“Law” is Not Determinative of Conduct

[Bosco1]

Human beings have a need (probably based in biology) for something that we will call the "power process." This is closely related to the need for power (which is widely recognized) but is not quite the same thing. The power process has four elements. The three most clear-cut of these we call goal, effort and attainment of goal. (Everyone needs to have goals whose attainment requires effort, and needs to succeed in attaining at least some of his goals.) The fourth element is more difficult to define and may not be necessary for everyone. We call it autonomy...

Consider the hypothetical case of a man who can have anything he wants just by wishing for it. Such a man has power, but he will develop serious psychological problems. At first he will have a lot of fun, but by and by he will become acutely bored and demoralized. Eventually he may become clinically depressed. History shows that leisured aristocracies tend to become decadent. This is not true of fighting aristocracies that have to struggle to maintain their power. But leisured, secure aristocracies that have no need to exert themselves usually become bored, hedonistic and demoralized, even though they have power. This shows that power is not enough. One must have goals toward which to exercise one's power.

Everyone has goals; if nothing else, to obtain the physical necessities of life: food, water and whatever clothing and shelter are made necessary by the climate. But the leisured aristocrat obtains these things without effort. Hence his boredom and demoralization.

Nonattainment of important goals results in death if the goals are physical necessities, and in frustration if nonattainment of the goals is compatible with survival. Consistent failure to attain goals throughout life results in defeatism, low self-esteem or depression.

Thus, in order to avoid serious psychological problems, a human being needs goals whose attainment requires effort, and he must have a reasonable rate of success in attaining his goals.

Wow Perd, you are a heavy dude indeed. Excellent pronouncements!

[Bosco1]

So you don't have an issue with people being punished under the law, you just have an issue with how the enforcers of the law phrase it?

According to your interpretation of things, wouldn't any punishment for violating any code (mass murder or otherwise) be equally punishing people for human action not being determined by whatever code was violated?

Yes, indeed, I have an issue with people being punished by law because that is an untruth.
To your second sentence, again, yes...

[cordex]

Yes, indeed, I have an issue with people being punished by law because that is an untruth.
To your second sentence, again, yes...

So we're back to no punishment ever?

[WLJ]

So how do you enforce the rule of law then.
Can you even have a society without the rule of law being enforced in some way?

No legalese please.

[Bosco1]

So we're back to no punishment ever?

There you go again, putting words in my mouth and attempting an argument by extension. Above I just told you I agree to punishment, it just has to be done honestly...I never ever said a thing about no punishment ever!

[cordex]

There you go again, putting words in my mouth and attempting an argument by extension. Above I just told you I agree to punishment, it just has to be done honestly...I never ever said a thing about no punishment ever!

My mistake.  I am earnestly trying to derive meaning from your posts but you're not making that very easy.

I'm not understanding the circumstances under which punishing someone for wrongdoing is acceptable in your mind.  If a country has a law against murder, and someone violates that law by committing murder then punishing them is unjust?  Where does honesty come into play?

[WLJ]

My mistake.  I am earnestly trying to derive meaning from your posts but you're not making that very easy.

That's the problem with legalese and why people don't trust it.

[Bosco1]

So how do you enforce the rule of law then.
Can you even have a society without the rule of law being enforced in some way?

No legalese please.

All these existing juristic concepts are bogus nonsense.  There is actually no existing rule of law, because, in fact, law is not determinative of human conduct.
We need to turn honest and admit that the entire legal thing is a lot of ontologically unintelligible nonsense; and, start afresh, by being honest ontologically. Our entire legalistic civilization needs to be totally re-thought-out...

[WLJ]

All these existing juristic concepts are bogus nonsense.  There is actually no existing rule of law, because, in fact, law is not determinative of human conduct.
We need to turn honest and admit that the entire legal thing is a lot of ontologically unintelligible nonsense; and, start afresh, by being honest ontologically. Our entire legalistic civilization needs to be totally re-thought-out...

So in a plain English nutshell you're basically saying our current set of laws is overly complicated and needs to be simplified?

[Bosco1]

My mistake.  I am earnestly trying to derive meaning from your posts but you're not making that very easy.

