PDA

View Full Version : Laws Don't Mean Anything



Dr. Solar Wolff
Sunday, April 18th, 2004, 07:00 AM
Friends often want to debate the legality of something with me. They sometimes mention the Income Tax as being illegal under the US Constitution. Or maybe it is the right to "own guns". Or maybe it is the right to illegal search.

All this doesn't matter. Laws don't matter. All governments are in power because they control the army. In short, they control the guns. If you do something they don't like, they will come after you. Their ultimate sanction is death. Look at Iraq and this guy Al Sadr. What is he alleged to have done? He is alleged to have killed a rival cleric. How many clerics and other Iraqis have the Americans killed? Who issues an arrest warrent for them? Al Sadr opposes the Americans so the Americans drummed up a "charge" to have him arrested, "tried", and punished. If not, they will kill him, the ultimate sanction.

It is the same everywhere if you don't pay your taxes. It is the same if you oppose the sitting government loudly and make good sense. They will come after you. Look at what happened to this guy Kelly in the UK.

What if, as the US Constitution says, citizens have the right to bear arms (not guns for hunting). "Arms" means the same weaponry the army has. If each citizen had a medium range ballistic rocket tipped with a nuclear weapon, would there even be any talk of taxes, or illegal searches, or free speech? The answer is no. We would have all our rights. It is all about guns, not laws. In spite of all the platitudes, we are living in a might-makes-right world. Laws are for people without weapon's parity.

Telperion
Sunday, April 18th, 2004, 06:12 PM
That's true in the final analysis, all legal directives are ultimately enforced by the threat or use of violence. Weber's definition of the state is of course the entity that has a 'monopoly on the legitimate use of force', and the late economist Mancur Olson described the state as a 'stationary bandit' which has learned it can forcibly extract more revenue from a captive, sedentary population than it could from a hit-and-run approach.

On the other hand, changing the content of laws can have some significant influence. E.g. it is lax immigration laws that allow the US to be flooded by immigrants, the content of tax laws can have a significant influence on economic activity. I wouldn't say that laws don't mean anything (since they obviously do on a day-to-day level), but rather that we should never forget that state power (expressed through the law) ultimately rests on the state having a relatively greater capability (legitimate or otherwise) to inflict physical harm on the population than vice versa. Where it does not, anarchy and dark age conditions ensue.

SudVolk
Sunday, April 18th, 2004, 09:40 PM
Dr. Solar Wolff (http://forums.skadi.net/member.php?u=1359) do you really want to live in a society where everyone reaches for his gun every time he feels hard done by? Maybe you already do?

Ominous Lord Spoonblade
Monday, April 19th, 2004, 06:06 AM
"Laws don't mean anything"

This is true. Laws themselves are nothing without (proposed) consequences for breaking them combined with enforcement of said consquences if you do. Simple enough.

But you suggest that whoever has the physical means, more so the weapons, get to make the laws and the rules and if we all had guns it would be equal. That's not true at all. Physical power is not the only form of power. The person with the most power is the one willing to pull the trigger. Likewise how those who are most likely to break the laws are those who don't care about the consequences. There are people who have commit crimes knowing that they could go to jail, or that they could get the death sentence, but this didn't stop them. Bigger and more effective weapons for the individual don't make a difference. Who would blow up everyone first? LOL

Also, offense is not the only issue. What about defense? Political figures don't walk around without security because the average person could walk up and slit their throat if they so chose. Equal means of force does not make anything even. Just like with everything else, there is no equality. We would not all have our "rights".

Dr. Solar Wolff
Monday, April 19th, 2004, 07:10 AM
Do you really want to live in a society where everyone reaches for his gun every time he feels hard done by ? Maybe you already do ?

The jackbooted thugs at Homeland Security come with guns drawn.

As far as immigration or drugs are concerned, there is nothing we have in the USA, nothing, that the government doesn't want us to have. In the case of illegal immigration and the drug trade, the first is sanctioned by the government and the second is run by the government.

kinvolk
Monday, April 19th, 2004, 08:58 PM
An armed society is a POLITE society. I remain armed and ready.

SudVolk
Monday, April 19th, 2004, 09:03 PM
An armed society is a POLITE society. I remain armed and ready.Yeah, look at Iraq. It's all "please and thank-you" at the moment.

kinvolk
Monday, April 19th, 2004, 09:07 PM
Yeah, look at Iraq. It's all "please and thank-you" at the moment.
A WHITE armed society is polite . Iraquis are barbarians.[And not the good-germanic kind] Life is cheap in 3rd world countries, I know this. I lived in El Salvadore during its civil war. Also traveled extensively thru-out central america, South america and south-east asia

Dr. Solar Wolff
Tuesday, April 20th, 2004, 06:12 AM
I was originally talking about the difference between what government says is its right to rule (rule by law) and the actual fact of the matter.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 05:53 AM
Subjectivity is a dire strait that puts too many people under scrutiny by the law. I do not like the Neo-Con stance on attacking political dissidents. It has happened to me and my family is a mess right now for defying standards on a military base.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Thursday, June 10th, 2004, 06:57 AM
Yeah, look at Iraq. It's all "please and thank-you" at the moment.


Great example! There is no gun control in Iraq. If there had been, and if the people had no weapons, the occupation forces would do what they liked, unopposed, and nobody on this planet would even know what was going on over there.

Skeptic
Thursday, June 10th, 2004, 09:26 AM
No one has the right to control others; we have only dominion over ourselves.

pearl
Thursday, June 10th, 2004, 10:20 AM
No one has the right to control others; we have only dominion over ourselves.
As much as I agree with this statement...and wish that there were a society without governmental dictators wielding law books and threatening punishment for opposition and un-conformity, I just don't think that people can be trusted to govern themselves.

Most people lack the manners, morals and self-restraint necessary to live a life free of rules. Could you just imagine if anyone could do whatever they wanted...without fear of punishment or reprecussion? It would be an utterly chaotic free-for-all...Murder, destruction, theft, rape, drugs, etc. would all be increased ten-fold (or more)

I'm not saying that people are generally "evil", I am just saying that there have always been rules set and regulated...the all-imposing laws are what people have built their societies and lives upon - what you can and can't do is the basis for every decision that we make. If laws just disapeered today, the masses would eventually obliterate their own existence.

No one can seriously believe that if there were no laws that everyone would just get along peacefully, respect one another and stick to their own lives. It just wouldn't happen...People are "meddlers"...always meddling in everyone else's business, coveting what is not their own and despising those who oppose themselves. It's Human Nature...We cannot be trusted to our own devices.

Yeah, laws and rules suck (I couldn't think of a better word:P )...especially the way that they are enforced and imposed...but without them, things would be much worse.

Skeptic
Saturday, June 12th, 2004, 09:24 AM
That's true, and I concur; it does suck. It's a buzz-kill acknowledging that there are limitations and restrictions, but at the same time it is a relief, knowing the law provides us with at least moderate protection.

