Comment: hello again

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: likewise :) (see in situ)

hello again

and an excellent post.

"Specifically I want it seen how unnecessary lawmakers are because all harmful behavior is already forbidden."

True, most people don't need to be told that say, murder is wrong; it's the intangible forms of (what could be perceived as) force where it starts to get muddy, at least for me.

"Generally, lawmakers spend their time exempting their privileged pals from our law. They say our law is too strict and in order for technology to progress, they need to protect them from this law."

Yeah, the old "do as I say, not as I do" mindset. All too common among our 'lawmakers' isn't it? But then again, common law, whether by corruption or design, allows the privileged few the upper hand, so it's to be expected. This plays into why I'm not a fan of legal systems in general, although at the same time I believe that some man-made 'order' will and, by our 'nature', must always exist in some form. Whether I like it or not..that's a different story. :p

I believe we're flawed beings (life could be awfully dull if everyone was perfect...but that a whole other topic, heh), so perhaps a flawed system is only fitting until 'we' as a species grow beyond what we currently are, at least in terms of how we see ourselves in terms of rulers and the ruled.

"The real question, and point you brought up is excellent and valid. What is a way to authorize such a use of force? Obviously the individual gets to defend himself at the moment of harm, to limit/stop the harm. But once the damage is done, how does he go about making himself whole? We have centuries of history using juries to confirm the claim and authorize the necessary force needed to perfect the claim. I happen to think it is very flawed because of the points you brought up: education, agenda, etc...But, I suppose if I were in the hot seat and it was a jury of MY PEERS, I would have more faith."

The "my peers" part is where it hits home for me. If the accused were to pick a jury of their (by the accused's definition) peers, that may make the accused feel as though they're not being 'forced', yet it would simply tip the scales in the favor of the accused (again, agendas, bias, etc.), and the roles would be reversed, even when the accused is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.

This is basically just daydreaming, but, what if the accused could pick six of their peers, while the accuser picks the other six? Or four and four, with the remaining four being being picked at random? (Similar to jury duty, except neither party could reject these four).

Of course that would just present its own set of problems...beh.

"For me, i am not concerned with others using "force" or even "aggression" upon me or others. Force and aggression are neutral. This conversation is an aggressive use of force. Force that harms is harmful. Force that benefits is beneficial. Same with any aspect of our existence.

Behavior that harms including non-consensual violence is a different matter all together."

Very much agreed, especially the part concerning non-consensual (and unprovoked) force aka violence. The only thing I could add is that the concepts of harmful and beneficial are, in many cases, matters of individual perception. What may benefit me may very well harm you, regardless of intent. (Does it count as violence if the individual applying force doesn't intend to harm others?)

And then there are those who feel the need to be ruled over, which (by my perception) harms them, yet those people believe it benefits them...I should stop that thought before I end up turning my brain inside out or something. ;)

A signature used to be here!