why do we need laws?

[shugah]

i'm helping my son write a paper - not anything in depth (more of an opinion piece, really ;-) ).

so, why do we need law? what would happen without it? your thoughts, serious and well thought out, as well as amusing and off the cuff appreciated while we work on the usual boring "a functioning society needs laws to protect all of its members." and "plus, it creates lots of jobs!" ;-)

[GOPisEvil]

1. To keep me from killing dipshits that cut me off in traffic.

:evilgrin:

Since it's for school, you might want to edit out the "dipshits". ;)

[no name no slogan]

6. I would've edited out "killing"

and replaced it with "maiming". I'm against the death penatly :P

[shugah]

10. i'm actually against the death penalty too

except as i could mete it out with a wild six-shooter from my car on certain highways ;-)

[shugah]

8. i don't know about editing

i mean, not sure i could do it, or if i could that my son would buy it. after several years of driving on 66 in the dc metro area, he got used to me turning to him in the passenger seat and saying, (after one of the endless stupid @#$%^&*(&^%$#@#%&^*(&^UIR%$T&^* things that the dipshits did) - "and you see, son, THAT is why i don't carry a gun. because well, BANG!"

;-)

edit: i drove 45 to 610 regularly in texas but that was in my "learning to want kill/maim" stage of driver education ;-)

[salin]

2. anarchy.

just take a few laws - even as simple as traffic regulation (which side of the road we drive on, following stop signs and stop lights) and imagine life without them. Were I your son, I would pick one area of laws/regulations and point out what they are, and predict what it might be like without those types of laws.

[shugah]

11. most rules of the road are ex post facto laws

they are good laws, as they do the best possible to keep us safe. i imagine that the first case of an automobile hitting an automobile was shocking.

if this were a research paper, i agree that taking one area of law and using it as an example would be the best possible way to approach the assignment. but the assignment guidelines are really so general and unspecific as to almost invite absurdity. i am almost tempted to encourage him to explore what life would be like without the obvious ex post facto laws that still remain on the book.

[Floogeldy]

12. Um . . . .

. . . .

[pitohui]

17. there were two automobiles in ohio in 1896...they collided

it might be apocryphal but that's the story i heard anyway!

:-)

[Oeditpus Rex]

19. I heard it was Kansas

and like 1904.

Definitely apocryphal.

[MissB]

3. We need laws because human nature isn't reliable.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

4. Life is a game. Laws determine the rules of the game

As scoring in baseball is defined by making it to and touching first, second, third bases and then home...life has perameters that are needed to either keep people safe, protect them, have them treated fairly in a given situation such as signing a contract which is not fulfilled or safe at work, or define what behaviors are acceptable in public places or behind the wheel of a car, for instance.

[Floogeldy]

5. Because if we didn't have laws . . .

. . . people would be lying around with their skulls bashed in and we'd say, "Oh, my, isn't that terrible? That's the fifth one I've seen today. Ho hum."

[merh]

7. I once taught some community college courses

I was employed as an adjunct instructor and I had never stood before a class as a teacher before. The course title was "Intro to Law" and I wanted to be so cool, not just the stoic "this is the subject and what you should know" teacher. I began the class by telling the students about my 9-5 job and I asked them to tell me their impressions of the legal system. Well, dicussions were had throughout the room about defending crooks and jury duty recollections and their dealings with cops and lawyers, etc. The discussions became very involved, very heated and out of control. I realized that I had lost control of the class and I was terrified. I called for a break, told them to go out and get something to drink, have a smoke and met me back in the room in 15 mins. I didn't know what to do, I had lost control and was worried I would never regain it.

When they came back from break my fears were confirmed, they were still debating amongst themselves, arguing this and that and just unruly and rude.

I stood up and announced loudly that was it, there would be no more free discussions, they would not speak out of turn or over each other and there would be no open debates. I further explained to them that what had occurred before the break was anarchy, total chaos because the society that was the classroom before the break existed without rules or laws. I explained to them that I was the law, I would be the one that told them the rules, they would respect the rules and be respectful of me and their fellow students.