Northern Paladin
Sunday, June 13th, 2004, 02:29 AM
All this doesn't matter. Laws don't matter. All governments are in power because they control the army. In short, they control the guns. If you do something they don't like, they will come after you.

Yes they control the "Guns". Police,Swat, National Guard. But who let's them control the "Guns"? In the end it is the people who volunteerly gave up certain rights in order to live "Under" Government. Which obviously has benefits.

Usually that something they don't like. Is detrimental to society. Murder,Rape,Arson,Robbery,. Punishment for crime, esp Murder is strictly enfored as Security is the Number 1 reason people give up certain freedoms and submit to government.


It is the same everywhere if you don't pay your taxes. It is the same if you oppose the sitting government loudly and make good sense. They will come after you. Look at what happened to this guy Kelly in the UK.


If you Oppose any Government Loudly and Make Good Sense (gain quite a following) you will be sanctioned with something. Or else how could a government stay in Power. Terror is the Number One Instrument of the State. Without it there would be no State.


What if, as the US Constitution says, citizens have the right to bear arms (not guns for hunting). "Arms" means the same weaponry the army has. If each citizen had a medium range ballistic rocket tipped with a nuclear weapon, would there even be any talk of taxes, or illegal searches, or free speech? The answer is no. We would have all our rights. It is all about guns, not laws. In spite of all the platitudes, we are living in a might-makes-right world. Laws are for people without weapon's parity.

Here's a Question would you want all your neighbors to have Nuclear Weapons at their disposal? Would you want all your neighbors to own tanks? I imagine this would make Neighborhood disputes interesting :P

Phlegethon
Sunday, June 13th, 2004, 12:36 PM
A WHITE armed society is polite . Iraquis are barbarians.
So white America is civilized? Where does all the Jerry Springer/Geraldo Rivera white trash come from then? I'll tell you what: Every Iraqi has more culture and wisdom in his pinky than the whole of America combined. They had a high culture when Europe was still basically living in the jungle or in the mud.

kinvolk
Saturday, June 19th, 2004, 07:24 PM
So white America is civilized? Where does all the Jerry Springer/Geraldo Rivera white trash come from then? I'll tell you what: Every Iraqi has more culture and wisdom in his pinky than the whole of America combined. They had a high culture when Europe was still basically living in the jungle or in the mud.
Gee, But how do you REALLY feel?

Jack
Sunday, June 20th, 2004, 10:41 AM
Laws can be seen as environmental conditions which restrict the possibilities for action. Some people have the will to break these conditions, most do not. Very few have the will to break the authority which imposes these conditions.


No one has the right to control others; we have only dominion over ourselves.

Your 'rights' are floating abstractions. From what do you derive these 'rights'? Rights are either priveliges of power, or claims to said priveliges. You have your rights courtesy of those with the ability to blackmail you and destroy you, who hold it as a rule not to. It hinges on power and intention, not absurd consequentialist arguments. These are merely used to assert power over others, to persuade them to a point of view beneficial to the self.

Skeptic
Monday, June 21st, 2004, 12:53 AM
Your 'rights' are floating abstractions. From what do you derive these 'rights'? Rights are either priveliges of power, or claims to said priveliges. You have your rights courtesy of those with the ability to blackmail you and destroy you, who hold it as a rule not to. It hinges on power and intention, not absurd consequentialist arguments. These are merely used to assert power over others, to persuade them to a point of view beneficial to the self.
These 'rights' are evident from birth. We come into this world naked, with only our body and mind (the one thing we truly regulate). I have the ability to take your life, but I lack the power to change your thoughts. Rationalize all you like but it's as simple as that, and until you learn to discern between material and consciousness, you will not understand.

Jack
Monday, June 21st, 2004, 12:57 PM
These 'rights' are evident from birth.

Not really. I'm quite sure Genghis Khan had a few thousand babies killed. Why is it that only in the past two hundred or so years that these 'inaliable, eternal rights of man' have been unearthed? Why not earlier?


We come into this world naked, with only our body and mind (the one thing we truly regulate).

Pick up smoking for two years and try to quit and control your mental processes - in plainer terms, try your best not to think of cigarettes involuntarily - then tell me you have control of your mind. Are you suggesting that, while you recognise it is my mind that does the thinking, I control my mind? What is this 'I' you speak of - seperate from the 'mind' - other than a series of thoughts, which can be quite adequately explained as a series of biological processes?


I have the ability to take your life, but I lack the power to change your thoughts.

Phineas Gage copped a steel rod through the frontal lobe of his brain which entirely altered his personality. I think it's possible to change thoughts if you injected specialised chemicals into the brain. It is known that injecting testosterone into the weakest of a pack of monkeys will soon have the weakest member dominating the group. Give the effect various addictions (love is more addictive than cocaine, last I heard) can have on mental processes, can you prove that free will exists, and that the struggle against an addiction (heroin, for instance) is not the inequality of various desires?


Rationalize all you like but it's as simple as that, and until you learn to discern between material and consciousness, you will not understand.

Provide evidence that this 'consciousness' you speak of is seperable from the material.

kinvolk
Monday, June 21st, 2004, 11:18 PM
''Government'' is merely a euphemism for ''The biggest gang in town''.

Furius
Saturday, March 5th, 2005, 03:31 PM
You may be interested in "The Nature of State Power: The Farce of Democracy in Australia", as it seems relevant to this topic.
The full text can be read at http://members.ozemail.com.au/~natinfo/nature3.htm

Yes, it directly relates to Australia, but its wider principles are applicable to the other European nations.

Furius
Saturday, March 5th, 2005, 03:34 PM
Two quotes of note:


"He who saves a nation breaks no law"

Napoleon


"I do not recognise your law"

Ned Kelly


From: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~natinfo/polcop3.htm

Oskorei
Saturday, March 5th, 2005, 05:01 PM
Interesting subject. Personally I feel that there is an Eternal Law, which is Natural and also Inner in most people. We all know that some things are wrong, and feel that we are commiting a crime against ourselves when we do these things. Then there is the Mundane Law, the law of the State. This is, like many posters observed, based on the monopoly of the "right" to use violence.

In ideal conditions, Natural and State Laws coincide. But usually they don't. It is illegal to criticise homosexuals or Jewish power in Sweden, but abortions are legal, just to take some examples. But when Natural and Mundane Law coincides, authority can be seen as Sacred and Traditional. At least that is my understandning of it.

Personally I follow the Natural Laws from an inner compulsion, and the not so Natural laws only when the consequences and risks involved are serious enough.

