

We realize there is a sense of balancing our laws and rules to our neighbors laws and rules, to make our relationship grow.

Not everybody realizes this. Whether it becomes law is a matter of the effectiveness of this sort of thinking. If it works out, it spreads amongst the population, and eventually becomes law.

FZ, tou must live in utopia, i think that laws in the UK are more like guide lines and are open to abuse, for a law to be efective it must be fixed, for example an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth, "not my choise".

Well, that's your opinion. Though I live in the UK as well, I tend to lean to the opposite position.

No, the UK isn't utopia. Perfect harmony isn't desirable, anyways...

 

[selfAdjoint]

So the Speed Limit 55 MPH law is a description of the people going 75 MPH?

 

[FZ+]

Heh. It's a reflection of a prevalent ideal... I think cars always go a certain percentage over the speed limit.