As is probably common in this forum, a discussion has led to a topic that has inspired another thread. This thread, in particular, is inspired by a few posts in the Altruism vs. Egoism vs. Selfishness thread, and has to do with the idea of the Rule of Law, and its validity.

So, discussion points (feel free to deviate within reason, but do not derail the thread.)

1) Has the rule of law, as it was earliest established by the Hammurabic Code, been effectively used to
and
?

2) Is the rule of law valid, from a community stand-point, over all cultures, or must the rule of law be adapted to other cultures? Or, perhaps, is the rule of law intrinsic or a contract?

3) Is breaking of the rule of law, from a personal, situational stand-point, acceptable in the case that it brings more good than harm?

4) Is the use of capital punishment appropriate in the administration of justice according to the rule of law? or should justice be interpreted to prevent the administration of punishments which are so absolute against those that justice falls over, so as not to fall into the same trap as those who originally committed the wrong?

RESPECT THE FREE WILL OF ALL LIFE BE IT STONE, FLOWER, ORGAN, OR PLANET.


dammit.

I know he's gone, but this is a prime example of deviation OUTSIDE of the topic at hand, without any regard for the discussion.

He's an idiot, who wants us to believe Rocks are living organisms, so that he can justify his boulder-humping in this forum. I bet he's one of Al Gore's scientists.


The Rule is there for a society to exist, without such, a society would crumble into anarchy. However the rule and it's punishments are left to interpretation by the Human mind, which is based upon gain, thus it is not perfect. I'd have to say it is all dependant on the situation.

the human mind is not based upon gain. the CIVILIZED human mind is. but tribal people, who have seniority over civil people, think in terms of distribution, rather than monopolization.

Without machines, humans would not have the resource of time to think about selfish gain without first building their physical bodies greatly.

Very telling.

Well I believe we are, some what, getting off topic here.

No, we're not. We're discussing the nature of the rule of law, which is based within the imperfect minds of human beings.
My argument is that human minds are not inherently greedy, that greed is a learned trait, encouraged by our more "developed" societies and nations.
My argument is that "progress" and "development" of the rule of law are the source of more problems than they are a solution to any.

In some cases, law does not fight crime but outright creates it,. For example, in the case of prohibition, no one is creating a victim by ingesting alcohol or other drugs, but they are treated like a criminal and the rule of law is enforced on them. why? because it is imperative to the progression and development of "Civilized" technology.

Humans are infected with a disease of the mind that suggests "civilization" is all important, as though a god of men and women. As though human beings would simply disappear, get wiped off the face of the earth, without the progress of our technology.

The rule of law and willing participation from the behalf of individual persons are all that holds this together, all in the name of "progress".

As if the living conditions on earth are better, having more people, more free time, and less responsibility.

So... with all my thoughts presented, i can answer your questions clearly.


1. no. if anything, the rule of law is easier to manipulate for the exact opposite.

2. the rule of law is only valid amongst consenting participants. in orther words, your law is invalid over my law, and my law is invalid over yours. if we live in the same community, we share a rule of law. but the rule of law cannot be universally held over all communities.

3. absolutely. as long as no harm is done, no crime can rationally exist.

4. two wrongs never make a right. capital punishment should be reserved only for those who blatantly refuse to respect the lives of others, and as a result are a danger to all lives around them.

Even then, i'd rather see them chained and forever publicly ridiculed for their blatant disrespect of life.