A note on Anarchism also. It is my impression that the more idealistic anarchists through history (especially Kropotkin and Tolstoj comes to mind) have built their creeds on the false assumption that their own nature was shared by all men. Ie. that they themselves were very much in touch with the Natural Law, and that without State Law, this would be the case for everybody else too. But now I am rambling :)

Huzar
Saturday, March 5th, 2005, 05:31 PM
I'm not exactly anarchist, like i've said in the past, but on this point, i admit there is a GREAT truth............Everyone who thinks with his own brain, knows the laws to be the result of the decision of the dominant class. It's not an anarchist critic, but only what i believe logic. The world is ruled by the law of the strongest. Today like 10'000 years ago. It's in human nature. It's the sad reality of our specie. Probably i'm not an anarchist, but there is a trong residual of social darwinism in me. Cause this, i can't to be neither "progressist" neither a real "law and order" man. Nurnberg process in 1945 ? What a laugh. New German and Italian Constitutions in 1948(imposed by allies) DOUBLE laughs. I could make many other historic and literal examples and comment but it's not the case in my opinion. Anyone who read with attention an history book, could understand it.

Germanicus
Sunday, March 6th, 2005, 08:10 AM
An armed society is a POLITE society. I remain armed and ready.
Amen to that.

Sigurdr
Saturday, July 2nd, 2005, 02:51 PM
I agree with you man,and i say also:the law is NOT the same for everybody.








''Government'' is merely a euphemism for ''The biggest gang in town''.

Jack
Tuesday, July 5th, 2005, 02:08 AM
So white America is civilized? Where does all the Jerry Springer/Geraldo Rivera white trash come from then? I'll tell you what: Every Iraqi has more culture and wisdom in his pinky than the whole of America combined. They had a high culture when Europe was still basically living in the jungle or in the mud.
Germany looks pretty damn civilized now, with the gay marriage thing, and I think I read something on BBC about that Armin Meiws guy having his manslaughter charge overturned. What was that for? Cannibalism? How civilized.

UmbraWraith
Wednesday, July 13th, 2005, 01:35 AM
Laws mean nothing for what are laws without people.

As for people in general their is the general decaying standards of caring of themselves and the hell with the world these days.

Today there seems to be less morals,honor,respect or caring of anything.

There does seem to be alot of hypocrisy,greed,desire,lust,materialism, manipulation.


The problem with government is there is nobody who really wants to act in the representation of the people but rather in the representation of themselves.

The government will pass various laws only to control and maintain their power and assets.

The government will protect it's future but inturn does not make any real contribution for the people.

Again the laws they do make for people is somthing that controls and maintains there is usually not benefits socially or politically.

It seems all big brother were watching you and such and being a good civilian is one who is a good consumer and acts in all accordance of the law.


I really have no answer or solution since the beginning of time in various cultures and types of governments there has always been flaws.

We live in a world where the population is rising rapidly so their seems to be a need in all governments to have this big power of control.

The consequence of big population is alot of people are mis-placed or at a disadvantage and sometimes are mis-represented.

Again there seems to be no quick fixing of this problem but the ill-treatment and ways of the government seem to get worse every generation throughout history.

UmbraWraith
Wednesday, July 13th, 2005, 01:37 AM
Also please ignore and forgive my mispelling and typing.

Joermungand
Sunday, July 17th, 2005, 01:34 PM
Germany looks pretty damn civilized now, with the gay marriage thing, and I think I read something on BBC about that Armin Meiws guy having his manslaughter charge overturned. What was that for? Cannibalism? How civilized.
Phunney thing is that all yer beloved "civilized" countries are getting their own Gay Mariage :) The most ****** up psychos are not from Germany (Fish[********** thug] dahmer , gacy , son of sam , Manson , sodiac freak and 1000more :) )


In germany and many other european countries not every incestious redneck or drug dealer can get a gun that easily and thats fact :) and thats why we dont have that much robbing , killing , raping :D

Edit: (Please refrain from breaking rule 4-- vulgarity, obscenity, etc. Thanks!-- Jennifer)

Blackwidow
Tuesday, October 14th, 2008, 01:28 PM
Clausewitz said that war is a continuation of politics by other means and Lenine said : politics is a continuation of war by other means.
Vladimir Ilitch Oulianov was right.

It is quite important to oppose Natural law to Positive law : lex naturalis posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere and positive law is made by human beings.
Today, legal positivism rules the game but when a pedagogical example is needed to explain what it means, some lawyers talk about Nuremberg Laws and people often forget that during the Third Reich the law was essentially natural.
Carl Schmitt, the german jurist and political theorist, differentiate the human rights from the institutional warranties. He also states : “Sovereign is he who decides whether there is a state of emergency.”
I think that there is a place for Law, as far as there is a place for politics protecting or ruining nations.

p.s. : this is my first reply on this lovely forum and I hope that my English is not too bad for you! :)

Vindefense
Tuesday, February 10th, 2009, 07:10 PM
Perhaps, the most profound and meaningful analysis on law you will ever read is from Frederick Bastiat. The Law. you can find it here.
//www.fee.org/pdf/books/The_Law.pdf
His view is the one that I feel is the most accurate. Law is not about guns, it is not about legislation, or statutes, it is JUSTICE. Anything that causes injustice is merely a distortion of the law and as such it must rely on force.

It should be evident that respect for the Law was more evident during the time in the US when government intervened the least. In comparison, Law today supports the state and mostly serves to extract money from the populace.

There is no way a judge, paid by the state, can offer a fair trial when it is in his interest to convict you. To do so he can render the jury impotent and overrule the verdict, and dismiss the jury. The judge will insist that the jury follow the letter of the law and only delegate facts. This however offers the people no remedy for justice against laws that are unjust.

"Law is Justice! Not vast volumes of incoherent legislation that criminalize
the trivial while offering repose to the criminal."

Roemertreu
Saturday, August 7th, 2010, 05:20 PM
"Laws don't mean anything"

This is true. Laws themselves are nothing without (proposed) consequences for breaking them combined with enforcement of said consquences if you do. Simple enough.

But you suggest that whoever has the physical means, more so the weapons, get to make the laws and the rules and if we all had guns it would be equal. That's not true at all. Physical power is not the only form of power. The person with the most power is the one willing to pull the trigger. Likewise how those who are most likely to break the laws are those who don't care about the consequences. There are people who have commit crimes knowing that they could go to jail, or that they could get the death sentence, but this didn't stop them. Bigger and more effective weapons for the individual don't make a difference. Who would blow up everyone first? LOL

Also, offense is not the only issue. What about defense? Political figures don't walk around without security because the average person could walk up and slit their throat if they so chose. Equal means of force does not make anything even. Just like with everything else, there is no equality. We would not all have our "rights".

There are other kinds of power especially if you get to elect the people running the government. Numbers and organization will get you many things, which is why it's pretty sorry that whites don't have the same type of organization as other minorities. If we had someting as powerful as the NAACP or even AARP or other such groups, we would be listened to. But, since whites don't vote in blocs the way blacks do, we have less power because no one needs to court the white vote.

Ekonhammer
Friday, February 17th, 2012, 07:18 PM
U R so right, Dr Solar, and the "sheeple" need to wake up to this fact:

Government do not exist for the benefit of the governed. They exist just like corporations: For their own profit and benefit. Citizens and their petty demands are a nuisance! Get in their way and see how quickly U find yourself surrounded by concrete walls! They don't give a damn about "justice" or "truth", they have a resposibility to their immediate financers and backers.

