4 ms·

If what you wrote is true, you should have a good answer to this: What special interest is served by laws against murder? One's "heart" is at least as exploita

If what you wrote is true, you should have a good answer to this: What special interest is served by laws against murder? One's "heart" is at least as exploitable as a democratic law system.

verisimi 3y ago
Great question. In the case where someone kills another (murder is a legal term) and the cases of many other 'crimes' eg stealing, abusing children, etc, these are immoral acts. One's heart knows this. In general, what people refer to as 'common law' is more or less in line with morality - I don't object to that so much. Now, if you wanted to impose a legal system (an external authority of morality) that doesn't cover these cases, you will fail - people will not accept it's authority and will see it for what it is. The legal system has to encompass these overt, actually immoral cases as bait, in order for the individual to swallow the hook. But, the legal system is not determining right or wrong, it is merely echoing what you already know. Things like intellectual property rights, speed limits, licensing, tax, etc, are the hook. They are nothing to do with right or wrong. They are merely cash machines for the entities that write the legislation. They could be right, had entered into a contract, where government provided such-and-such a service with explicit agreement. But no one ever did..
- rocqua 3y ago
  Laws are not cash machines for those that write them. Laws are an attempt at solving coordination problems. They will arise in any 'state of nature' because the downsides of not solving coordination problems are so incredibly obvious. Specifically, people will organize into groups that establish and follow rules. Not (just) through coercion, but because the alternative is untenable. Obviously at that point you get politics, people vying for power, trying to change the rules to their benefit, etc. But that is not the base nature of laws, it is a highly predictable effect of the lawmaking process. Laws are (nominally) written for the greater good. Copyright protection, for example, exists so artists get compensated for their work, get to claim credit, and, can control distribution. Now this example has obviously also suffered from politics, to the extreme. But the basic premise still makes sense to me.
  - verisimi 3y ago
    > They will arise in any 'state of nature' because the downsides of not solving coordination problems are so incredibly obvious. Do animals or birds have 'laws'? Ok - not that state of nature... Do you have laws at a family gathering? No. I think you are mistaking natural law (innate morality) for a bunch of words some corporate lobbyist has written down. And that confusion is the point. If a controlling group can convince individuals to swap out their sense of morality (where each individual decides what's right and wrong for themselves) for a law book that can be controlled externally (a book that monied interests can write or re-write as they like) - then those individuals are harnessed to do what the controlling group say and call it right. That is domestication. > Laws are (nominally) written for the greater good. Copyright protection, for example, exists so artists get compensated for their work, get to claim credit, and, can control distribution. Right - that is the sales pitch. But in fact artists get a tiny fraction of the revenue. And the whole idea of the music industry as we have it, is itself an expression of corporate interests. What I think you are missing is that music and whatever else, would go on without corporations and government and its laws, if people wanted it. However, if you want to harness that interest for parasitic monetary benefit, you need to make laws, enforce them, educate people into believing they are right, etc. So, yes you can say that this is for the "greater good" but what is actually meant by "greater" are those corporations! Corporations are bigger (ie greater) than the individuals, right?
    - rocqua 3y ago
      > I think you are mistaking natural law (innate morality) for a bunch of words some corporate lobbyist has written down. Not at all. Innate morality is very different from law. Law, as I explained it, is about coordination problems. Such as solving the tragedy of the commons. In 'the state of nature' (scare quotes because I believe never existed, but I am referencing the philosophical concept). i.e. when society has not yet formed laws or large organization. There are many problems that need a solution that is universally followed. This can be actual tragedy of the commons (i.e. overgrazing the field, chopping down productive forrest, not shitting in wells) or it can be simple coordination problems (i.e. everyone drives on the right side if the track, people climbing have right of way over people descending). These lead to rules that a society agrees on. People who break those rules get ostracized, those people then complain and argue, which formalizes these rules. At some point, the result of breaking these widely established rules moves beyond ostracizing. Rule breakers have harmed the community, so the community gets to harm back through seizure, imprisonment, pain, or other methods. At that point you have laws. And they are a good thing. People formed them because it made things better. From here on, laws need changing, probably because of circumstances. They also need expansion, because new problems can also be solved this way. At that point you get a legislative process, with the authority to set and change laws. Hence you get power, politics, other things that are also bad. But that doesn't mean laws are inherently bad. They come from a good place, but they have significant downsides. Besides all this, laws are required to be a state, and being a state is required to have the military strength to avoid being plundered or subjugated by other groups.

