DISCORDIANISM: NO SUCH THING

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Hah, indeed.

Sorry, but the idea of the law being, on the whole, pretty neutral, annoys the hell out of me.  I don't deny the usefulness of laws, but they have to be the right laws, and applied with a good deal of informed situational awareness.  The authorities like to play "gotcha" with certain groups of people far too much for me to put faith in an ostensibly decent law being applied in a fair and consistent manner, unless there are safeguards in place to make sure that actually happens.

Yep, humans aren't very good being in charge of other humans.

[AFK]

Charming. 

Care to elaborate? 

I didn't have time to elaborate then.

I do now, fortunately.

Great.  Next time, how about easing up on the insults.  I'm all for disagreement but there is no need for shit like "spineless".  You may disagree with me but that doesn't mean that my position isn't without thought and consideration, and therefore, "spine".  I think I've earned at least that much respect in my time here.  I generally don't go out of my way to hurl such bullshit at others I disagree with. 

Firstly, thats not how the law or the political system works and you and I and pretty much everyone else here knows it.  Power doesn't lie with consent, it lies with men with guns who can beat and kill you with impunity.  So to speak of going to prison as being any sort of choice is a gross mischaracterization.

Going to prison isn't a choice, but a set of actions preceding that imprisonment is a choice.  Bullshit laws should be taken on by the people.  And I specifically mentioned that in my post when referring to activism and advocacy.  Simply disobeying a law you disagree with is going to do nothing to impact whether or not that law is changed.  Short of some mass demonstration of disobedience, it is not going to get any notice.   So, at that point, you do have a choice.  You go ahead and thwart the law you disagree with, get arrested, found guilty, and sent to prison, and yet, the law remains just as strong as it was before.  OR, you DON'T make the choice to thwart the law you disagree with, and instead, use that energy to constructively tackle the law in question.  You may not be making a choice to go to prison, but you are making a choice on the actions that precipitate the prison sentence, and that's where, obviously, individuals need to do their own individual cost/benefit analysis and determine if it is really in their best interest.  If it is, congratulations, say hello to Sully for me.   

Secondly, your assumption is, everything else being equal, of the neutrality of the law.

I believe I did make reference to the fact that laws aren't always going to be enforced equally.  However, in my experience with the law enforcement I've worked with, is they are more evenly enforced than is given credit in popular culture.  The other thing to keep in mind is that this will vary from region to region, state to state, country to country.  The Culture of Law Enforcement is not the same everywhere and will depend heavily on those at the top of the food chain.  Here in Maine, we have a great Attorney General, who I've worked with personally, and he is very proactive in finding solutions where appropriate that avoid putting people in jail.  If you are caught with a joint in Maine, you aren't going to jail.  Now, if you are caught with a trunk full of marijuana, that's going to be a different story. 

Check out the usage rates for ethnic minorities and majorities when it comes to drugs, and then the imprisonment rates and sentence lengths.

You can't solely attribute that to how the law is enforced.  You aren't taking into consideration other confounding variables such as socio-economic measures which have very close ties to drug usage.  I did a focus group of inmates in a county jail who had histories of drug abuse.  They were all pretty much poor kids.  Only one or two miniorties in the bunch.  I'm not saying it isn't a variable, just not the sole variable. 

Thirdly we have the "no-harm" principle.  If your actions do not result in harm but are still 'illegal', then why bother punishing, unless you are some sort of automaton or punishment freak?  The British government are king of this, culminating in the ASBO, where magistrates, on the basis of hearsay evidence, can designate any action they wish illegal and punish that action with imprisonment and/or fines at their discretion.  This has, in the past, had people with Tourettes Syndrome under court-ordered house arrest, among other things.

Well, my expereince with law enforcement is that they will use a variety of tools at their disposal where necessary to avoid harsh penalties where there is "no harm".  I mean, I was just pulled over a few weeks ago for going 25 mph over the speed limit.  But I have a sparkling driving record so I was given a warning and let go.  I agree there are some hard-asses in law enforcement, but I believe there is a stereotype that they are all militant, corporal robots just looking to nab people.  Maybe I live in shangra-la or something, but somehow I doubt it.  Problems should be addressed, but throwing them all under the bus doesn't do a damn thing to address the actual problems. 

Which neatly brings me onto point 4.  Governments are paper-churning machines who always want to be seen as "doing something".  Again, the British government has created 3,000 new misdemeanours and felonies in the period from 1997-2006, including the crime of detonating a nuclear weapon without permission and the crime of being in a particular area without agreeing with the Prime Minister, among other things.  Because governments pass so many laws, the chance of them negatively impacting on harmful action is very low, whereas the chance of them criminalizing some innocuous triviality, like wearing a band t-shirt near Parliament or handing out critical leaflets near Party conferences, is much higher.

And in Maine, the State gov't worked to create the Drug Court system.  A system that allows non-violent drug offenders avoid jail time.  Yes, there is bad in Gov't, significant amounts of it in fact, but governments can do good as well.  But, generally speaking, working with them is much more productive than working against them.  At least, my experience with my government tells me so.  Does that mean problems are solved in any kind of quick fashion?  Nope.  It IS a lumbering beast that in fact will not turn on a dime.  But you have to work with what you have and use what access you can get. 

Equally, in the US, I would be willing to bet most Representatives and Senators are listening far more to what Lockheed and Martin want than what any piddling voter says.

They may not listen to individual voters but they will listen to a mass of voters.  That is where activism and advocacy come in.  Voices need to be built up before anyone will listen.  One sole grumpy voter or one sole person who engages in civil disobedience will accomplish nothing.  Grassroot efforts DO work.  I've been a part of them and I've seen them work on the State level.  It's more difficult on the Federal level to be sure, but again, you've gotta start somewhere. 

Claims to "its the law" without taking into account the actual operations and effects of that law are short-sighted in the extreme.

My "claim" was much more nuanced than that thank you very much. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

There are many issues here. For example, I would argue that even before we discuss if a man's actions lead to prison as choice or not... the validity of the argument which sends that  man to prison.

For me, philosophically, I hold that every man is free to do as he will... including the will to come together with other men and women to form some sort of society, government or social order. They are free to agree to rules and then subjugate themselves to those rules. If a man has the will to drive a vehicle on public roads, he agrees to be bound by the constraints placed upon those roads. If he voluntarily breaks those rules, then he has already voluntarily (by getting his license) agreed to be bound by the law and its punishments. Yet, we have a nation held to thousands of laws which most, if not all of us, never agreed to... nor were even asked. Indeed, our great-great-great grandfathers, apparently are considered to have had the right to subjugate us all, leaving us with no choice in the matter. A trillion dollar debt may be a bad thing to leave future generations... but slavery without choice, from birth to death seems a far worse cross-generational gift.

Thus, I personally feel that there are relatively few situations where the state has the right to punish the individual. They may have laws which claim such a right, but those laws are not ones the individual likely agreed to.

So I not only have a problem with the laws (such as prohibition of pot) which may unjustly send a person to prison. Laws, as I stated before that were not "Of the People, By the People or For the People", but of the bureaucracy, by the bureaucracy and for the bureaucracy. I have a further problem with the fact that the normal process which would redress the issue (Jury Nullification) has been censored and demonized by Judges... leaving uninformed juries to perform only half their duties and giving the citizen on trial, only half of the features of a 'trial by their peers'.

But above it all...  Lysander Spooner sighs as free men turn into chattel slaves and Crowley's words echo in my mind:

Man has the right to live by his own law-

    to live in the way that he wills to do:
    to work as he will:
    to play as he will:
    to rest as he will:
    to die when and how he will.

Man has the right to eat what he will:

    to drink what he will:
    to dwell where he will:
    to move as he will on the face of the earth.

Man has the right to think what he will:

    to speak what he will:
    to write what he will:
    to draw, paint, carve, etch, mould, build as he will:
    to dress as he will.

4. Man has the right to love as he will.

5. Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights.


It seems to me that if personal responsibility and free will exist, the system of government we live under is woefully inadequate if it hopes to call itself the "home of the free". For how can we be free, if we have no choice but to deny our will, or suffer punishment?

The slave can pick cotton, or he can take a nap... if he takes a nap, the master may beat him. Thus, if he gets beat, he deserves it because he made the conscious choice to nap.

I have yet to find a compelling argument to the contrary.

[AFK]

Yet, we have a nation held to thousands of laws which most, if not all of us, never agreed to... nor were even asked.

Can you give me some examples of these please. 

[LMNO]

Every law passed before you were born or had the right to vote, maybe?

[AFK]

Okay, so until we develop a time machine how do you stop that from happening again? 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

The Constitution for one... I didn't sign it, did you? Did anyone alive today? Did their parents or grandparents?

Did any American vote on the decision to make marijuana illegal? Did they vote to punish those that would transgress through penal codes? Or, more recently, did you vote on the USAPATRIOT ACT and the various acts it criminalizes? Did you agree to allow yourself to be held without trial for years?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Okay, so until we develop a time machine how do you stop that from happening again? 

Well, that's the absurdity of it all... at least some of the Founding Fathers assumed we would modify our constitution and laws generationaly, based upon the reality of the nation at the time. Lysander Spooner would argue that most laws, should probably require that every individual HELD to them would first agree to them. That if a man did not, beforehand, agree to a specific law... they could not be said to break that law. In his case, he took that as far as claiming that most of the South were not traitors, because those individuals had not agreed to be part of the Union... and thus could not be held to the union against their will.

I don't know that it can be fixed, without a system that A) requires public input, B) Has educated juries and C) has sunset rules for each law created. I think having a final public vote on anything passed by Congress would be useful as well....

Difficult to be workable, maybe... but this is philosophy.

[AFK]

The Constitution for one... I didn't sign it, did you? Did anyone alive today? Did their parents or grandparents?

Nope.  What about the Constitution is holding you personally back as a person?  What about the Constitution is restricting your freedom?  So what is the alternative?  What is the remedy for this?  

Did any American vote on the decision to make marijuana illegal? Did they vote to punish those that would transgress through penal codes? Or, more recently, did you vote on the USAPATRIOT ACT and the various acts it criminalizes? Did you agree to allow yourself to be held without trial for years?

Yeah, the Americans who are the legislators and the Americans who serve in executive capacities.  Does your state have citizen-initiavies that can be added to the ballots?  If so, take up your cause.  Get signatures and work to overturn what you disagree with.  Just ask the Prop 8 folks, it CAN work.  

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

The Constitution for one... I didn't sign it, did you? Did anyone alive today? Did their parents or grandparents?

Nope.  What about the Constitution is holding you personally back as a person?  What about the Constitution is restricting your freedom?  So what is the alternative?  What is the remedy for this?  

You're missing the point. If you did not personally agree to the Cosntitution, then you live under an entire system of laws that you did not agree to... which was the point:

Yet, we have a nation held to thousands of laws which most, if not all of us, never agreed to... nor were even asked.

Can you give me some examples of these please. 

Did any American vote on the decision to make marijuana illegal? Did they vote to punish those that would transgress through penal codes? Or, more recently, did you vote on the USAPATRIOT ACT and the various acts it criminalizes? Did you agree to allow yourself to be held without trial for years?

Yeah, the Americans who are the legislators and the Americans who serve in executive capacities.  Does your state have citizen-initiavies that can be added to the ballots?  If so, take up your cause.  Get signatures and work to overturn what you disagree with.  Just ask the Prop 8 folks, it CAN work.  
[/quote]

Ok... you're right... somewhere less than 600 Americans agreed to it. Those 600 then should be bound by it and not the rest of us.

And your still confusing an issue of rights with an issue of activism. I am a human being, thus, like all human beings I have the freedom to _____ as I will. There exists no reason why one should have to fight a system they didn't agree to, or laws they didn't sign on to in order to do as they will.

Let us say that we have a particularly enlightened Slave Owner and he says to his slaves, "If you have an issue with me, you can come to me to redress your grievance... and I may change my mind".

It says a lot for the attitude of the slave owner, but it doesn't change what the slave is. Your arguments seem to be "We've got a nice master that occasionally listens if you yell loud enough". I agree... but it still puts us in a position of trying to win back freedoms that we never voluntarily gave up. That can only be done from a position of slavery.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

In theory I agree with Rat.

Of course, if a system composed of thousands of ridiculous laws is a clusterfuck, what would you call a system composed of 300+ million entirely separate and often incompatible systems of laws?

I gather Rat's ultimate goal here would be for society to admit that such a system is completely ridiculous, and therefore we should just go with a loose Anarchist system with certain binding rules like "don't kill people for no apparent reason." Right? Because you can't seriously think it's possible to actually apply laws only to people who agreed to them, can you?

[P3nT4gR4m]

One should respect public opinion insofar as is necessary to avoid starvation and keep out of prison, but anything that goes beyond this is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny.

The sheer scale of human society presents the necessity to governance and law. Law is a structure which presents the opportunity of power, the power to hold dominion over your fellow humans.

Where there is power there is corruption and abuse. This rule is absolute.

Therefore: If we are to have laws and government then it will suck to some degree. (P3nT's first principle)

A popular tendency toward blind obedience will, more often than not, increase the degree of suction.

Therefore: Questioning the validity of the law and deciding thereon whether or not one will obey, affords the opportunity to lessen the degree of suction when applied to self. (P3nT's second principle)

In theory one should only bound by law if one is captured in the act of breaking said edict. The ingenuity of both government and criminality will ensure that this is not always the case.

Therefore: Innocence and guilt are not absolutes in the practical application of the law. (P3nT's third principle)

The risk of being captured and punished under the law, regardless of ones innocence or guilt is never zero and rarely, if ever, will reach absolute.

Therefore: Weigh up the risks, do whatever the fuck thou feelest like doing and, above all - don't get caught.

[AFK]

The Constitution for one... I didn't sign it, did you? Did anyone alive today? Did their parents or grandparents?

Nope.  What about the Constitution is holding you personally back as a person?  What about the Constitution is restricting your freedom?  So what is the alternative?  What is the remedy for this?  

You're missing the point. If you did not personally agree to the Cosntitution, then you live under an entire system of laws that you did not agree to... which was the point:

Yeah, but like I said earlier, until you invent time machines, that is never going to change.  There are children who will be born tormorrow who will have had no say in the laws that were passed today.  So how do you remedy that?  Abolish laws altogether and hope that people don't resort to their monkey tendencies?  What is the remedy? 

Ok... you're right... somewhere less than 600 Americans agreed to it. Those 600 then should be bound by it and not the rest of us.

Except "us" put those 600 Americans in the position to agree to those laws.  If we don't like it, we should do something about it.  Don't send back the same idiots who got us into trouble in the first place.  Organize other dissenters to contact Reps and Sens en masse to voice displeasure. 

And your still confusing an issue of rights with an issue of activism. I am a human being, thus, like all human beings I have the freedom to _____ as I will. There exists no reason why one should have to fight a system they didn't agree to, or laws they didn't sign on to in order to do as they will.

That sounds nice, until your freedom to _____ as you will imposes upon my freedom to ______ as I will.  Then what?  Fight to the death?  Duel at sunrise?  How is that resolved? 

Let us say that we have a particularly enlightened Slave Owner and he says to his slaves, "If you have an issue with me, you can come to me to redress your grievance... and I may change my mind".

It says a lot for the attitude of the slave owner, but it doesn't change what the slave is. Your arguments seem to be "We've got a nice master that occasionally listens if you yell loud enough". I agree... but it still puts us in a position of trying to win back freedoms that we never voluntarily gave up. That can only be done from a position of slavery.

I don't really buy into the slave analogy.  I think that's going a bit far, personally.  If there is any slavery at work, it is being enslaved to inaction and ennui.  Living in a society of 400 million, there is a need for some semblence of rules and laws to prevent us from tearing each other apart and soiling each others lawns.  If you simply relied upon the public to decide the public good, you'd end up with a Tragedy of the Commons situation where no one has any incentive to do the right thing.  If we were a tribe of 20 or 30 people, I think you'd have a better case.  It is thanks, in part, to laws and policies like the Endangered Species act that the national bird of America actually still exists.  But, it is also thanks to the loosening of laws and regulations by the Bush administration that the Polar Bear is threatened now more than ever. 

There is good and bad in the law.  I'm just not convinced lawlessness would produce any better results.  The System certainly has places where it needs to be changed and tweaked and altered.  Breaking The System isn't going to happen.  And I'm not sure society would function all that well without it.  Perhaps the difference is in our outlook on the decency of individuals to act decent. 

[LMNO]

One should respect public opinion insofar as is necessary to avoid starvation and keep out of prison, but anything that goes beyond this is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny.

The sheer scale of human society presents the necessity to governance and law. Law is a structure which presents the opportunity of power, the power to hold dominion over your fellow humans.

Where there is power there is corruption and abuse. This rule is absolute.

Therefore: If we are to have laws and government then it will suck to some degree. (P3nT's first principle)

A popular tendency toward blind obedience will, more often than not, increase the degree of suction.

Therefore: Questioning the validity of the law and deciding thereon whether or not one will obey, affords the opportunity to lessen the degree of suction when applied to self. (P3nT's second principle)

In theory one should only bound by law if one is captured in the act of breaking said edict. The ingenuity of both government and criminality will ensure that this is not always the case.

Therefore: Innocence and guilt are not absolutes in the practical application of the law. (P3nT's third principle)

The risk of being captured and punished under the law, regardless of ones innocence or guilt is never zero and rarely, if ever, will reach absolute.

Therefore: Weigh up the risks, do whatever the fuck thou feelest like doing and, above all - don't get caught.

P3nt, I normally find most of your personal philosophies to be fucking retarded, and borderline psychotic.

However, I find myself agreeing with these three Principles almost completely.

[P3nT4gR4m]

P3nt, I normally find most of your personal philosophies to be fucking retarded, and borderline psychotic.

Add "funny" and that's usually what I'm shooting for. Occasionally I forget that I'm meant to be taking the piss and some troof slips in. Apologies - normal service will be resumed asap