This applies just as much to "democratic" societies such as the UK or USA. Certainly, anyone who has read the "Homeland Security" laws has lost all hope of seeing their "Constitution" upheld. U can B made to disappear anytime U get in their way or cause them enough discomfort. If U R famous enough, theyr have more delicate ways of removing and dicrediting you: Take one look at Julian Assange or so many others.

Van Wellenkamp
Saturday, June 23rd, 2012, 12:56 PM
Most people when left to themselves will interact peacefully with others, unless provoked. I have always felt most laws are ridiculous and written because some people want to feel important. Anarchy is not a bad thing. It prevents stupid religious and governmental scrutiny.

renownedwolf
Saturday, June 23rd, 2012, 01:15 PM
“Men of few words require few laws” -King Charilaus of Sparta when asked why the Spartans had hardly any laws.

Gustaaf
Saturday, June 23rd, 2012, 01:18 PM
Most people when left to themselves will interact peacefully with others, unless provoked. I have always felt most laws are ridiculous and written because some people want to feel important. Anarchy is not a bad thing. It prevents stupid religious and governmental scrutiny.

I can't agree here. If theft were made legal today, everything would be stolen tomorrow. If murder were made legal today, everyone would be dead tomorrow. What we'd see is the rules of nature reasserting themselves. The strong would take what they will from the weak. The strong will do what they will to the weak. A far greater tyranny than you see in the laws of civilized states will reign in the absence of them. Nasty, brutish and short.

renownedwolf
Saturday, June 23rd, 2012, 01:24 PM
What is so fantastic about the weak? The promotion and protection of weakness is a problem in our society. Why does being strong automatically correlate with being bad?

Gustaaf
Saturday, June 23rd, 2012, 01:34 PM
What is so fantastic about the weak? The promotion and protection of weakness is a problem in our society. Why does being strong automatically correlate with being bad?

The weak equals you, me, your mother, my mother, your children, my children etc. If society collapsed tomorrow, the people who deal coke in the hood today would be barging into your house tomorrow, stealing your essentials, pistol whipping you, your brother, your father, or anyone else who tries to stop them, and then they'd rape/capture any female they find. They'd have numerical superiority, mental superiority for the situation [i.e. no scruples], experiential superiority [i.e. these guys never worked at a Wallmart checkout], and practical superiorty [i.e. a large stockpile of weaponry].

Any decent community that's set up to peacefully farm the land will be constantly raided by what would in civilzation be the incarcerated population, and in the end warlords, who would have been druglords in another time and place, would create new states, feudal in nature, demanding extortionate 'tributes' for his not killing you, along with offerings of your clan's young females.

renownedwolf
Saturday, June 23rd, 2012, 01:42 PM
I think you have gone off on a bit of a post apocalyptic tangent there. If being weak makes us all equal, as in equally weak, why is that desirable? You would be dominated all the same. Surely being equally strong is better?

Gustaaf
Saturday, June 23rd, 2012, 01:54 PM
I think you have gone off on a bit of a post apocalyptic tangent there. If being weak makes us all equal, as in equally weak, why is that desirable? You would be dominated all the same. Surely being equally strong is better?

It doesn't require the apocalypse. If you have one community of elderly flower collectors who have a nice farm that produces lots of tasty chickens, and you have another community [or clan] of hungry murderers, rapists, and street thugs living just a mile away, and there's no higher moral authority or force to interject itself at any point, what do you think might possibly happen?

renownedwolf
Saturday, June 23rd, 2012, 02:11 PM
Who is to say these elderly flower collectors aren't all highly organised marine veterans armed to the teeth lol?

But taking it at face value, is it the fault the murderers for being stronger in that given situation or the gardeners for being weak and not being prepared to face the murderers, thieves and rapists?

Moral authority is always decided by those who have the monopoly on force. It has been and always will be the way of the world

Promotion of weakness is never a good ideal, no matter how much you dress it up in 'My weakness is my strength' crap.

Gustaaf
Saturday, June 23rd, 2012, 02:21 PM
Who is to say these elderly flower collectors aren't all highly organised marine veterans armed to the teeth lol?

But taking it at face value, is it the fault the murderers for being stronger in that given situation or the gardeners for being weak and not being prepared to face the murderers, thieves and rapists?

Moral authority is always decided by those who have the monopoly on force. It has been and always will be the way of the world

Promotion of weakness is never a good ideal, no matter how much you dress it up in 'My weakness is my strength' crap.

But my point was to show that strength, for all its teenage Nietzschean extolment, can be demonstrated to be repugnant, as can any moral system built around it. A rapist is stronger than his victim; is it a good act? A child murderer is stronger than a child; is he a good person? 'The strong ruling' just means that the current criminal population of your country would get to pursue its own interests at the expense of yours, which leaves everyone who isn't pond scum in a worse, more oppressed situation than they were in when the state and its laws were strong.

renownedwolf
Saturday, June 23rd, 2012, 02:42 PM
You keep equating strength with bad things. Just because the stronger triumphs over the weak in any given situation doesn't make it inherently a bad thing. It just overcomes the weaker, not the other way around.

What about the strong person who prevents a rape or teaches the potential rape victim to defend themselves against an aggressor? One could argue that the rapist is such because they are weak willed and cannot control their sexual impulses. Does that make weakness bad too?

Gustaaf
Saturday, June 23rd, 2012, 03:42 PM
You keep equating strength with bad things. Just because the stronger triumphs over the weak in any given situation doesn't make it inherently a bad thing. It just overcomes the weaker, not the other way around.

I didn't say it that it's inherently bad. I was saying it's not inherently good, as Nietzscheans maintain.


What about the strong person who prevents a rape or teaches the potential rape victim to defend themselves against an aggressor? One could argue that the rapist is such because they are weak willed and cannot control their sexual impulses. Does that make weakness bad too?

Neither weakness nor strength is inherently anything. I don't base my morality on either, but on other things.

renownedwolf
Saturday, June 23rd, 2012, 04:23 PM
Well the definintions of strength and weakness would disagree that they don't have inherent qualities, just look at synonyms.


Main Entry: weakness  [week-nis] Show IPA
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: defect, proneness
Synonyms: Achilles heel, appetite*, blemish, chink in armor, debility, decrepitude, deficiency, delicacy, enervation, failing, faintness, fault, feebleness, flaw, fondness, fragility, frailty, gap, impairment, imperfection, impotence, inclination, inconstancy, indecision, infirmity, instability, invalidity, irresolution, lack, languor, lapse, liking, passion, penchant, powerlessness, predilection, proclivity, prostration, senility, shortcoming, soft spot, sore point, taste*, vice, vitiation, vulnerability
Antonyms: strength, strong point


Main Entry: strength  [strengkth, strength, strenth] Show IPA
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: stamina, mental or physical
Synonyms: backbone, body, brawn, brawniness, brute force, clout, courage, durability, energy, firmness, force, fortitude, hardiness, health, healthiness, lustiness, might, muscle, nerve, physique, pith, potency, pow, power, powerhouse, robustness, security, sinew, sock, soundness, stability, stableness, stalwartness, steadiness, steamroller, stoutness, strong arm, sturdiness, substance, tenacity, toughness, verdure, vigor, vim, vitality, zip
Antonyms: lack, weakness

"To demand of strength that it should not express itself, that it should not be a will to overcome, overthrow, dominate, a thirst for enemies and resistance and triumph, makes as little sense as to demand of weakness that it should express itself as strength." Nietzsche

What do you base your morality on then if not some notion of taking a stronger position as opposed to a weaker one?

