Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Is it enough to do no harm?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 71
Is it enough to do no harm?Page 5 of 6    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)

I still would like to see Mtn's definition...

I'm sure you will.

Quack...ahem...testing...testing...Is this thing on?...testing...ah, there we are...

What was the question again?...Oh yeah...anarchy...um...Let me see...oh yeah...

Anarchy is self-governance. I'm an anarchist because I am my own highest authority; there is nobody "over" me (or under me..at the moment..now where did she go?...).
 Super_Eve
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 72
Is it enough to do no harm?
Posted: 1/27/2010 4:51:49 PM
I still would like to see Mtn's definition...


I would say absence of a central government...

But let me double check...

From Wiki:


Anarchism is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which consider the state to be unnecessary, harmful, or otherwise undesirable, and favour instead a stateless society or anarchy.


I think I am pretty close...


(or under me..at the moment..now where did she go?...).


I am right here!
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 73
Is it enough to do no harm?
Posted: 1/27/2010 11:13:42 PM
Isn't this anarchy too? Hopefully a civilized kind.

Yup!

I just don't seem to be able to crawl out of my foxhole of pessimism and embrace the idea that it would be as easy to accomplish as you seem to feel.

I didn't say it was gonna be a piece of cake. I did however allude to a plan that I believe is workable. I haven't proved it mathematically...but I have a hunch and it's definitely worth a shot.

I'm seeing less of a difference in the ways the OP proposed world and the present world move towards any semblence of agreement.

that is because the essence & intent of much of the existing system is a valid concept. It just got polluted by some bad elements who exploited it to the top and now write the laws in order to set themselves above the law and to consolidate control of the system they are exploiting. So long as we remain in that system we are exploited too.

The only thing I can really say at this point will sound like a metaphor, but it is almost too close to true to be one. It also hints at the solution to much of our problem.:
If you don't want to live in Hell, quit making deals with the devil and start dealing fairly with honest men.

What makes you thing that other groups of people wouldn't go down the same path if the books were taken away?

All you really know about Somalia is what you are told in the news by a few "pundits." Research the history of Somalia for yourself and you will see where the real problem lies. Hint: Lies are the real problem.

How does a 'natural law' group deal with a group like Somalia? - or the Middle East.

That is contingent on how much of the world "signs on." All natural law will do is remove the the lws that currently hide the crime and the crooks at the top. Once those laws are removed, the crooks & corruption will stand out like a naked reverend in a church on Sunday. Moreover, the laws they use to exploit people & nations will be gone too, so that will be the end of their power. The sermon of the naked reverend will have lost all credibility and he'll be cowering in fear and shame behind his pulpit when the congregation takes back the power they gave him in good faith and trust of their "salvation"

Isn't that the way it works now? Bending MY "heartfelt natural law" with money. How far are you pepared to let it bend?

I only used money because that seems to be what most people value in our brainwashed, covetous, consumerist society. In truth, if you belonged to the community, the contract of membership you would have signed (in full knowledge of explicitly spelled out terms), might have allowed other options. (eminent domain comes to mind, though I think current eminent domain laws are barbaric...Who is the community to tell you what your home is worth?)

Then the only difference between contracts and the statute books is who agreed to them. The issue is representation, not what is written down?

The issue is BOTH representation AND what is written down. In point of fact, you have signed a contract with the government already (in it you allow them to represent you). Some of the terms of that contract bind you to logical absurdities, and as we all know from Voltaire: "Those who believe absurdities can be made to commit atrocities." What are some of the absurdities? Consider the maxim "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" The contract you signed makes you liable to know and abide by every single statute and revision (written in legalese mind you) that gets legislated. That has to be hundreds of thousands of pages of "law" that often gets changed and revised annually. If you started studying this crap at the age of twenty (and doing nothing else but), you would probably find yourself studying it on your deathbed. You are a reasonable and reasonably intelligent man, but I don't believe for a minute that you know and understand much of that pile of crap at all. It would be unreasonable of me to think so. So why does a judge say ignorance is no excuse? because he's got your signature saying you'll abide by it and understand it. Isn't that a little absurd? Of course it is and that's only ONE of the ways they screw the life out of you.

What keeps the lid on things while disagreements are strong and parties aren't happy with the way negotiations are going?

You have to realize people aren't going to change. Natural law won't be able to force them to. The best it can do is reduce the amount of injustice in the law. People will still be violent at times, some will still murder, etc. they will be dealt with pretty much the same way they are now, because generally current criminal law is mostly just codified natural law, so don't expect much change in it. NL will not be a panacea that's gonna remake the world; it will only make the law a bit more just and quicker to evolve.