As I explained, the reason we have laws is to prevent anarchy and to try to have a society that is orderly and respectful of the needs of the majority.

I pulled it out of my ass, but it hit home with them and they understood why we had laws.

[Floogeldy]

9. ***Snicker Snicker Snicker***

You fucked up.

Reading materials, an outline, subject matters, etc. . . . .

;)

[merh]

14. I fucked up, but it made an impression on the students

one that they didn't forget and that helped them understand the subject. So, I didn't fuck up, I was successful despite my failings.

My classes were never boring. I hate structure.

;)

[petronius]

13. We need laws because we have republicans

And selfish pricks always ruin things for everything else unless they're explicitly told not to (and usually even then).

[Seabiscuit]

15. Because we keep forgetting the golden rule.

[pitohui]

16. because the 5 percent w. no conscience eff it up for the rest of it

most people are decent or at least want to appear decent, so a mix of empathizing w. others and a wish to appear like a nice guy is enough to keep them in line

alas, there seems to be a hard percentage of people who are just plain evil and without a mechanism for stopping them they would run right over the rest of us

[HEyHEY]

18. Cause I'd shove five people a day down the escalator

WALK LEFT, STAND RIGHT

[NMMNG]

20. According to Ayn Rand we don't

Cuz people automatically would do what is right without the guv'ment sticking their noses in their business. :eyes:

[pokerfan]

21. Without rules

"Without rules, we all might as well be up in a tree flinging our crap at each other." -- Red Forman

[wildhorses]

22. anarchy?

complete and total freedom for all to manifest their free will and seek their true destiny...:shrug:

[Squeech]

23. Reminds me

of a story by Larry Niven. Seems in the future there's this place called Free Park, where anything goes except for violence against somebody else. The park is monitored by these things called cops' eyes, levitating robot spheres with cameras and stun guns. They watch what the people do, and when anyone strikes anyone else, or makes a sufficiently threatening gesture, the cops' eyes blast both of them, knocking them out for an hour or so. Other than that, people in Free Park can do whatever they damn well please-- walk around naked, swim in the fountains, screw in the fountains... (How the cops' eyes judge the difference between consensual sex and rape is an interesting AI problem, beyond the scope of the story, unfortunately, because I'd really like to hear Niven's ideas on that.)

So some hacker figures out how to disable the cops' eyes. In a matter of minutes, every cliche about the destructive nature of anarchy reveals itself. There are robberies, assaults, rapes. Gangs arise spontaneously out of mutual defense, except the gangs also decide to take over park services, like the water coolers, and unaligned non-aggressive park visitors are getting really thirsty. (Nobody can leave either, because the park gates turn out to be part of the same cybernetic circuit as the cops' eyes.) Ultimately the human cops have to show up in force and restore order using the typical tools of a police state, making people line up and show ID, which is nobody's preferred solution.

Of course Niven has skewed the scenario to suit his own proclivities-- he identifies as a conservative-- but he has pointed right at the central problem of anarchy, indeed of every form of government: how do you stop thugs from coercing innocent citizens?

[anarch]

24. mainly, for public safety, and to ensure fairness and equality

or in a more general sense, because people are not universally mature enough to always do the right thing.

"Laws" I take to mean something like "agreed upon standards of behavior", not tools of oppression. Sadly, it seems that the reason we need some laws is to do things like lock up an absurd proportion of black men, and to make sure the poor are kept in their place.

One of the more interesting questions I remember from some philosophy course I took was, "do we have a prima facie duty to obey the law?", which would apply to every law on the books, whether it's a speed limit or an ordinance about not walking your pet ferret on Tuesdays or whatever.

[DrGonzoLives]

25. To monopolize the use of force

centered around either an individual or a group of individuals. By removing the ability of anyone to use force, you can institute control over them, allowing a stable society to result.

[RumpusCat]

26. because there's no such thing as anarchy

What were the first 'laws' but rules set by people who, because of strength or control of a resource, could coerce/convince others to follow them? Other social animals, like monkeys and wolves, have definite codes of conduct. Remove laws and we'll mill around confusedly for a short period of time and then self-organize into groups with laws.

Just my random thoughts. :hi: