Do you need a law to behave

[evilkoal]

i believe there should be no laws. if you cant survive without laws, then you do not deserve to live. that is my opinion. i should be able to do whatever the hell i want, and anybody that doesnt have the power to stop me shouldnt be able to. i believe in a world where strength prevails, not laws to protect the weak. f-ck the weak, they dont deserve to live. the weak are why our world is turning to crap, they are clogging up our gene pool with useless DNA and things that obviously dont work but are allowed to go on anyway.

 

Be prepared then that you can turn out being the weak.

Like in the animal world, someone stronger than you,

could come and steal your food and stuff.

Are you not able to get it back by intimidating or fighting,

you will be the weak, and loose.

Someone stronger can steel your females (to stay in animal world)

so your DNA pool is wasted.

 

i realise this, and would be prepared to defend myself and everything that is mine. if i werent, then i would be a weakling wouldnt i?

i shouldnt have to suffer your stupid ass laws because you need them, you should be able to defend yourself, or you shouldnt be there to waste my resources

[LHammonds]

We vote for politicians, politicians vote for laws, and we obey the laws, somtimes.

Are the laws nessecery for YOU to behave, or do you have some fundamental standards

that, if you follow them you will be able to live together with other people.

 

Apparently you've never led a classroom or raised a child, if you have to ask this question.

This pretty-much sums it up for me.

 

The "YOU" in the original post would be a vastly different "YOU" if there were no rules while you grew up...either by your parents raising you with their own rules and/or those of a society. The "YOU" right now grew up with rules in place so whatever "internal" mechanism you have was formed by what you learned while growing up.

 

When raising children, you can see (just a Freud did) that a human is completely self-centered (the "ID") and does not care about anyone else's feelings so long as they get what they want. If this attitude was allowed to continue (or even encouraged), you would be raising a wild animal that could not function within a group of other humans. They could not "play nice" and would be ostracized. The closest I can guess how it would turn out would be a time back in our past...maybe back to the days of cavemen. However, if said child was raised without any morals or compassion for others and yet was well-educated, that child would be a menace to society.

 

It all boils down to playing nice with others. We simply do not have it as an internal "instinct" at all and must learn to be compassionate through our experiences growing up.

 

So to answer the question, can "I" behave without laws, yes. Could my children behave without laws (or my rules)? No.

 

LHammonds

[Balagor]

We vote for politicians, politicians vote for laws, and we obey the laws, somtimes.

Are the laws nessecery for YOU to behave, or do you have some fundamental standards

that, if you follow them you will be able to live together with other people.

 

Apparently you've never led a classroom or raised a child, if you have to ask this question.

This pretty-much sums it up for me.

 

The "YOU" in the original post would be a vastly different "YOU" if there were no rules while you grew up...either by your parents raising you with their own rules and/or those of a society. The "YOU" right now grew up with rules in place so whatever "internal" mechanism you have was formed by what you learned while growing up.

 

When raising children, you can see (just a Freud did) that a human is completely self-centered (the "ID") and does not care about anyone else's feelings so long as they get what they want. If this attitude was allowed to continue (or even encouraged), you would be raising a wild animal that could not function within a group of other humans. They could not "play nice" and would be ostracized. The closest I can guess how it would turn out would be a time back in our past...maybe back to the days of cavemen. However, if said child was raised without any morals or compassion for others and yet was well-educated, that child would be a menace to society.

 

It all boils down to playing nice with others. We simply do not have it as an internal "instinct" at all and must learn to be compassionate through our experiences growing up.

 

So to answer the question, can "I" behave without laws, yes. Could my children behave without laws (or my rules)? No.

 

LHammonds

 

Mr. LHammonds, you got a point.

I am quite sure that the cavemen had rules, otherwise they could not co-exist.

What you say is that we inherit rules from parents to child, to make sure we can

co-exist in the clan.

Just like you know what is right and wrong today, and your children probably do to.

IF that works properly, (but this is uthopia) i mean we could exist without laws.

[LHammonds]

I am quite sure that the cavemen had rules, otherwise they could not co-exist.

Yes they did but it was much more bound to their close proximity. There might have been clan-to-clan rules and boundries but that would just be speculation. Humans have a need to stick together but at the same time we are self-centered. This is the conflict that drives us to create these rules in order for us to coexist...a compromise between the self and the community

 

What you say is that we inherit rules from parents to child, to make sure we can co-exist in the clan.

Just like you know what is right and wrong today, and your children probably do to.

Yes.

 

IF that works properly, (but this is uthopia) i mean we could exist without laws.

Not really. Fear of the unknown and simply being different are major factors why people fight each other (other than food, shelter, greed). Cultural differences are enough to set off conflicts between otherwise two very peaceful families. It may be considered very impolite to burp at the dinner table in my family but almost required as a sign of respect for a different family. Put both families at the same table without knowing this could cause trouble and any language barriers would only amplify it.

 

If we only interacted with our own family / clan, then word-of-mouth laws/rules may work just fine but for a larger society, more languages, cultures and other differences can cause unnecessary problems between people. Having a single set of rules / laws that everyone knows about helps to relieve such problems and allows people to travel all over the place and know what is acceptable and what is not. Granted, there will always be problems with the unknown fear-factor and people just being different but there are things we can do to help minimize that problem. Rules are just one form...communication and knowledge help alleviate the fear of the unknown.

 

I am a firm believer in that people tend to act the way they do based on how they were raised, their environment and situations. The old adage about walking a mile in someone's shoes to understand where they are coming from goes a long way towards this issue.

 

There is a LOT to learn in this world and there simply is not enough time in our lives to learn it all. Therefore, we are always going to act like spoiled little children mainly because we do not have enough perspective and knowledge to act any other way.

 

It should also be pointed out that people have to obtain a certain level of security before rules and law become a factor in their everyday life. Take a look at Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and you will understand that somebody that is concerned over where their next meal is coming from is not going to be very concerned about law and morality. Law plays a part in the 2nd level for safety but in order for us to reach a point where we try to better ourselves (self-actualization), we must first take care of our lower-level needs.

 

I could keep on going with this material but I will let it rest now. :D

 

LHammonds

[Aecko]

i believe there should be no laws. if you cant survive without laws, then you do not deserve to live. that is my opinion. i should be able to do whatever the hell i want, and anybody that doesnt have the power to stop me shouldnt be able to. i believe in a world where strength prevails, not laws to protect the weak. f-ck the weak, they dont deserve to live. the weak are why our world is turning to crap, they are clogging up our gene pool with useless DNA and things that obviously dont work but are allowed to go on anyway.

 

Be prepared then that you can turn out being the weak.

Like in the animal world, someone stronger than you,

could come and steal your food and stuff.

Are you not able to get it back by intimidating or fighting,

you will be the weak, and loose.

Someone stronger can steel your females (to stay in animal world)

so your DNA pool is wasted.

 

i realise this, and would be prepared to defend myself and everything that is mine. if i werent, then i would be a weakling wouldnt i?

i shouldnt have to suffer your stupid ass laws because you need them, you should be able to defend yourself, or you shouldnt be there to waste my resources

 

So you think females (who don't have the strength of a man) should be raped by males as they cannot protect themselves? You think the old and the young should be left alone to die because they are "too weak"? People who are born with a disability should just be left vulnerable to die?

 

Anarchy would be very unfair to mass amounts of people. Just because someone does not possess the brawn or what have you to survive in that setting does not mean they don't deserve to live. The point of civilized society is to protect our weak and share our strengths peacefully. Killing each other out of mindless rage, stealing things that you have not earned, etc. is animalistic and lowly.

[Burnagirl]

Well said Aecko ....

 

My father has always told me to be as practical in life as possible so then let's try and see as to whether "... you need a law to behave" in a practical way.

 

In order to do this we need a closed environment or world or system in which we can test this theory, so let us take NEXUSFORUMS as a test subject.

Now NEXUSFORUMS is like a kingdom, a world so to say and it has a leader (Dark0ne), and his Ministers of Flame who draw up and enforce the law of the land

when neccessary.

(the above is summised by observation, so if I'm wrong then correct me please).

 

Now let's say that tomorrow they decide to abolish all rules and regulations and to "let the goodnees in the hearts of the people come forth and guide them to orderly

conduct and civility toward their fellow members as they go about their affairs in this kingdom".

Yes, to hell with laws, free the people, cast aside all restraints and let them lead the way as they feel led to do so according to their inner morality, which after all is good

and noble, right ?

 

Wrong, you dont need to be a rocket scientist to know whats going to happen here ........... CHAOS.

