4 ms·

> No one wants to escape the real laws, because they are proven to be necessary for the society to work, and everyone agrees about them. There are (next to) no

> No one wants to escape the real laws, because they are proven to be necessary for the society to work, and everyone agrees about them. There are (next to) no laws that are internationally agreed upon.

SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
While not the exact specifics, no, but can you point to a society which actively encourages theft and murder? I'm talking not for special circumstances (ie. execution for crimes), but the straight up "I just wanted to stab a dude" murder.
- TheRealPomax 7y ago
  The opposite of "we can't agree on laws" is not "we encourage the behaviour that most places have those laws in place to discourage". What you should be asking is "show me a country that doesn't have laws for what we commonly consider illegal behaviour". So okay: slavery is horrible, and illegal (by law) in a lot of places. But not in Mali, where hundreds of thousands of people are either indentured servants, or quite literally slaves.
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    You're right - encourage was the wrong word. Every country will have laws that we don't like, I get that, but I'm arguing that there is a common ground there - it may not be very big, and it may be pretty basic when it comes to what it's covering, but I don't think there's a nation on earth where murder is perfectly OK. There are SOME basic elements everybody follows.
    - Frondo 7y ago
      I too would like to hear of the country where 1) Don't kill and 2) Don't steal are not in some way specified in law.
    - TheRealPomax 7y ago
      Let's go back to your use of "society" instead of country, and you pretty quickly run into things like Boko Haram or ISIL, where murder is barely a punishable offense. And these are groups who _very clearly want_ to form their own countries. (and thankfully, so far are prevented from doing so, at high cost). So: sure, it's reasonable to assume any well-intentioned group of people will come up with some kind of basic law book, but not everyone is well-intentioned, and the question about "who runs the court?", especially for a place as tiny as this, is an excellent question to pose, because you really can't rely on common sense to lead to fair trials.
      - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
        Did the Boko Haram or ISIL kill their own in-groups?
      - chr1 7y ago
        Boko Haram or ISIL are not killing people in the group they are killing outsiders who according to their views are enemies. This groups do not want to form their own countries, they want to take as many existing countries as possible and force people to live by their laws. Any examples you think of will be some crazy fanatics or remnant of some medieval traditions, and even there murder will be allowed only according to some hierarchy. > "who runs the court?", especially for a place as tiny as this While they are tiny they'll have to use court of an existing country.
- sandworm101 7y ago
  >> a society which actively encourages theft and murder? 15th century England. The royal houses, and most of the entire landed aristocracy, were encouraged to murder and steal from each other regularly. Those who exercised and demonstrated the most power, the greatest capacity for violence, were promoted. That's how we picked kings. "By the grace of god", a phrase in many constitutional documents to this day, isn't a beam of light. Victory in battle was evidence of divine approval. It means that God picked your side in whatever war was fought to put your family on the throne. Violence was the core of society then and, arguably, remains so in constitutional monarchies today. (Canada, UK, Australia etc).
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    15th century England had no ritual or requirements in order to lawfully murder another human being? 15th century England, which had had the beginnings of English Common Law for 2 centuries, had no laws against murder? The Magna Carta wielding English had no laws against murder? In the Magna Carta: "39. No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."
    - sandworm101 7y ago
      Society, not country. Among the landed aristocracy violence was expected. Sons were trained as warriors for the inevitable family conflicts. >> no laws against murder Murder is a crime, an unlawful killing. A law forbidding something already defined as a crime is circular. A great many killings, those in combat, were not illegal and therefore not murder. So while murder was illegal killing was not, at least not always. And at the highest levels those who won the war, those best at killing, decided who would be punished, if anyone. The legal definitions were beside the point.
      - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
        You're describing lawful combat, which had rules. For instance - you'd never see a nobleman kill a noblewoman without recourse. I'm talking the taking of another human's life without reason or justification - just a wanton disregard for human life and no need to rationalize the death.
- buboard 7y ago
  Some satanist cults come to mind. Thankfully darwinism takes care of that. But if you re looking for a similar example take the armies. They all have lawful license to murder they just disagree on who to kill.
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    Satanic cults are exceedingly and aren't societies - and I'll bet they even have rules - can't kill the in-group for instance. > They all have lawful license to murder they just disagree on who to kill. That falls under the special circumstances, and implies that normally murder is unlawful.