I'm not understanding the circumstances under which punishing someone for wrongdoing is acceptable in your mind.  If a country has a law against murder, and someone violates that law by committing murder then punishing them is unjust?  Where does honesty come into play?

The claim that they are being punished by law is untrue and hence unjust.  How many times do you need to be told something!?
We simply need to be ontologically honest, admitting that we are not in fact being determined by law to do or not do anything, and, rethink the whole shebang from there...

[Bosco1]

So in a plain English nutshell you're basically saying our current set of laws is overly complicated and needs to be simplified?

No, I am saying that our law-mediated approach to civilization is a totally dishonest approach to civilization; and, that we need to engage in this type of dialectical interchange, until we evolve an alternate approach to civilization,in keeping with, not against, our own human ontological structure!

[RoadKingLarry]

All these existing juristic concepts are bogus nonsense.  There is actually no existing rule of law, because, in fact, law is not determinative of human conduct.
We need to turn honest and admit that the entire legal thing is a lot of ontologically unintelligible nonsense; and, start afresh, by being honest ontologically. Our entire legalistic civilization needs to be totally re-thought-out...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

[Ben]

There you go again, putting words in my mouth and attempting an argument by extension. Above I just told you I agree to punishment, it just has to be done honestly...I never ever said a thing about no punishment ever!

Look, you're posting in a forum where high humor is considered "pull my finger".

Help us out. Explain like you're explaining to ten year olds:

You are standing in a crowd. A person draws a gun and shoots the person next to them in the head for no reason. Everyone witnesses it. Within your frame of reference, what chain of events now happens?

[WLJ]

Let's try this again. I think I know what you're trying to say once all the legalese is stripped away.

In a nutshell the rule of law and not just our current system of the rule of law but the whole concept of the rule of law as a system is a bad system and needs to replaced with some other system?

[Bosco1]

Look, you're posting in a forum where high humor is considered "pull my finger".

Help us out. Explain like you're explaining to ten year olds:

You are standing in a crowd. A person draws a gun and shoots the person next to them in the head for no reason. Everyone witnesses it. Within your frame of reference, what chain of events now happens?
Of course the shooter immediately runs off at high speed and gets away. Later he feels terrible and turns himself in to the sheriff.

[Fly320s]

Once again, this is a b  o  t.

Nuke it from o  r  b  i  t.

[WLJ]

Of course the shooter immediately runs off at high speed and gets away. Later he feels terrible and turns himself in to the sheriff.

Let me know when human nature suddenly changes

[Bosco1]

Let's try this again. I think I know what you're trying to say once all the legalese is stripped away.

In a nutshell the rule of law and not just our current system of the rule of law but the whole concept of the rule of law as a system is a bad system and needs to replaced with some other system?

Yes. It is a system which is not honest and does not even know it is not honest. It dishonestly claims to be acting by law, when, in fact, law does not and cannot move persons to act, or not act.

[Bosco1]

Let me know when human nature suddenly changes

We humans have no predetermined nature. We are all ongoing blank slates, total freedoms, continually making ourselves from moment to moment.

[WLJ]

Yes. It is a system which is not honest and does not even know it is not honest. It dishonestly claims to be acting by law, when, in fact, law does not and cannot move persons to act, or not act.

And you believe that by not punishing people under the rule of law bad people will start being good because punishment under the rule law is what makes bad people do bad things?

[Bosco1]

And you believe that by not punishing people under the rule of law bad people will start being good because punishment under the rule law is what makes bad people do bad things?

No! I never said any such thing!

[RoadKingLarry]

Of course the shooter immediately runs off at high speed and gets away. Later he feels terrible and turns himself in to the sheriff.

I rarely get a chance to use this twice in the same thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq-v1TTUyhM

[Perd Hapley]

Wow Perd, you are a heavy dude indeed. Excellent pronouncements!

OK, I cribbed it from this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm

[WLJ]

No! I never said any such thing!

Why there was a ? at the end.
But it's the general impression I'm getting. Why else after you remove the rule of law would the shooter turn himself in out of the goodness of his nature? Why wouldn't he just keep running?

[Bosco1]

OK, I cribbed it from this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm

Wow Perd, it just goes on and on, seemingly endlessly. Well written though isn't it...