Holy cow!!! That's a lotta beer...May I?...
 xlr8ingmargo
Joined: 7/28/2009
Msg: 74
Is it enough to do no harm?
Posted: 1/28/2010 1:04:24 AM
I just want to say you guys are all awesome!!! I enjoy reading these threads very much... Kisses to all.

It's funny you said people won't change. It's becuase they like things the way they are. I just had that conversation with a friend I've been dating.

We all have to make changes to have the things we want.
That even includes me. I was informed tonight I had to choose.
I'm officially dating ONE GUY, and he knows like everyone around here.
So change is possible when your willing. He reads my post so I guess I'll have to turn down the volume.

It is possible to co-exist in small groups. Us bikers get a bad rap. At any club house there is ordered chaos. Some things are unexceptable. It's really not an anything goes society. It's an organized community of people with shared interests. Hey if we can do it anyone can.

Peace out~ Margo A.K.A. The Cat Flash (its how I sign my artwork)
 acuddler
Joined: 10/30/2009
Msg: 75
Is it enough to do no harm?
Posted: 1/28/2010 1:13:24 PM
Fiddler - I hate to tell you, but the notion of separation between mind and brain predates even my exhalted self by several eons. It is the basis for all religion, in fact, as well as much of philosophy, and more than a little psychology. Many people whom even you would admire accepted it. Some-like yourself-choose to differ. However, you are the newcomers. Clannish cavemen accepted the principle, and many modern scientists do as well. You are free to disbelieve if you wish, but you have no proof of your opinion that there is no separation. Until you do, you are somewhat handicapped.
 kohavah
Joined: 1/25/2010
Msg: 76
Is it enough to do no harm?
Posted: 1/28/2010 1:36:14 PM
Brain is the engine, mind is the will power, pertaining to the engine.
 acuddler
Joined: 10/30/2009
Msg: 77
Is it enough to do no harm?
Posted: 1/28/2010 2:14:16 PM
Dualism-the belief in separation between mind, and brain/body-has been espoused by many...including: Zarathustra, Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Mohammad, Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Rene Descartes, C.S. Lewis, Victor Reppert, William Hasker, J.B.S. Haldane, Physicist David Bohm (a protege of Einstein), and neurophysiologist Karl Pribram...to name just a few.

Many who believe, or disbelieve, have come to their views by imagining thought experiments with fictional persons who allegedly experienced brain damage resulting from car accidents, and such. I came to my views by ACTUALLY EXPERIENCING brain damage from auto accidents, and such...and then recovering. I have had AFTER death-rather than near death-experiences, and then been revived. My mind/spirit/ personality/call it what you will has been OUTSIDE my brain/body, and travelled to places beyond where my body was located. I saw, and heard, things occuring in those distant places, and gave testimony of them later to others who had been there.

Since the real you is your mind/personality/spirit , and not your body, nothing done to your body is actual harm to you. Your body is a suit of clothing 'you' wear...as your body wears a pair of jeans, and a t-shirt. Neither You, or 'you', lose a leg, or even bleed, when the dry cleaner cuts/burns your dress slacks. 'You' suffer no real damage when your body is damaged. As such, it is impossible to do any real harm to anyone. What we usually percieve to be harm is done to our possessions not ourselves...to our body, house, car, bank accounts, etc. That 'harm' is unavoidable, and what we are here to learn from. This life is a training ground for the life after death...as grade school is a preparation for high school, and beyond.

What most call harm is just a tool-like a text book, pencil, or calculator-we use in the school of life. Even if we could exist without doing harm doing so would harm us by retarding our educations. So-ultinmately-there is no Harm, but we can not live without doing 'harm'. This is because the world exists for the purpose of doing what we call 'harm'...but that is, truly, not Harm. One has to see beyond the illusion before percieving reality.
 themadfiddler
Joined: 12/9/2009
Msg: 78
Is it enough to do no harm?
Posted: 1/28/2010 6:31:21 PM

Fiddler - I hate to tell you


Based on the content of your posts to date, I am pretty sure there is very little you can "tell" me or anybody else of great value... I, and anyone else who hs had any basic education is well aware of the concept of brain/mind duality and how long it's been around. That would include all the names on that list and then some.

That's not the point so trying to make a straw-man about my position isn't going to help you. While trying to get you to come up with a cogent defense for any one of your wild, unproven assertions is like trying to nail a half-cooked pancake to a wall...a pointless endeavor, I will steer you back to your original attempt at a point:

You asserted that:



all life lives by harming/killing others. You can not exist without murdering some poor plant, or animal. Vegetarians like to conveniently forget the fact that plants are living beings, too, but I won't let you forget. If you eat nothing-to preserve the plants, and animals-you do harm to yourself. Harm is inevitable. It is what makes the universe run. If harm ceases, the universe ends. If this universe ends, a trillion interconnected, parallel, universes also end. No harm is the worst harm.