Gustaaf
Saturday, June 23rd, 2012, 05:26 PM
What do you base your morality on then if not some notion of taking a stronger position as opposed to a weaker one?

Strength and weakness are inherently amoral. How they are used is what's moral. Without arbitration, the strong and the weak pursue their own ends, which is often evil, and the weak constantly fail when they conflict with the strong. We then see one set of people subjugated to the [often evil] will of another set. The law exists to prevent this from occurring. If you want to see the law as an evil, so be it, but it's an evil that prevents a greater evil from occurring.

Nietzscheans, OTOH, don't see the strong as equally amoral for some reason. They throw in with the strong and believe that strength, however used, is something to be cherished and should be unfettered to exert itself on everyone and everything.

renownedwolf
Saturday, June 23rd, 2012, 05:59 PM
Which returns to my earlier statement of who decides what is moral. In the case of law, he who is stronger and has the monopoly on force decides.

It doesn't negate your statement that the Nietzschean viewpoint that strength is something, however used, is to be cherished, but only reinforces it. It doesn't prove the invalidity (your interpretation of at least) of the Nietzschean outlook only makes it seem preferable to the alternative. It would seem that it is better to be in the position of strength of the master morality rather than the slave.

Gustaaf
Sunday, June 24th, 2012, 02:58 PM
Which returns to my earlier statement of who decides what is moral. In the case of law, he who is stronger and has the monopoly on force decides.

It doesn't negate your statement that the Nietzschean viewpoint that strength is something, however used, is to be cherished, but only reinforces it. It doesn't prove the invalidity (your interpretation of at least) of the Nietzschean outlook only makes it seem preferable to the alternative. It would seem that it is better to be in the position of strength of the master morality rather than the slave.

God decides what's moral. The law, pretty much, agrees. There's no guarantee that the man with greater strength is more noble in intention than the man who is weaker. One man submitting to the other, therefore, is not inherently moral. What's worse is that the fact of subjugating one man's selfish interests to the other through force []is[/i] inherently immoral. So what you have are whims that aren't inherently good being enforced in a way that is inherently bad. This makes it bad in every case.

Bernhard
Sunday, June 24th, 2012, 03:20 PM
Neither weakness nor strength is inherently anything. I don't base my morality on either, but on other things.

This is important to recognize! To be weak or to be strong in the usual sense of the word only has meaning in relation to a certain end. They do not need to be understood in a physical way for example, yet they can be depending on the nature of the end. Strength can either mean taking the neighbour's property, because he is no match for you in case of a physical conflict. Strength can also mean relying on your own qualities to gain property. Strength or weakeness therefor are no terms of quality, but rather of quantity. To be strong is to be sufficiently capable of doing something, while to be weak is a lack thereof. A qualitative meaning only comes into play in relation to the end to which strength is applied.
Perhaps a better term (and wouldn't Nietzsche agree as well?) on which to base morality is 'superiority'. F.e. physical strength (coercion, tyranny) can be the ultimate tool when one lacks innate superiority.

flâneur
Tuesday, June 26th, 2012, 08:02 PM
The weak equals you, me, your mother, my mother, your children, my children etc. If society collapsed tomorrow, the people who deal coke in the hood today would be barging into your house tomorrow, stealing your essentials, pistol whipping you, your brother, your father, or anyone else who tries to stop them,

Speak for yourself toots.


You underestimate us....or worse still,judge us by your own low standards.

Gustaaf
Tuesday, June 26th, 2012, 08:15 PM
Speak for yourself toots.


You underestimate us....or worse still,judge us by your own low standards.

In the real world, you're not superman. You're not going to just Chuck Norris a gang of 50 armed thugs. It's a fact that the person with reservations about committing unpleasant deeds is going to lose out to the person who isn't. I don't have low standards for myself, but I do have realistic ones. There's a certain freedom in law. It bars - or decreases the chances of - all kinds of unpleasantness befalling me and those dear to me. Without the law, I'd be worrying about them [and myself] 24/7. Civilization gives us more freedom than it takes away.

flâneur
Tuesday, June 26th, 2012, 08:21 PM
It's a fact that the person with reservations about committing unpleasant deeds is going to lose out to the person who isn't.

I have no reservations.

As i said....dont judge us all by your low standards.

Gustaaf
Tuesday, June 26th, 2012, 08:35 PM
I have no reservations.

As i said....dont judge us all by your low standards.

Then, with respect, you've just made my point for me. The only way to survive in such conditions is to be 'strong' and to be 'strong' is to be immoral. Hence, anarchy can neither be said to good, nor can the 'strength' that triumphs in it be said to be moral.

Civilization is moral, and all who yearn for its destruction are immoral - not even amoral, but plain immoral. And how is not wanting to commit foul acts setting myself low standards? I wear it as a badge of honor that I wouldn't harm another person for my own survival.

Adalwolf
Wednesday, June 27th, 2012, 10:08 PM
From the idealistic point of view, law is a means to bring order to the community, to shape the nation into what it has to be in order to survive. Laws can be of different sorts: To protect your people from hostile propaganda, to prevent your race from being defiled by foreign-racial elements. To restrict enemies of the nation. To enforce your citizens to act the correct way. Thus, laws are useful and important, though you *always* have to keep in mind that all laws live and die with the FORCE that stands behind them. Law is nothing sacred, not some divine edict everybody automatically obeys, but merely a tool shaped by the WILL of the nation's LEADERS.

The fact that in our current reality, law has been twisted by the jews to legitimate their actions and condemn all their enemies (they call it 'international law') is another matter. This pathetic expression of cowardice has to be crushed, and it will one day.

vordringende
Thursday, June 28th, 2012, 04:07 AM
Then, with respect, you've just made my point for me. The only way to survive in such conditions is to be 'strong' and to be 'strong' is to be immoral. Hence, anarchy can neither be said to good, nor can the 'strength' that triumphs in it be said to be moral.

Civilization is moral, and all who yearn for its destruction are immoral - not even amoral, but plain immoral. And how is not wanting to commit foul acts setting myself low standards? I wear it as a badge of honor that I wouldn't harm another person for my own survival.

Correction: Cultures uphold morality. Communities uphold morality. Civilisation by contrast frames a people at their most decadent their most immoral.

Gustaaf
Thursday, June 28th, 2012, 01:44 PM
Correction: Cultures uphold morality. Communities uphold morality. Civilisation by contrast frames a people at their most decadent their most immoral.

