Authority of Lawmakers? -
July 5th, 2012, 07:38 AM
"Let me now ask you how you imagine that your so-called lawmakers can "do equal and exact justice to all men," by any so-called laws of their own making. If their laws command anything but justice, or forbid anything but injustice, they are themselves unjust and criminal. If they simply command justice, and forbid injustice, they add nothing to the natural authority of justice, or to men's obligation to obey it. It is, therefore, a simple impertinence, and sheer impudence, on their part, to assume that their commands, as such, are of any authority whatever."
Have you ever thought about the nature of man-made laws in this way? They don't do anything, regarding the establishment of justice.
"Let me now ask you how you imagine that your so-called lawmakers can "do equal and exact justice to all men," by any so-called laws of their own making. If their laws command anything but justice, or forbid anything but injustice, they are themselves unjust and criminal. If they simply command justice, and forbid injustice, they add nothing to the natural authority of justice, or to men's obligation to obey it. It is, therefore, a simple impertinence, and sheer impudence, on their part, to assume that their commands, as such, are of any authority whatever."
Have you ever thought about the nature of man-made laws in this way? They don't do anything, regarding the establishment of justice.
I opened your thread regarding authority. Government authority comes from God. Authority flows downhill. Government is authorized to deal with infastructure, and punish evil doers, whether domestic or foreign. They are not authorized to steal or promote coveting and a welfare state.
Have you ever thought about the nature of man-made laws in this way? They don't do anything, regarding the establishment of justice.
I wish more people would understand this. Civil and criminal laws aren't really about justice, they're about fairness and protection. Civil laws are written to help keep human interactions fair, while criminal laws are written to protect us from each other. If we understood this better, I think our legal system would function a lot more effectively. As it is, we keep imagining that man's laws are supposed to be about rendering justice. But we don't know what's just, and we never did. So all we end up doing is trying to enforce our vengeance, which is rarely just. And in the process, we pervert the real purposes of establishing our laws in the first place.
What category does stealing fall into? Protecting yourself from each other or fair? Is it right to sue in civil court of fraud of some sort?
Many crimes involve multiple infractions. So they may be both unfair and endangering. They may also vary in their degree of severity. I suppose that violence and severity would matter most in how the crime is legally processed.
My point is, civil court shouldn't exist. If you are defrauded by somebody, that is stealing and a crime. The criminal should not pay a fine to the state, but restitution to the victim. As well as potential flogging for those who have sticky fingers.
Slogan/motto:
Try to be civil in the face of incivility. This is a test.
Reputation:
July 6th, 2012, 07:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PureX
I wish more people would understand this. Civil and criminal laws aren't really about justice, they're about fairness and protection. Civil laws are written to help keep human interactions fair, while criminal laws are written to protect us from each other. If we understood this better, I think our legal system would function a lot more effectively. As it is, we keep imagining that man's laws are supposed to be about rendering justice. But we don't know what's just, and we never did. So all we end up doing is trying to enforce our vengeance, which is rarely just. And in the process, we pervert the real purposes of establishing our laws in the first place.
If a crime is committed against me I consider that unfair. Crimes are committed by criminals. Criminals don't care about "fairness" or "justice".
If we "don't know what is just" then we cannot create laws at all.
.."mere anarchy"... shall prevail.
My point is, civil court shouldn't exist. If you are defrauded by somebody, that is stealing and a crime. The criminal should not pay a fine to the state, but restitution to the victim. As well as potential flogging for those who have sticky fingers.
Fair restitution is often not possible. But I agree that an effort should be made, and the willingness to do so should factor into the consequences for the perpetrator. I do not agree with flogging, though, as that's just vengeance.
If a crime is committed against me I consider that unfair. Crimes are committed by criminals. Criminals don't care about "fairness" or "justice".
If we "don't know what is just" then we cannot create laws at all.
.."mere anarchy"... shall prevail.
We don't need to know what is just. We only need to know what is equitable. If someone steals $500 dollars from you, and the loss of that money costs you an additional $75, then the thief owes you $575, plus a fine to the community for breaking communal laws and costing the community legal expenses. If he shows no desire to repair the damage he has done, then he needs to be separated from the community as an unrepentant criminal until such time as he is willing to redress the effects of his crime.
I think we make a mistake by imposing social vengeance on people for anti-social behavior (50 lashes or 50 days, for committing crime "X") instead of offering them the chance for resolution in the face of indefinite forced restraint (make it right or we lock you up until you do). I think our justice system would be a lot more effective if we skipped all this vengeance masquerading as "justice" and simply treated crime as the unacceptable behavior that it is.
Slogan/motto:
Try to be civil in the face of incivility. This is a test.
Reputation:
July 6th, 2012, 08:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PureX
We don't need to know what is just. We only need to know what is equitable. If someone steals $500 dollars from you, and the loss of that money costs you an additional $75, then the thief owes you $575, plus a fine to the community for breaking communal laws and costing the community legal expenses. If he shows no desire to repair the damage he has done, then he needs to be separated from the community as an unrepentant criminal until such time as he is willing to redress the effects of his crime.
I think we make a mistake by imposing social vengeance on people for anti-social behavior (50 lashes or 50 days, for committing crime "X") instead of offering them the chance for resolution in the face of indefinite forced restraint (make it right or we lock you up until you do). I think our justice system would be a lot more effective if we skipped all this vengeance masquerading as "justice" and simply treated crime as the unacceptable behavior that it is.
I would agree that restitution ought to be the first option when a crime is committed.
If it is shown that a person has committed the same crime more than once, then, other options must be available.
I rather like public humiliation, a day in the "stocks" in the town square for starters.
God already thought a system for dealing with those that won't/can't pay back. You don't go to prison, you go to be the person's servant to pay off the debt. The term is bond servant. Or slave in KJV. But bond servant should make perfect sense.
Quote:
I do not agree with flogging, though, as that's just vengeance.
I rather like public humiliation, a day in the "stocks" in the town square for starters.
Yeah, but that's that vengeance nonsense, again. It's a mistake getting into that, I think, because it titillates the same nasty mindset that caused the antisocial behavior in the first place. It makes everyone guilty.
God already thought a system for dealing with those that won't/can't pay back. You don't go to prison, you go to be the person's servant to pay off the debt. The term is bond servant. Or slave in KJV. But bond servant should make perfect sense.
Forced restitution is just more pointless vengeance. We need to get away from the idea of exacting vengeance and calling it "justice". Vengeance is not justice, and it only spreads the hate and violence and soul-sickness around to everyone else.
July 6th, 2012, 07:21 AM
July 6th, 2012, 08:27 AM
Linear Mode