 

The notion that together we are going to link arms and raise our noble brows and march forward singing our victory song of unity, honor, nobility and strength

and oneness of mind and purpose is going to happen is far-fetched, fantastical and romantically unrealistic.

No million boot shoulder to shoulder rah rah rah sun rising up behind us as we advance sing song human love baloney is going to happen.

 

Chaos, conflict and the brownstuff will be the order of the day ........guaranteed.

 

Humankind has an inherant tendancy toward selfishness and destruction and unless there are laws and enforced laws at that, we will go down the path of complete

ruin and chaos.

Yes the world system of law and order isn't perfect and criminals do escape justice but just as many do get caught and are prosecuted.

Nevertheless, I'd rather have this flawed system than have no law and order and have to rely on the inner goodness or morality of any person.

 

(this is just my way of thinking and isnt intended as a personal attack on anyone - let's debate, OK).

[Zephyr2011]

@evilkoal

Honestly I find your view rather closed. What dictates strength? Brawn? Then we would never be here, we wouldn't have the ingenuity to build our structures, engineer cars, etc. In the animal world brawn is strength therefore I find that your statement that it should be like the animal kingdom where we must be strong to deserve to live to be invalid. The animal kingdom connection is a rather poor one, strenght determines why you deserve to live? Let's look at dinosaurs for a minute. A T-Rex may not have optimal genes and may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, and may not even be the truck with the most torque (lots of analogies I know) and he may only have made it to adulthood by sheer luck but god damnit if he isn't strong that's how he fricken made it to adult hood, how he didn't get eaten by a pterasoaur as a chick, how he didn't get impaled when killing that triceratops and being crippled and unable to hunt, how he didn't get his leg cracked open by that ankylosaur. He might have been purely mediocre, even below-average but he made it and for that he's strong, not by your definition but by nature's. Yes my dinosaur analogy might be along the lines of animals but there's a slightly more overarching theme here. Being alive is a testament to how "strong" you are, and laws aren't in existence to protect the weak they're in existence to prevent the strong from killing each other, from darwin's point of view to be viable is to be alive. If every person competed and stole from one another and killed each other we wouldn't live in cities, we'd live in caves and makeshift shelters alone or with a very small group. The human race gains strength by working together not killing itself in the name of "power" and "strength." Those that die are "weak" or old. If they don't survive they aren't strong enough (I'm not trying to be a monster and say that dead children don't deserve to be mourned or anything here in case someone gets that impression). Your thesis on laws protecting the weak is frankly bull in my eyes. Every person alive is strong, strong enough to survive, and I challenge you to find one man, woman, or child who wouldn't do everything in their power to protect what they love, that determination is strength. If laws protect the weak and you think it'd be better to get rid of them you imply that you'd kill people that you happen to be just a little more muscular than and take their resources. The human race doesn't waste resources. Why? Because every *ban me* person has something to contribute. The smallest intellectual idea, the smallest contribution to a company or nation, every single brick laid builds the human race. We're the dominant species on the planet because we work together better than any other. And you better *ban me* believe that everyone of us is strong and deserve to live until we detriment society. Bull that someone with cancer can't help society. Bull that someone who can't bench twice their body weight can't help the world. Bull that someone whose sick is a waste of resources. I'm gonna cut myself off before I really get agitated now.

 

On Topic:

Honestly I would prefer to live in a society more like that of Medieval times (legally speaking) than that of the modern era. In the Middle Ages personal codes of honor seem to dictate what a person does far more than the law. True enough there were murderers and villains and such in those times however they were susually brought to justice, not necessarily justice in the eye of the law but in the eye of the poeple yes. People often did what they did because of their own belief system rather than a law that determines guilt by branding someone's hand. Today it seems all manner of injustice is punished unbefitting of the crime. A murderer gets to eat decent food and have decent lodgings for the rest of his life? What the hell. Of course capital punishment could be percieved as a problem seeing as how many people are innocent and get put to death prior to being proven so. I'm kind of going in circles and all manners of loops and such right now. But the point I want to make is that lots of people DO need the laws to keep on a straight moral path (When I say laws I mean the ones handed down by legislature not the general guidelines handed down as a code by which to live from parents and religious and educational institutions) and often times when people stray from that path set by our government the punishment is nowhere near sufficient. As such I believe that if we are to use laws we ought to have more befitting punishments not this generic sit in a cell with decent food and a roof for a length of time based on what you did crap, and if we were to live without laws I believe we would need to educate ourselves and our kin as to more befitting practices (all the slurs against other races and other people's mothers and all that bolagna). But we don't have either so at this time could I live without laws? yes. Could thers live without laws? yes. Could everyone on the planet live without laws? Hell no.