I don't follow. Civilization is the foundation for morality, as laws [and internal principles] needed to be drafted to govern the unprecedented co-existence, mingling, interaction with strangers.

I'll add this: When you are 'moral' toward members of a community you're well acquainted with, this isn't truly moral. Your conduct toward another depends on your like for him. Morality doesn't become an abstract principle, a categorical imperative until it's forced to retreat from the empirical world and anchor itself instead in philosophy/law. This comes about through the coming together of strangers and the assured rights given to all only possible under civilization.

Jens
Thursday, June 28th, 2012, 02:25 PM
I find myself agreeing with Gustaaf. Strength and weakness cannot determine morality. Weakness is not a thing. Weakness is simply a lesser amount of strength than the next guy. It is the purpose of the act that determines if it is amoral, immoral, or moral. If the weak act to build up civilization and the strong seek to tear it down, there is no question about who has the moral high ground. Morality is about intent.

Bernhard
Tuesday, July 24th, 2012, 04:28 PM
Although I do not agree with the popular idea that law is everything, I would like to counter its opposite expressed in the opening post, namely that laws don't mean anything. The problem is rather the position of law (and ethics) vis-a-vis other aspects of life. In the Lockean and 'Human-Rightist' conception Law is placed above politics.* Politics are primarily meant to preserve certain rights and thus a primordial 'natural' law.** The practical problems arising from such a conception of law (equal rights for foreigners, right to exploitation for material gain, etc.) can easily lead one to consider the opposite, that law is nothing. Yet law has proven to be an important part of life, so in my view in stead of becoming ethical and legal nihilists, we should appoint law to its proper place in the hierarchy of what makes up life.

Alfred Rosenberg in the chapter on law in his Myth of the twentieth century talks about a Vedic saying which claims that Law and Unlaw do not exist independently, but are what the Aryan man says they are. I can think of three ways of interpreting this saying (in investigating primordial Aryan/Indo-European thought), without them being mutually exclusive. The first is Rosenberg's own interpretation. According to him it proves that Law is dependent on race. Each race has its own conception of law which is organically linked to the blood and only suitable for that blood. In this way "Aryan" is understood as a racial or ethnic term. A second interpretation could be of a more traditionalist type in which the Aryan is understood has the highest caste not only racially speaking, but also spiritually speaking. What is true according the Aryan is true because the Aryan represents a higher type of human being and in matter of Law possesses an authority due to its anagogical function in relation to a supernatural world. As a third interpretation I'd propose a Nietzschean one. Aryan is again interpreted as a term which designates nobility, but nobility as expressed by the 'Übermensch". It is the Will to Power which gives these Aryan men authority in determining what is right and what is wrong.
As I said, these interpretations need not be mutually exclusive, so my goal is not to debate which one is right. In all cases in which this Vedic saying can be interpretated, though, we can discover two truths which in my opinion are essential to understanding Law. 1. Law is dependent on Being; not the other way around. Law has its origin in the inner essence of man and is an expression thereof, whether this is an expression of the blood, a type of man closer to a higher reality, or the Will to Power. 2. In case of Law there is a hierarchy. Since it is the Aryan who determines what is Law and what is not, there are also those incapable of determining this and who consequently, as imperfect men, must follow those closer to perfection. These imperfect men are either racially inferiors, people of a lower caste or people with a slave morality, yet the notion of hierarchy is obvious.

Law should thus be appointed to its proper place in the hierarchy, which means that it should be placed below Being and not above it or even equated with it. In practice this means that Law should be dependent on Politics, since politics are the organizational form of the essence of a type of man (again this goes for all interpretations I have discussed). Only in this way Law attains meaning and can be of service to an organic whole. An organic whole is by definition composed of inequal parts so the second truth, the notion of hierarchy, comes into play as well. The essence of the whole finds its perfection in those at the top of the hierarchy; therefor any organic conception of Law must be one that originates there, depends on the essence and the men representing it and is followed by those lower in the hierarchy who are incapable of determing what is right and wrong on their own.



*The influence of Christianity on this conception is debatable. Lockes inspiration for his social contract inspired on his natural law (which in contras to Hobbes' was of an ethical and thus legal nature) was Christianity. It might be argued that through the old Testament the Jewish notion of legalism has influenced indirectly modern ideas of human rights. On the other hand Locke's Christian inspiration wasn't really an intellectually deep one in my opinion. At least the Jewish nature of the primacy of Law is pretty clear and the cultural importance of their Torah studies seems to have made them pretty skilled in using it to their own advantage.

**"Law does not exist to express and to serve life, no, these liberal-communist-democrats said that Life exists in order to serve the Law" (Francis Parker Yockey, The Proclamation of London (http://www.arktos.com/books/politics/general-politics/the-proclamation-of-london.html), p. 53).

Ishild
Saturday, August 11th, 2012, 06:06 PM
The authority indeed comes out of its power. But it's legitimacy comes from the voters (note I say voters, not people, because we all know how delusional democracy actually is).
Then, again, and most importantly, the authority determines it's legality as it has power to create law. Any sort of law it pleases. And to enforce it with (military) power it was given.


'Human-Rightist' conception Law is placed above politics.

Yeah, right. Strangely many politicians turn a blind eye on human trafficking and slavery.

This is a philosophical topic: natural law vs. legal positivism. And of course that despite it the natural law is stomped over whenever the political ambitions require so. They cannot do it outright -cut the branch they're sitting on and they helped in creating- but here's how they do it:

News: Oil discovered in let's say Iran and then Obama says: What's the situation with human rights in Iran? BAD! VERY BAD of course! It's always been and it is in many countries. Yet they care to bother only with the ones that got useful resources.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Friday, May 25th, 2018, 04:46 AM
Laws mean whatever the government want them to:

Do you see what I see?
Truth is an offense
You silence for your confidence
Do you hear what I hear?
Doors are slamming shut
Limit your imagination;
Keep you where they must

Do you feel what I feel?
Bittering distress
Who decides what you express?
Do you take what I take?
Endurance is the word
Moving back instead of forward
Seems to me absurd

Doesn't matter what you see,
Or into it what you read
You can do it your own way,
If it's done just how I say

Independence limited
Freedom of choices made for you, my friend
Freedom of speech means words that they will bend
Freedom with their exception

Do you fear what I fear?
Living property
Truths to you are lies to me
Do you choose what I choose?
More alternatives
Energy derives from both the plus and negative

Do you need what I need?
Boundaries overthrown
Look inside;
To each his own
Do you trust what I trust?
Me, myself, and I
Penetrate the smoke screen,
I see through the selfish lie

Doesn't matter what you see,
Or into it what you read
You can do it your own way,
If it's done just how I say

Independence limited
Freedom of choices made for you, my friend
Freedom of speech means words that they will bend
Freedom with their exception

Do you know what I know?
Your money and your wealth
You silence just to hear yourself
Do you want what I want?
Desire not a thing
I hunger after independence;
Lengthen freedom's ring

Doesn't matter what you see,
Or into it what you read
You can do it your own way,
If it's done just how I say

Independence limited
Freedom of choices made for you, my friend
Freedom of speech means words that they will bend
Freedom no longer frees you

Doesn't matter what you see,
Or into it what you read
You can do it your own way,
If it's done just how I say

--James Hetfield

Alice
Friday, March 22nd, 2019, 05:18 PM
I don't feel the need to obey a civil law that isn't in accord with moral or divine law.

SaxonPagan
Friday, March 22nd, 2019, 05:26 PM
Well you then have the problem of defining what is 'divine' and 'moral' :shrug

Alice
Friday, March 22nd, 2019, 05:29 PM
Well you then have the problem of defining what is 'divine' and 'moral' :shrug

A lot of it is based on natural law, and is pretty basic.

SaxonPagan
Friday, March 22nd, 2019, 05:40 PM
'Morality' is a particularly fluid concept.

The 'divine' stuff brings religion into it - possibly the biggest source of strife in the world ever since it began!

I don't even understand what 'natural law' is supposed to be :bconfused Some might interpret this as the survival of the fittest, which I'm sure is not what you meant.

GermanicAfrican
Friday, March 22nd, 2019, 05:40 PM
Only laws that need to be respected are the laws of nature and the universe. Man's law is folly.

Mööv
Friday, March 22nd, 2019, 05:58 PM
I don't feel the need to obey a civil law that isn't in accord with moral or divine law.


That's what the muzzies say. No white people laws, only sharia. ;)

Astragoth
Friday, March 22nd, 2019, 06:38 PM
That's what the muzzies say. No white people laws, only sharia. ;)
Muslims say whatever they need to to get one over on the white people. They don't obey any laws divine or otherwise. For example homosexuality is illegal but muslims are the biggest group of homosexuals out there. Oh by the way were living in a world where our jew run countries think transgender six year olds
and mass immigration and genocide of whites is ok. So don't tell me I need to respect laws from jew run countries or compare me to muslims.

Chlodovech
Friday, March 22nd, 2019, 07:39 PM
That's what the muzzies say. No white people laws, only sharia. ;)

Alice doesn't reject secular law, but when secular law interferes with her conscience she does. And rightly so. Nonetheless, there are times when we have to obey bad laws, either for the greater good or simply because we lack the power to contest them - laws are backed up by guns after all. And it's probably the other way around: the guns come first, the laws afterwards. Morality has little to do with it. If you have more and better guns, you can write the laws yourself.

Another thing about laws is: it doesn't matter what is written down, it's how people interpret them.

Mööv
Friday, March 22nd, 2019, 08:08 PM
So don't tell me I need to respect laws from jew run countries

Well, christian laws are essentially jewish laws, so you're already doing that by yourself. Have a nice day ;)



Alice doesn't reject secular law, but when secular law interferes with her conscience she does.

Well, yes, that's what I said the muzzies do. They obey only that witch is in compliance with their brainwash.




there are times when we have to obey bad laws, either for the greater good or simply because we lack the power to contest them

No. You always have to obey. You can disagree, but disobeying my dear Chlod is also in opposition to all the knightly stuff you've been preaching.
I do agree with the contesting part. It should be done if necessary.
But behaving like a punk, and choosing to obey laws based on your emotions and general mood is not the way to go about it.

schwab
Friday, March 22nd, 2019, 08:25 PM
I always turn to "natural laws" first before reaching to biblical laws.
Abortion for instances is contrary to natural laws.

Chlodovech
Friday, March 22nd, 2019, 08:43 PM
Well, yes, that's what I said the muzzies do. They obey only that witch is in compliance with their brainwash.

It's different, Mööv - Muslims who are serious about their religion want to do away with secular law and secular authority entirely, Alice suggests nothing of the sort. It's not the same thing at all.


No. You always have to obey.

So if the law says all the native men in our countries are to be rounded up and put in concentration camps, we have to obey, always?

Civil wars or revolutions start when people decide to disobey the law. We are absolutely doomed if we're going to obey the law, always. Besides, the left doesn't care for laws when they don't suit them - see laws regarding asylum seekers. The only thing that matters is finding enough likeminded people who are willing to change, ignore or fight the law together with you.

Especially laws which target the nationalist opposition are at most something we have to bear for the time being - and only because we're weak, not for any other reason.


You can disagree, but disobeying my dear Chlod is also in opposition to all the knightly stuff you've been preaching.

I've no idea what you refer to - and whatever it was, it has no bearing on the subject at hand. Besides, knightly stuff? No, thank you ... I'm a bit too realistic and practical for that. I care little for grand, empty gestures.


I do agree with the contesting part. It should be done if necessary.
But behaving like a punk, and choosing to obey laws based on your emotions and general mood is not the way to go about it.

Emotions? No, principles - and just as important, if not more: survival. I don't even recognise the authority of the Belgian state as legitimate - I view it as an occupying force. Screw them and their laws.

Laws are written by a bunch of people whose names we don't even know - politicians then sign them, often without looking closely at them - tons of laws don't even have democratic legitimacy amongst the population.

Sigurdsson
Saturday, March 23rd, 2019, 07:50 AM
Morality means more to me than most conventional laws.

Mööv
Saturday, March 23rd, 2019, 10:35 AM
So if the law says all the native men in our countries are to be rounded up and put in concentration camps, we have to obey, always?



There are no such laws. Putting one in place would result in immediate revolt just about anywhere.




The only thing that matters is finding enough likeminded people who are willing to change, ignore or fight the law together with you.

Yes but it would require much more than just enough people in this day and age.

Uwe Jens Lornsen
Saturday, March 23rd, 2019, 08:35 PM
Legal Philosophy ....

Legal "Schools" , schools of "law" ....


Priorities , Prosperities , Ideologies , Points of Views

Prospects , Positive Outlooks , Future


Subjectivity , Objectivity , Reality , Fiction

Chlodovech
Saturday, March 23rd, 2019, 10:04 PM
There are no such laws. Putting one in place would result in immediate revolt just about anywhere.

Indeed. And it would be legitimate, although not legal. That's an important distinction, Mööv. And revolution would be the case today, but what if Germanics become absolute minorities like Afrikaners and are rounded up and put in camps?

I gave an extreme and theoretical example to make a point, after all, this is an abstract debate - and you seem to have your own reservations about the law too when push comes to shove. But there are other, existing laws which are completely unacceptable and need to be violated. Think of affirmative action, whether on the housing market or the job market - if I had a company of my own and I'd see an opportunity to get away with throwing letters and job applications of foreigners into the garbage bin, I totally would.

Mööv
Sunday, March 24th, 2019, 09:26 PM
Chlod, what I was trying to say is that you cannot break laws just because they are not aligned with your religious views. You can voice your disagreement and work to change them if you so wish. If you are not allowed to voice your opinion, that is a whole different thing. In that case those that are supposed to protect and uphold the law are breaking it by not allowing you to speak and in that case you can act accordingly. But whining about a laws not being in accordance with your religion and than breaking them as you please, undermining the society, is what the islamists are doing.