I responded with:



How does photosynthesis harm others? (plants/plankton)

How does consumption of already dead plant and animal matter harm others? (fungi/carrion eaters)

How does consumption of sugars (yeasts) harm others?

How does consumption of renewable non-sentient organisms like plants cause "harm"?


You attempted to divert to the notion that some yeasts live parasitical existences but in truth they do not live off the host, only by products of the host...they are only parasitical by virtue of the fact that they contribute nothing to the host and do harm obliquely and not through intent.

You cannot have intent without consciousness and sentience. You attempted to assert that plants and other lower order animals have sentience and I pointed out the obvious fallacy in that. You have yet to address it with any hard data.

Now you're again attempting to skate around it and change the subject...as you do whenever you're backed into a corner. Frankly I don't know why you feel the need to have the last word as you just get buried deeper and deeper each time someone reveals you to be out of your depth in every field except bigotry...and perhaps a job opening for local village idiot.

The question of mind/brain dualism is unsettled...but there is no question that you need a functioning higher brain to have any sentience at all. Only a handful of organisms on this planet have it. This is where your argument on harm flls completely apart.

That you refuse to acknowledge this is willful idiocy.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 79
Is it enough to do no harm?
Posted: 1/28/2010 9:39:55 PM
@ Cuddles

This life is a training ground for the life after death...
...One has to see beyond the illusion before percieving reality.

Your first sentence is an unsubstantiated (and highly contestable) assertion. The last is good advice...I wish you'd take it.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 80
Is it enough to do no harm?
Posted: 1/29/2010 3:29:29 AM

You have no way of redressing any injustice committed by these people.

How about an appeal to a higher court, or a motion for mistrial? Those are two right off the top of my head. When I say unwritten, I'm referring to the laws & precedents, not a standardized set of rules and procedures. Those are bound to be needed in a courtroom every bit as much as menus in restaurants.

You have no way of dealing with corruption amongst them.

It would be more correct to say you know of no way of dealing with corruption. In fact my suggestion of unwritten law is intended to do that very thing. Insofar as the possibility of a corrupted jury, there are any number of strategies that might be implemented to reduce the likelihood of it. Perfect? no, but likely better than the current system

You can't even have cops really because you can't tell them what they're supposed to be doing.

False assumption really because we can (and if the community is large enough) have cops.

Anybody who doesn't feel like being arrested can just gather up enough people to keep the "law" at bay if they like.

False assumption. The whole idea is that good people outnumber the bad and such hierarchal gangs are to be stopped at the outset. You are picturing small isolated communities. Many may be small, but they are all "connected" by the common bond of law, so any gang the community can't handle will be handled by allied communities. In this way, even "rogue" hierarchal communities may be dealt with before another "Hitler" can arise. This would almost be an axiom of the system; hierarchies CANNOT be allowed.
The rules (analogous to legislation) would be spelled out clearly and unequivocally in the contract of membership, to which a member takes oath.

Are we going to form committees every time we need to decide if we even should arrest somebody ?
Are we going to form committees every time we need to decide if we even should arrest somebody ?

If a community needs cops, they will have cops.

How is this better than what we have now ?

1) No annually revised confusing legislation.
2) The social contract is clear and unequivocal.
3) Law abiding citizens need not fear the law. (Emphasis on spirit of law, not its letter. No "speed traps, for instance; law is not there to provide revenue.)
4) Ignorance of the law really is no excuse.

Somalia has no formal government.

While that is something to be wished for, it isn't quite the truth. What Somalia has is remnants of externally prompted polarization broken into factions. It is really a protracted civil war/revolution in which (owing to external support for various factions) no side is "allowed" to prevail. Somalia is the fault, not of the Somalis, but of other "countries". Don't you find it odd that everything was going along well for centuries, even millenia, until it fell under England's thumb? It's been downhill ever since. The powers that be of England want to reestablish control through the UN. The only way that's going to happen is by protracted "chaos and anarchy" I'm afraid Somalia's strife has been scripted by outside forces.

an example of what kind of order "natural law" provides.

Sorry...bad example. It's really an example of geopolitical manipulation by an outside hierarchy.

It is quite simply a matter of time before those with enough brute strength project their will do so

That time would have been long since passed had it not been for clandestine support for the factions who would have lost.

there's no reason to think it would be any different if we here abandoned our laws tomorrow

A non sequitur to set up a straw man. Natural law is clearly not abandonment of law. It is rule by law.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 81
Is it enough to do no harm?
Posted: 1/29/2010 7:44:29 AM

There are laws that are! and there are laws you live by!?