[theuseless]

I would be True Neutral (that's what my DM in grade school made me be every time lol)

 

I live by my own creed and laws. I guess that in general I'm a nice guy, but I wouldn't hesitate to kill Hitler, I have stolen food in the past when hungry and have cheated on my girlfriends in the past (why I'm single now lol).

 

Basically, I believe that rules are subjective. There is no rule written in stone (well, maybe don't boink your sister). I also believe that causing un-necessary strife and havoc is pointless and futile.

 

Eh, what can I say, I like to talk smack and drink heavy. That leaves little time for bullying/saving the world or anybody else for that matter. If you leave me alone, I don't care what you do (with exceptions, I'm human and have a working pineal gland).

 

Don't mistake my neutrality with apathy. I do care if somebody is hurting a child or elderly etc, but don't care whether you drive the wrong way down a 1-way street. If you hit my car I'll kick your you know what. If you hit somebody else's I will most likely laugh.

 

-edit-

 

Look up a guy by the name of Akosha from India if you really want a lesson on morality. He tortured countless people before finding out they were subjects of his childhood love (he didn't know she was a princess, guess they didn't have the interweb back then). When he found out how much he hurt her, he converted to vegetarianism (which I despise) and wrote moral codes all over the land. Many of his laws were revolutionary for the time but are now considered the acceptable standard of living (such as cruelty to animals being wrong). They made a great Bollywood movie that is somewhat historically accurate.

 

@ Zephyr Kronos :

 

I agree that many punishments today don't fit the crime. People who kill often serve less than 2 years. A family member of mine was transgressed against (pretty badly) and got off with probation!!! But if you have ever been to a criminal institution, you will know that most aren't exactly fun. If you have ever spent any good length of time alone (either in solitary or in the woods) you will understand just how bad cabin fever really is. Jail/prison really is a place you don't want to come back to (the rape fantasies are mostly exaggerated as 90% of the male population is straight and will watch out for each other. You might get beat up every day though if you're not careful.) Not that I disagree with you. If there were a way to truthfully tell whether somebody committed such heinous acts as murder or rape, I would support the death penalty.

[Zephyr2011]

I wasn't really saying that jail is a fun place however it appears to me a very limited form of punishment. To some people (such as myself) being alone doesn't phase you (I'm the guy who goes out camping all alone without any form of contact for a week and couldn't care less for not having a soul to accompany him but his own inner self) and yeah you can get beat to a pulp but I think prison is more like a slap on the wrist than a god-aweful and just punishment that will prevent anyone from ever even thinking of doing a crime again (which in my opinion is what it should be) not saying there should be torture or anything but it still seems like a fairly lazy solution, throw a guy in a cell all by his lonesome for a few years for doing something horrible, if they had the concionce (spelling ugh brain fart) to do it once I find it tdifficult to believe that a couple years behind bars is going to change their ways that much. Plus the whole "good behavior" bull is just that, bull. So someone doesn't cause problems in prison and is quiet and follows all the rules (though often times that's hardly a requisite for getting out on good behavior) and suddenly his sentance is halved??? pointless. Prison doesn't seem as effective as it should, and needs to be.

[theuseless]

I totally agree with you there Zephyr Kronos.

 

100%

 

But I was referring to spending months alone. I'm a hermit and even I can't handle that extreme solitude, I'm no monk after all. But yeah, prison doesn't scare me in the slightest. You seem cool and intelligent. Where most people would have flamed that comment, you wrote with composure. Friend requested.

 

I would also like to bring up the behaivior (get over it, we have more in common than people like to admit) of the infamous chimpanzee.

 

A study was conducted where scientist would drop a couple bannannas into a cage full of chimps. The youth would fight over it and cause a huge noise. The elder chimps would hear this commotion and see what was going on. Upon finding the fight over food, the older chimps almost always would break the bannanas up into pieces and share. If this doesn't sound familliar, you probably weren't raised with siblings. This pattern is noticed throughout the chimp population. A great amount of research into our basic programming is derived through the study of other primates. If anybody says a chimp is just a stupid animal, remember that they also have spontaneously made rope (sorry I can't link to the old NPR post I read that in) and have learned sign language.