Skärmträl
Monday, March 25th, 2019, 08:32 PM
I agree with Mööv here.

Laws would be pointless if they're not followed consistently. When they're unnecessary inflexible, we change them, but only slowly, making precedents that a majority can agree upon.

It's the millennium-old trial-and-error of jurisdiction, it can't really be any other way, and we should be very glad we have it.

Chlodovech
Monday, March 25th, 2019, 10:53 PM
Chlod, what I was trying to say is that you cannot break laws just because they are not aligned with your religious views. You can voice your disagreement and work to change them if you so wish. If you are not allowed to voice your opinion, that is a whole different thing. In that case those that are supposed to protect and uphold the law are breaking it by not allowing you to speak and in that case you can act accordingly. But whining about a laws not being in accordance with your religion and than breaking them as you please, undermining the society, is what the islamists are doing.

"You must obey the law, always", you said. That's what I vehemently object to - all the more so because the enemies of our nations are making the laws - rejecting the laws of traitors is not undermining society, it's saving it. But okay, I'll humor you. I would say first off that it's not always possible to change the law through peaceful means or even desirable if the stakes are high and time is running out - and those who do not allow you to change the law peacefully may not be breaking the law (their own laws) at all by limiting your capacity to change it. Laws are just top-down "agreements". And if disregarding the law is what islamists would do too, so be it - good for them, we should watch and learn. I'm a secularist nonetheless, I wouldn't use a religous argument to justify a policy or breaking the law anyway - unless the law would force me to renounce my faith or the state attacks my fellow believers or myself on the basis of our religion, in that case holy war becomes a sacred duty. But let's take abortion for example. I find that an issue worth of civil disobedience, revolution and even civil war, yet not because of my faith.

However, if someone other than me is prompted to break a law because of a religious world view it's not something I would hold against them, we're all blind men in Plato's cave anyway. Muslims have been living since day 1 without separation of mosque and state, who are we to say that it's wrong? Yeah, we can believe it's stupid and backward, but it's their way of life and that is far more important to them than anything else and I get that.


Laws would be pointless if they're not followed consistently. When they're unnecessary inflexible, we change them, but only slowly, making precedents that a majority can agree upon.

Then laws will always be made by someone else than you want to, in practice, laws deciding your fate. There's only so much you can alter within the confines of a legal framework. Good luck finding majorities - what makes a majority so special anyway? And most people are clueless lemmings who bet on the strongest horse. If you want major change you're gonna have to disregard the law at some point. Americans could still be living under British rule,or far likelier, most of the Balkans could still be under Ottoman rule or all of Eastern Europe may still be suffering under communism if people had stuck to reforms. And for what? And why? Life is war, laws merely provide a veneer of civilisation and legality to what is just a naked, Nietzschean power struggle. The strong rule the weak - through laws. Guns write the laws.

In less than twenty years from now we'll be minorities in our own countries, how are you gonna (find a majority and) slowly reform the law then? You won't. Ever.

Skärmträl
Tuesday, March 26th, 2019, 01:07 AM
Then laws will always be made by someone else than you want to, in practice, laws deciding your fate. There's only so much you can alter within the confines of a legal framework. Good luck finding majorities - what makes a majority so special anyway? And most people are clueless lemmings who bet on the strongest horse. If you want major change you're gonna have to disregard the law at some point. Americans could still be living under British rule,or far likelier, most of the Balkans could still be under Ottoman rule or all of Eastern Europe may still be suffering under communism if people had stuck to reforms. And for what? And why? Life is war, laws merely provide a veneer of civilisation and legality to what is just a naked, Nietzschean power struggle. The strong rule the weak - through laws. Guns write the laws.

If you want specific radical change, then sure, breaking the law (or a complete overthrow more like) might be the way to go.

But that's quite another matter, I think. As a basic framework for a stable society, rule of law seems a basic building block.

As a thought experiment: Go back in time, try to recreate the great empires of the past, but do it without lawmaking. I'm pretty sure it would be impossible.

Chlodovech
Tuesday, March 26th, 2019, 12:36 PM
As a thought experiment: Go back in time, try to recreate the great empires of the past, but do it without lawmaking. I'm pretty sure it would be impossible.

Sure. You're a Swede though. I'm a Fleming. Has Sweden ever been occupied by a foreign power? Flanders has not tasted freedom since the time of the Franks. Everyone here, even the not so patriotic crowd, sees it as their duty to circumvent the law in some manner - that attitude is a big part of our culture by now. We've been doing the same thing for centuries. We love to scam whoever our current arrogant foreign rulers are as historically Flanders has always been seen as a juicy tax cow by foreign occupiers - and almost everyone seems to be involved in a law suit to obstruct the government at some point in their life.

Skärmträl
Tuesday, March 26th, 2019, 01:39 PM
Sure. You're a Swede though. I'm a Fleming. Has Sweden ever been occupied by a foreign power? Flanders has not tasted freedom since the time of the Franks. Everyone here, even the not so patriotic crowd, sees it as their duty to circumvent the law in some manner - that attitude is a big part of our culture by now. We've been doing the same thing for centuries. We love to scam whoever our current arrogant foreign rulers are as historically Flanders has always been seen as a juicy tax cow by foreign occupiers - and almost everyone seems to be involved in a law suit to obstruct the government at some point in their life.

Interesting!

I did not, to be honest, consider such differences.

Sweden has been occupied, and there have been rebellions within the country, but otherwise Swedish people, law and religion have gone solidly hand in hand since Lutheran times at least.

Mööv
Tuesday, March 26th, 2019, 06:59 PM
Chlod, are you saying that if Flanders was 100% Flemish and ruled by Flemish people you would still break the laws and try to disrupt that only because a law is not in line with a religion that is not even Flemish?

SpearBrave
Wednesday, March 27th, 2019, 09:41 AM
The only laws that apply are the laws of nature.

Society creates laws for each society and those that live outside of society are Outlaws. Take for example the 1% Biker Clubs in America, these men live outside of the laws of normal American society, however when they grouped together in the 40s and 50s they formed their own societies and thus their own laws.

Gareth Lee Hunter
Wednesday, March 27th, 2019, 11:50 AM
Of course law and order is better than anarchy. But people can't even obey the Ten Commandments, yet they enact millions of man made laws in a futile effort to control every aspect of society.

Politicians who create laws are similar to the people who are paid to invent catchy names for new consumer products. It makes them feel important.

Chlodovech
Monday, July 1st, 2019, 10:55 PM
Laws need to be rooted in natural law to be meaningful and just - they need to be in accordance with man's place and function within nature (the ancient Greeks)/a transcendental order (Christianity).

Prior to the enlightenment there was little doubt in people's minds as to whether laws should be rooted in morality - yet today the adherents of "positive justice" reign supreme and natural law is seen as medieval. They want to do away with traditional morality/religion and they do that by pressing for secularization of state and public life - in practice, "removing religion from the state" means placing a bakery owner under arrest because he refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding out of religious convinction. That sort of thing.