Law is the product of the will for justice. It exists before it is codified. Wherein the codification can be corrupted, so can the law. This has been done and many laws are unjust. They might eventually be struck down, but not before some are injured by their presence on the books as ill-fitting or logically incorrect precedents that justly ought not be used. In that sense, written law may be at odds with law itself. We should all live by the law, but we'll have to clean up the paperwork. I suggest dispensing with it altogether as far as precedent and complicated "commandments" and going with pure reason in the pursuit of justice.
 slybandit
Joined: 7/10/2006
Msg: 82
Is it enough to do no harm?
Posted: 1/29/2010 11:39:08 AM
O.k., let's get back on topic. The mind-brain problem is fascinating and probably insoluble.

Let me preface the comment by admitting up-front that I'm a wolf wearing a sheep outfit here, and you will all no doubt swiftly realize what I mean upon reading what follows. Hopefully that will not completely rule out any validity for my commentary on the basis that I'm "corrupted by the system" and therefore not to be trusted.

JustDukky writes:

"It is exactly that issue. My case is that the law books are a relic of the past and aren't needed. My argument is that the codification of law will after a time corrupt it (if it isn't corrupted immediately by irrational decisions used as precedents, or the sophistry of lawyers) and people will look up the corrupted printed word and call it law. Referring to the letter of the law as found in a book is vastly inferior to referring to the heart for the spirit of the law. If law comes from the heart, it can't be corrupted by sharpy shyster lawyers, nor misinterpreted by those acting as judges. So if we get an incorruptible and superior law from the heart, why bother codifying it? It will always be there when we need it."

Well, to begin with, JustDukky, you're projecting. You are making the assumption that other people are honest, just, and want to do the right thing, merely because you happen to be.

Are you really that confident that you would stand trial for some false accusation against you, with anyone chosen as a Judge, unrestrained by codified rules and precedents?

Just wait a second, my particular brand of gutter sophistry isn't finished yet.

Here's your Judge: Roland Freisler, the head of the Volksgerichtshof, the "People's Court" of the Third Reich: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Freisler.

Still o.k. with no codified rules or precedents?

That's good, because so is Roland. Yeah, that was his legal philosophy.
"F_ck the Rules", roughly speaking.

Yes, JustDukky, that is a totally unfair argument. Get used to unfair arguments, because there's no rules or precedents anymore.

Oh, and no more lawyers, so you can't have one.

Well, except the guys who used to be lawyers. Who are now operating completely unrestrained by any rules at all.

Like the ex-lawyer who just smeared you with a completely false accusation of child rape because he figures it will be easier to take your stuff after you are torn limb from limb by an angry mob, which will be pretty easy to accomplish now that we don't bother with arcane nonsense like rules of proof and evidence. Hear-what? Huh? Nancy said that she'd heard Sally tell John that JustDukky raped her. Good enough for us, says the mob, must be true.

Anyhow, there's argument #1, we'll call it "some people are bad, so we need rules".

Here's argument #2.

Natural law is hogwash. It doesn't exist.

Locke, Hobbes, all of that stuff is a bunch of Just-So Stories aimed at legitimizing already existing governmental arrangements with self-serving mythologies.

Every single law presently in existence either is or is a direct descendant of rules imposed by violent force or the threat of it and maintained in force by fear.

The origin of the common law and all U.S. law is found in William the Conqueror's violent subjection of England. Most European law and the laws of non-English-speaking countries is descended from a legal code imposed by the dictatorial rule of the ancient Roman emperor Justinian. Those are facts.

Now, I'm perfectly capable of writing one of those Just-So Stories to present the entirety of the existing rules as derivations of do no harm. Well, I won't write it, I'll just steal the best parts out of Locke, Hobbes and some other guys much smarter than me and add some of my own b.s., but it would still be a Just-So Story that has no relationship to where the actual rules came from.

Now here's argument #3, "where the shyster tries to get clever".

You're actually right, JustDukky. (wait a second, he thinks...this has to be a trick).

(Yes, of course it's a trick. It's where I point out how you are right, but how your correct belief actually leads to the direct opposite of where you had assumed it should lead. The fun part is where I engage in sophistry right in front of your face, not only admit it but point it out and yet still leave you with a nagging inability to disagree with me.)

The truth is that all societies evolve from periods of relative legal simplicity to periods of relative legal complexity. If they last long enough, they oscillate back again.

The U.S. is currently suffering through an era of excessive legal complexity which is causing it a lot of problems, and may eventually cause it to collapse. Yes, I said it, collapse. Death by over-lawyering. (Isn't it amazing the credibility you suddenly acquire when arguing **against** your own self-interest?)

In part, one of the barriers standing in the way of reining it in is the mistaken belief that a technologically complex society inherently or necessarily requires extremely complex laws. This belief can easily be refuted by pointing out societies of near-equivalent technological complexity which have simpler or more complex systems.

Another one is ironically due to the very stability and effectiveness of it's original legal system. Most advanced countries made radical revisions to their fundamental constitutional architecture several times in their history, and much more recently. The U.K. is almost silently doing it right now as we speak, the French are on their fifth republic and the same can be said for pretty much any advanced country.

The U.S. is still limping along with a constitutional architecture that is substantially 18th century in vintage. It's like trying to deliver and install Internet service in a horse-drawn carriage, and all kinds of legal irrationality results.

E.g.: Should just 17% of the country be able to almost totally control the government?
Easily done if the 26 least populated states voted as a bloc.

Why is the vote of one guy in Wyoming worth 70 votes from people in California? How does that square with the 14th amendment if the guy in Wyoming happens to be white and the guys in California aren't?

Why did George W. Bush get to be President in 2000 if he actually lost the popular vote? Find me a non-lawyer who actually understands how the Electoral College works and I'll show you someone who believes it should be abolished.

You all love lawyers, right? (Chorus of boos.) Why is it impossible to be appointed to the Court that will actually decide, for example, whether you can get an abortion, without being one? Why should 25 of 42 presidents have been former lawyers?

Hey, maybe the Constitution should actually LIMIT the supply of lawyers as a way of limiting the volume of litigation and its impact on the economy, and keeping the system focused on solving real issues?
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 83
Is it enough to do no harm?
Posted: 1/29/2010 3:43:29 PM
@ quietjohn2


reference material so newcomers can 'calibrate' their 'hearts' to the accepted norm.

That's the contract I mentioned. The social contract of community membership should have the terms spelled out clearly and explicitly in common language such that there are no ambiguities. The signer (in order to be a member of the community) is taking solemn and binding oath to abide by the terms of the agreement.

This is the way it works now under the existing system, except most people aren't aware that they signed on, which document is the contract (actually, they all are), or even of its terms. I'd call that a fraudulent contract, but hey...That's just the way I see it.

@ sly


You are making the assumption that other people are honest, just, and want to do the right thing,

I am assuming most of them are. I'm also assuming most people are governed more by fear than courage and therefore are more often than not coerced into doing the wrong thing by false authority.


Are you really that confident that you would stand trial for some false accusation against you, with anyone chosen as a Judge, unrestrained by codified rules and precedents?

I see a de jure court of the common law with a jury of twelve good and true souls taken from the community (acting on consensus as a pretty good approximation of a rational mind) as my best shot at a fair trial. I firmly believe I'd have an even better one if they didn't try to shoehorn somebody else's case, or former judgment into mine as a precedent. I've seen judges make errors in logic that went down on the books as an erroneaous judgment, to presumably harm a lot of innocent people with the precedent until finally being overturned when thwe error is found...whenever that might be.


Here's your Judge: Roland Freisler, the head of the Volksgerichtshof, the "People's Court" of the Third Reich: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Freisler.

He isn't my "judge" in the sense that most people think of a judge. Almost all judges today misinform the jury when they instruct it and usurp its power. In fact the jury has the power to pass judgment and sentence. Here is a good case in point. the man was unjustly convicted and then disallowed an appeal. Why did the judge direct (wrongly) the jury to convict? Why didn't the jury follow its conscience and acquit? why was the appeal disallowed? This is justice?? Frankly I'd rather "take my chances" with a properly instructed jury, aware of its power.

http://www.smhilaw.com/Publications/ART-0507-JuryNullification.pdf


Still o.k. with no codified rules or precedents?

Yup!


That's good, because so is Roland. Yeah, that was his legal philosophy.
"F_ck the Rules", roughly speaking.

He was a judge under a tyrannical regime. I'm fighting tyranny. Judge Whatzisname could never have presided over a de jure court of natural law because his rulings were the very antithesis of it. To compare a judge in a tyranny with a judge in a free and just society as equivalent because in both cases the codified law was ignored is ludicrous to say the least...What was the name of that fallacy again?...actually there are a few fallacies involved, but I'll just take non sequitur and the sweeping generalization fallacy for now.


Get used to unfair arguments, because there's no rules or precedents anymore.

There won't be too many lawyers making them either..."fine print", "legalese" and deception will be going out the window.


Oh, and no more lawyers, so you can't have one.

Believe me...The LAST thing I want in court is a lawyer representing me. I'll argue my own case, thank you. (and don't even think of retorting with that old cliché...I have a better one handy as a response)


...except the guys who used to be lawyers. Who are now operating completely unrestrained by any rules at all.

The rules they will have to follow will be logic, and clarity of expression...I feel sorry for them. The well equipped defendent will have a logician, not a lawyer to help him out. The Judge will be a qualified ethicist reaffirming his oath before he presides.


Like the ex-lawyer who just smeared you with a completely false accusation of child rape because he figures it will be easier to take your stuff after you are torn limb from limb by an angry mob, which will be pretty easy to accomplish now that we don't bother with arcane nonsense like rules of proof and evidence.

Is he my accuser? Why isn't the burden of proof on him? See, I think you misunderstand. The jury isn't gonna be a lynch mob. They will be properly instructed by the social contract they sign, which puts them under certain obligations to produce a just verdict. What makes you think the jury wouldn't be held in check by liability for a wrongful decision?


Natural law is hogwash. It doesn't exist.

Far better to put your faith in some scribbled legalese on paper; that's law alright!


Every single law presently in existence either is or is a direct descendant of rules imposed by violent force or the threat of it and maintained in force by fear.

In that case law itself is a tyrant in need of overthrowing! The cause of justice DEMANDS it!


Those are facts.

Facts of which I am well aware. Why wouldn't you wanna get rid of them too?


it would still be a Just-So Story that has no relationship to where the actual rules came from

Oh?...Do you know where the rules come from? Please enlighten us.


You're actually right, JustDukky.

Tell me something I don't already know.


yet still leave you with a nagging inability to disagree with me.

We'll see...


The truth is that all societies evolve from periods of relative legal simplicity to periods of relative legal complexity. If they last long enough, they oscillate back again.

Don't they call the oscillations revolts?


and may eventually cause it to collapse

It will be the economy that causes the collapse. The fall of the unjust legal system will only be a consequence of the anger of the people, who will rightly recognize the "over lawyering" allowed the papering of a phony facade of "law" on a system run by criminals. They will recognize the role of lawyers & legislators (most of whom can't even read the legalese of the bils they pass) as the "hired guns" of the crooks to ensure they stayed above the law.


the mistaken belief that a technologically complex society inherently or necessarily requires extremely complex laws.

Who is stupid enough to believe that? most of the people I know (from almost any walk of life) know that the legal system is constructed so as to screw them silly. I'll admit that it's only the smarter ones that know it's deliberate, but people seem to be catching on. The evidence I've seen would indicate your assertion to be incorrect.


Another one is ironically due to the very stability and effectiveness of it's original legal system.

It was obviously unstable or it would not have been so easily perverted over time, thus making it ineffective in that some sneaky lawyers managed to overlay a matrix-like corporation on a country without anybody suspecting...Pretty slick if you ask me. They'll have to study a lot of legalese before they know how badly they've been screwed.


Most advanced countries made radical revisions to their fundamental constitutional architecture several times in their history, and much more recently.

It is the "much more recently" that concerns me the most. 1934 was a pivotal year in the economic governance of both the US and (by coincidence I'm sure..haha) Canada (and probably all the commonwealth countries). That's when they went into "receivership." The US actually went bankrupt (thanks to the Fed) and they had to confiscate all the privately held gold.


the same can be said for pretty much any advanced country.

Thanks to the bankers and of course, their slick little paid servants, the lawyers.


he U.S. is still limping along with a constitutional architecture that is substantially 18th century in vintage.

False. See above.


Should just 17% of the country be able to almost totally control the government?

It would be better than the o.oooooo17% that totally controls it now. The government should be totally controlled by 100% of the population.


Why is the vote of one guy in Wyoming worth 70 votes from people in California?

It isn't...not rightfully anyway.


Why did George W. Bush get to be President in 2000 if he actually lost the popular vote?

He had a lot of help cheating. Obviously he didn't have the brains to competently cheat on his own, like Nixon.


Find me a non-lawyer who actually understands how the Electoral College works and I'll show you someone who believes it should be abolished.

I could probably agree with that, though not being American, I've only a passing acquaintance with it.


You all love lawyers, right? (Chorus of boos.)

Actually (jokes aside) a lot of lawyers are pretty good people. I even have a few for friends (but never as attorneys). I rather suspect that even you are one of the decent 2% of lawyers and you only get tarred by the brush deserved by the other 98% (LOL)


>Why is it impossible to be appointed to the Court that will actually decide, for example, whether you can get an abortion, without being one?

Because it's a private club (the Law Society, the BAR etc.)...and we ain't in it. (unless we take some unconscionable oath that would do a disservice to our clients).

It's actually been fun talking to you and I'm glad to have a practicing lawyer in here. (I have a whole raft of lawyer gags I've been dying to try out, and I do value your opinion, to spite the odd sarcastic retort) I'd love to see if you'd be willing to consider dumping legal practice to life in a freer, more just society than the one you currently reside in.
 xlr8ingmargo
Joined: 7/28/2009
Msg: 84
Is it enough to do no harm?
Posted: 1/29/2010 4:17:01 PM
Meow meow, hiss hiss...

Man the last two posts were quite entertaining!!!
I'll watch you drink a beer and make a toast with my cup of coffee.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 85
Is it enough to do no harm?
Posted: 1/29/2010 5:53:53 PM

I'll watch you drink a beer and make a toast with my cup of coffee.

Bottoms up Mar. (heh heh)...
 acuddler
Joined: 10/30/2009
Msg: 86
Is it enough to do no harm?
Posted: 1/30/2010 12:49:45 PM
The Dukkys of this world seem to begin with the ASSumption that all people are basically good, kind, pleasant, sane, peaceful, etc, with only a little bad in them, and it is only the big, bad, Military-Industrial-Political combine that ever makes them even the least bit naughty by bringing out their bad. In reality, history shows the reverse to be true. People are basically: evil, selfish, violent, nasty, theiving, and generally bad, with only a little good (if any) in them.

Those who seem nice under conditions of plenty become less so when they are suddenly poor, afraid, or otherwise stressed. It has been said that any society is only three missed meals away from anarchy and revolution. The count may vary, but the principle is sound. Deprive anyone of adequate food, or shelter, for long enough, and you have riots, murder, and more, to deal with. With some people all that is needed is for them to be deprived of their favorite TV show for a few days.

I had a classmate who whined about the effect booze had on her beloved daddy. He was such a sweet, darling, fellow normally-when sober-but get a couple of drinks into him, and he became a violent, raging, beast who bad mouthed, and beat, everyone around him, molested anyone nearby, and otherwise seemd a totally different person. I explained to the whiner that the drunk was her real dad, and the nice guy was an act. He could only keep the act up for so long before the mask slipped, and the real him peeked out. She argued about that, but facts are facts. Humanity as a whole is the same way. Any nice, polite, civilized, sane, etc, types we see are merely acting. Civilization is a facade....a stage prop...a fake. In moments of stress, the real human shows through, and it is always nasty. That is why there will always be wars...until God, Space Aliens, or some other higher power, takes over and radically alters humanity; whether by spiritual conversion, gene modification, brain implants, or whatever. Enjoy.
 xlr8ingmargo
Joined: 7/28/2009
Msg: 87
Is it enough to do no harm?
Posted: 1/30/2010 1:53:55 PM
No wonder your single; you've lost faith in humanity, never mind good people.
We are out here even with our masks on.
We all wear them but the real us is all too soon revealed.


And I LOVE FOOTBALL
(esp. over the couch...)
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 88
Is it enough to do no harm?
Posted: 1/30/2010 11:47:41 PM
@ Cuddles


The Dukkys of this world seem to begin with the ASSumption that all people are basically good, kind, pleasant, sane, peaceful, etc, with only a little bad in them

This little Dukky doesn't make that assumption. I wish you'd quit making the ASSumption that I do.


People are basically: evil, selfish, violent, nasty, theiving, and generally bad, with only a little good (if any) in them.

Didn't your mommy ever tell you if you can't say something nice about someone you shouldn't say it at all? You just impugned the character of seven billion people with an assumption stated as though fact. (Not bad for a slow newsday)


Those who seem nice under conditions of plenty become less so when they are suddenly poor, afraid, or otherwise stressed. It has been said that any society is only three missed meals away from anarchy and revolution. The count may vary, but the principle is sound.

I wish it were true about the anarchy part. It would really be a refreshing change to see a revolution result in anarchy. It would beat the hell out of the forcible imposition of a new "order"!


With some people all that is needed is for them to be deprived of their favorite TV show for a few days.

What a great idea!...Maybe I should have said we ought to burn the TVs instead of the law books.


He was such a sweet, darling, fellow normally-when sober-but get a couple of drinks into him, and he became a violent, raging, beast who bad mouthed, and beat, everyone around him

It only goes to show how different people are from one another. I'm like that guy when I'm sober. Fortunately I seldom suffer from sobriety anymore...


I explained to the whiner that the drunk was her real dad, and the nice guy was an act.

Would it then be true for me that I'm really a nice guy and the murderous violent thug I am when sober is just an act?


Any nice, polite, civilized, sane, etc, types we see are merely acting.

So I'm only acting drunk?


Civilization is a facade....a stage prop...a fake.

With a slight change in your intended context for "civilization" I can fully agree with that.


That is why there will always be wars...until God, Space Aliens, or some other higher power, takes over and radically alters humanity; whether by spiritual conversion, gene modification, brain implants, or whatever.

That's an erroneous conclusion based on flawed assumptions.
 themadfiddler
Joined: 12/9/2009
Msg: 89
Is it enough to do no harm?
Posted: 1/31/2010 12:13:15 AM

The Dukkys of this world seem to begin with the ASSumption that all people are basically good, kind, pleasant, sane, peaceful, etc, with only a little bad in them, and it is only the big, bad, Military-Industrial-Political combine that ever makes them even the least bit naughty by bringing out their bad.


Another freshly steamed biscuit from the Cuddly Straw-man Construction Company bent in the middle of the road for our displeasure and non-edification.

What do you do when someone keeps getting called on the same logical fallacy over and over and over ad nauseum but they don't seem to get it?

The mind truly boggles...
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 90
Is it enough to do no harm?
Posted: 1/31/2010 12:20:17 AM
@ quiet

Thanks for the tip!... I'll try it next time I have to edit.

That merits a beer...Have one on me...
 xlr8ingmargo
Joined: 7/28/2009
Msg: 91
Is it enough to do no harm?
Posted: 1/31/2010 5:24:30 AM
Coffee Coffee Coffee~ They don't have one of those little cups for me to put on here.
They don't have a little hot guy with appropriate parts either. No little peace signs,
lets do it signs, they are all like NORMAL. It's discimination I tell you.


I wouldn't use one anyway. It's just too early to think about beer (BUT NOT THE NASTY). To think at one time I had Yukon Jack for breakfast.... EEEWWW That would definitely do harm.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 92
Is it enough to do no harm?
Posted: 2/5/2010 5:18:37 AM

...not to think of yourself as 'just' anything

JustDukky likes to think of himself not as just a Dukky, but as a just Dukky too.

have you considered reading Nietzsche's "Zarathustra"?

I've considered it. What makes you think I'm not an Übermensch?

I'd also suggest readings on Paulo Freire who was a Marxist Jesuit teaching literacy in Central America under a system he called Conscientization.

Being as their motives are highly suspect, I trust nothing said or written by a Jesuit. Some things may be works of near genius, but that is still no reason to trust them. The only opinions or philosophy I truly value are my own. I leave it to others to refute the assertions I make and when they do, I adjust my philosophy accordingly. My "system" has worked out quite well.

I speak as a pluralist assuming there is no single correct answer

One ought to always provide at least a rationale for the assumptions made and first prove them unprovable. What is your rationale and are you sure you can't be proved wrong?
 Inicia
Joined: 12/21/2007
Msg: 93
Is it enough to do no harm?
Posted: 2/27/2010 9:59:31 PM
Is it enough to do no harm: Laws are often manipulated to benefit the present dominant system....Was it once fashionable to burn people because someone had an idea in their heart that those people were doing harm??? Witches, heretics, non Germaic people, slaves, heathens etc??? Many in this forum have asked that harm be clarified and often natural law is stated as "satsifactory". Natural law to do no harm is at best unattainable as human understanding of harm is socialized not innate...
Sometimes we kill people because we know in our "hearts" they do "wrong" or "harm". Criminals, War Casualties, traitors, trespassers, etc...
Ted Bundy who abducted and killed unknown amounts of women was offered as an example earlier, I offer another exampleJohn Wayne Gacy, who was convicted of raping and killing 33 men, both were executed for there trespasses against humans. Are the aforementioned Valid examples of removing harm from our society through harm?Were we safer? no... These people were incarcerated. If they had remained incarcerated society would have been Just as "safe" as through execution. And in killing them we become powerless over other such villians.
It is to say to violent offenders "we can do nothing to stop you unless we kill you!..as long as you live you retain power over your victims."
And that seems oxymoronic to me...IMO the message to the criminal "you are so powerful we cannot contain you: you have permeated our society. WE have lost control over you....."
Have we lost control of the laws we created?? Do we burn all laws explaining do no harm???? what harm do the laws do? Are we afraid of our own laws?? and is the damage done and permeating society??? AS with theologies, philosophies, sciences, religions/myths, political systems, doctrines, that have become outdated and useless yet form the foundation of our society and infiltrate every aspect of society: will annhilating the laws leave us helpless to deconstruct and/or reconstruct the foundation and do we want to protect the old laws???burning or killing things/people are extreme measures to remove (heartfelt) harm because "our hearts" have been known to confuse and fail us in perceptions....
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 94
Is it enough to do no harm?
Posted: 2/27/2010 10:01:10 PM

Do no harm or do no harem?

Doing someone else's harem could do you harm...especially if he finds out!

Is it enough to have only one wife or is six bettter ?

Zero is a nice round number...but to each his own...pick your favorite.

What do women think of a man with six wives?

I don't know, but as long as you're asking, what do men think of a woman with six husbands?
quote]Should all the wives be treated equally or should some be kept especially for their treasures?

Favoritism could cause emotional harm to some of them, but lack of it will probably cause physical harm to you.
 xlr8ingmargo
Joined: 7/28/2009
Msg: 95
Is it enough to do no harm?
Posted: 2/27/2010 11:36:14 PM
All I have to say is I dont care if Im a favorite but If I have to be forced to share I better get it first!
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Is it enough to do no harm?