SketchySeaBeast 7y ago

While not the exact specifics, no, but can you point to a society which actively encourages theft and murder? I'm talking not for special circumstances (ie. execution for crimes), but the straight up "I just wanted to stab a dude" murder.

TheRealPomax 7y ago
The opposite of "we can't agree on laws" is not "we encourage the behaviour that most places have those laws in place to discourage". What you should be asking is "show me a country that doesn't have laws for what we commonly consider illegal behaviour". So okay: slavery is horrible, and illegal (by law) in a lot of places. But not in Mali, where hundreds of thousands of people are either indentured servants, or quite literally slaves.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  You're right - encourage was the wrong word. Every country will have laws that we don't like, I get that, but I'm arguing that there is a common ground there - it may not be very big, and it may be pretty basic when it comes to what it's covering, but I don't think there's a nation on earth where murder is perfectly OK. There are SOME basic elements everybody follows.
  - Frondo 7y ago
    I too would like to hear of the country where 1) Don't kill and 2) Don't steal are not in some way specified in law.
  - TheRealPomax 7y ago
    Let's go back to your use of "society" instead of country, and you pretty quickly run into things like Boko Haram or ISIL, where murder is barely a punishable offense. And these are groups who _very clearly want_ to form their own countries. (and thankfully, so far are prevented from doing so, at high cost). So: sure, it's reasonable to assume any well-intentioned group of people will come up with some kind of basic law book, but not everyone is well-intentioned, and the question about "who runs the court?", especially for a place as tiny as this, is an excellent question to pose, because you really can't rely on common sense to lead to fair trials.
    - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
      Did the Boko Haram or ISIL kill their own in-groups?
    - chr1 7y ago
      Boko Haram or ISIL are not killing people in the group they are killing outsiders who according to their views are enemies. This groups do not want to form their own countries, they want to take as many existing countries as possible and force people to live by their laws. Any examples you think of will be some crazy fanatics or remnant of some medieval traditions, and even there murder will be allowed only according to some hierarchy. > "who runs the court?", especially for a place as tiny as this While they are tiny they'll have to use court of an existing country.
sandworm101 7y ago
>> a society which actively encourages theft and murder? 15th century England. The royal houses, and most of the entire landed aristocracy, were encouraged to murder and steal from each other regularly. Those who exercised and demonstrated the most power, the greatest capacity for violence, were promoted. That's how we picked kings. "By the grace of god", a phrase in many constitutional documents to this day, isn't a beam of light. Victory in battle was evidence of divine approval. It means that God picked your side in whatever war was fought to put your family on the throne. Violence was the core of society then and, arguably, remains so in constitutional monarchies today. (Canada, UK, Australia etc).
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  15th century England had no ritual or requirements in order to lawfully murder another human being? 15th century England, which had had the beginnings of English Common Law for 2 centuries, had no laws against murder? The Magna Carta wielding English had no laws against murder? In the Magna Carta: "39. No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."
  - sandworm101 7y ago
    Society, not country. Among the landed aristocracy violence was expected. Sons were trained as warriors for the inevitable family conflicts. >> no laws against murder Murder is a crime, an unlawful killing. A law forbidding something already defined as a crime is circular. A great many killings, those in combat, were not illegal and therefore not murder. So while murder was illegal killing was not, at least not always. And at the highest levels those who won the war, those best at killing, decided who would be punished, if anyone. The legal definitions were beside the point.
    - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
      You're describing lawful combat, which had rules. For instance - you'd never see a nobleman kill a noblewoman without recourse. I'm talking the taking of another human's life without reason or justification - just a wanton disregard for human life and no need to rationalize the death.
buboard 7y ago
Some satanist cults come to mind. Thankfully darwinism takes care of that. But if you re looking for a similar example take the armies. They all have lawful license to murder they just disagree on who to kill.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  Satanic cults are exceedingly and aren't societies - and I'll bet they even have rules - can't kill the in-group for instance. > They all have lawful license to murder they just disagree on who to kill. That falls under the special circumstances, and implies that normally murder is unlawful.