If what you wrote is true, you should have a good answer to this: What special interest is served by laws against murder? One's "heart" is at least as exploitable as a democratic law system.

verisimi 3y ago

Great question. In the case where someone kills another (murder is a legal term) and the cases of many other 'crimes' eg stealing, abusing children, etc, these are immoral acts. One's heart knows this. In general, what people refer to as 'common law' is more or less in line with morality - I don't object to that so much. Now, if you wanted to impose a legal system (an external authority of morality) that doesn't cover these cases, you will fail - people will not accept it's authority and will see it for what it is. The legal system has to encompass these overt, actually immoral cases as bait, in order for the individual to swallow the hook. But, the legal system is not determining right or wrong, it is merely echoing what you already know. Things like intellectual property rights, speed limits, licensing, tax, etc, are the hook. They are nothing to do with right or wrong. They are merely cash machines for the entities that write the legislation. They could be right, had entered into a contract, where government provided such-and-such a service with explicit agreement. But no one ever did..

rocqua 3y ago
Laws are not cash machines for those that write them. Laws are an attempt at solving coordination problems. They will arise in any 'state of nature' because the downsides of not solving coordination problems are so incredibly obvious. Specifically, people will organize into groups that establish and follow rules. Not (just) through coercion, but because the alternative is untenable. Obviously at that point you get politics, people vying for power, trying to change the rules to their benefit, etc. But that is not the base nature of laws, it is a highly predictable effect of the lawmaking process. Laws are (nominally) written for the greater good. Copyright protection, for example, exists so artists get compensated for their work, get to claim credit, and, can control distribution. Now this example has obviously also suffered from politics, to the extreme. But the basic premise still makes sense to me.
- verisimi 3y ago
  > They will arise in any 'state of nature' because the downsides of not solving coordination problems are so incredibly obvious. Do animals or birds have 'laws'? Ok - not that state of nature... Do you have laws at a family gathering? No. I think you are mistaking natural law (innate morality) for a bunch of words some corporate lobbyist has written down. And that confusion is the point. If a controlling group can convince individuals to swap out their sense of morality (where each individual decides what's right and wrong for themselves) for a law book that can be controlled externally (a book that monied interests can write or re-write as they like) - then those individuals are harnessed to do what the controlling group say and call it right. That is domestication. > Laws are (nominally) written for the greater good. Copyright protection, for example, exists so artists get compensated for their work, get to claim credit, and, can control distribution. Right - that is the sales pitch. But in fact artists get a tiny fraction of the revenue. And the whole idea of the music industry as we have it, is itself an expression of corporate interests. What I think you are missing is that music and whatever else, would go on without corporations and government and its laws, if people wanted it. However, if you want to harness that interest for parasitic monetary benefit, you need to make laws, enforce them, educate people into believing they are right, etc. So, yes you can say that this is for the "greater good" but what is actually meant by "greater" are those corporations! Corporations are bigger (ie greater) than the individuals, right?
  - rocqua 3y ago
    > I think you are mistaking natural law (innate morality) for a bunch of words some corporate lobbyist has written down. Not at all. Innate morality is very different from law. Law, as I explained it, is about coordination problems. Such as solving the tragedy of the commons. In 'the state of nature' (scare quotes because I believe never existed, but I am referencing the philosophical concept). i.e. when society has not yet formed laws or large organization. There are many problems that need a solution that is universally followed. This can be actual tragedy of the commons (i.e. overgrazing the field, chopping down productive forrest, not shitting in wells) or it can be simple coordination problems (i.e. everyone drives on the right side if the track, people climbing have right of way over people descending). These lead to rules that a society agrees on. People who break those rules get ostracized, those people then complain and argue, which formalizes these rules. At some point, the result of breaking these widely established rules moves beyond ostracizing. Rule breakers have harmed the community, so the community gets to harm back through seizure, imprisonment, pain, or other methods. At that point you have laws. And they are a good thing. People formed them because it made things better. From here on, laws need changing, probably because of circumstances. They also need expansion, because new problems can also be solved this way. At that point you get a legislative process, with the authority to set and change laws. Hence you get power, politics, other things that are also bad. But that doesn't mean laws are inherently bad. They come from a good place, but they have significant downsides. Besides all this, laws are required to be a state, and being a state is required to have the military strength to avoid being plundered or subjugated by other groups.