This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Will we come to think that the societies ruled by law have failed their capabilities by underachieving? Is law likely to become marginal?
As in the evolution theory for many organisms complexity has not always been a comparative advantage in the fight for survival, analogously, in the context of accelerated, networked and digitized social transactions the legal system can hardly survive in its complexity deriving from thousands of years of development and growth. The fact that today we see these complexities as fundamental elements of the legal system does not change the fact that law is just an attempt to regulate ethicality in the context of social relations.
See pp. 71-152 http://www.alai-croatia.org/Zbornik_2011.pdf
Henry Woeltjen 10+
Take medicine for example. I am sure we can say that long life is preferred. Modern medicine would have never been created without complex rules to channel our energy.
Without regulation energy is bleeding from humans in random directions.
We can think of this like a plant with millions of branches.
All branches may grow at the same time. However, when we focus on a branch (idea) that branch seems to grow at a rapid pace. A good example is technology.
With the onset of war humans began creating weapons. Some of the most complex concepts related to weaponry were created thousands of years before an actual prototype was created.
Humans are capable of doing many things. However, we do seem to be strictly limited by our ability to cooperate with other organisms; including other species.
Even if law were to become less complex it would still be absolute. Therefore, it is not the complexity of law that defines the state of society....but the quality of law.
stan kinsman
Law today is enforced as letter of law.
As I see it,letter of law is what enables guilty people to succeed.
The cry of circumstantial evidence is heard every time we get one of the thieves.Due to complexities in the law-put their by thieves-a conviction is unlikely.A recovery of peoples money would seem to be a good idea for law to follow,but it does not seem to.
Class action suits are a lawyers best friend.A payout of 100 million is after legal fees 25 million.
Laws only work when the governed demand equal treatment of all.
Caleb Case
Another important point is that all that stays constant is the letter of the law. What the intent is at the creation of the law can only be recorded by the wording of the law itself. As time passes, if intent was still given priority over the letter, then it could theoretically be twisted to fit the agenda of whoever was in charge of discerning intent. A great current example is the Constitution of the US, which sparks numerous debates over intent and meaning, and has been used to enforce or block movements that certainly had no relation to the original intent of the Framers. While I personally think this is important in a broad degree of intent like the Constitution, can one imagine what it would be like if all law was open to such debate and manipulation?
While indeed the current law system is complicated and corrupt, I think the safest solution is fixing and adjusting the letter of the law to most closely acheive the intent, that the only way to acheive "equal treatment of all" is by holding people responsible to a just, unbiased code, and not to the perceived intents of whoever created the law, as judged by another person or people.
stan kinsman
What to do when the corrupt make the laws..Ballots are now easily compromised.
Try and,as a citizen & taxpayer,get a breakdown of expenses in a government contract.
Try & protest where you can be seen and do not step out of the "Free Speech Area" or you will be arrested.
Did you get a bailout.Lousy management allows failure to run the markets.Now that is gone except for a select few...
Clean Air & Clean Water Acts have been gutted.
Water is now a 'commodity be bought,sold & owned..
The list is endless of those making laws"taking care"of us,the taxpayers.
I see hope all over the world demanding freedom yet I see no real progress,just regress..
I usually am more upbeat but as of late & the carnival of clowns worldwide now,I just sigh & hang my head.
What about my great grandchildren..That thought pops up often.
What about yours ?
Mladen Vukmir
Random Chance 30+
Modern civilization is not civilized, so the rule of law hasn't been an integral part of helping create modern civilization because we aren't civilized. Period
To say it has, is to say, "let's keep all the reasons to force people into uncivilized, criminal behavior for mere survival, around a while longer.
There is virtually no such thing as a criminal mind unless it exists in a society in which there are no reasons to be criminal. Then, you may find one or two.
Chris Cavalari
Todd Levesque
Chris Cavalari
Todd Levesque
Mladen Vukmir
Chris Cavalari
Mark Hurych
Parallel resilient world currencies might help. Open and growing access to free speech may help. Alternate economies and lifestyles might help: gifting economy, social equity, global perspective, Permaculture, global grid, Cradle 2 Cradle, etc.
+
shawn disney 10+
Empire . What can they do that's constructive?.. That being said, the formation of the Chinese Empire 2 thousand years ago was overall, a big help to the world. It shows the benefits that can come even from a violent conquest, once the wars are over. It sheds some light on our present situation , since the setup then was quite analogous to the modern world. The Chinese call it the "Warring States Period", of some hundreds of years of warfare, "Balances of Power", Alliances, etc, all the humbuggery of modern international affairs.Finally put to rest by the conquest of all the States by one. After some internal upheavels, Normalcy was considered to be a unified empire. It had unforeseen benefits. So our choice now is: continue to drift into a final war, or form some world government by choice, as the US was formed. Dangerous to be sure, but the alternatives are worse.
chen xin
Christopher Melvin
Once we can feed, house and sustain our entire population, we may again become uninhibited enough and advanced enough to spend our time thinking, playing and laughing, while software writes itself to create robots that do the heavy lifting.
If we are all enabled with the access to the sum of our global knowledge human intellect will surpass any one man. If a man should kill, the entire planet shall know it. And the entire planet will smite thee in righteous anger (with its giant "Do Not Like" button). Or perhaps, he may fester a bit, as it has been said that what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
chen xin
Mladen Vukmir
chen xin
Paul Palmer 10+
I wonder what role law plays in today's Croatia, the country of the person who posed this question.
Elizabeth Gu 30+
Precisely. I think sometimes laws are meant for nothing. And in many countries it seems pretty obvious that laws are quite segregated from morality.
Nonethelss, a law should exist. Its threatening impact is quite effective in a way that it at least plays a role in preventing crimes--doesn't work all the time, though. Even for politicians, they don't want to be regared as law breakers. Because the fact that a person broke the law surely has negative effects on his life. Maybe that's why people're afraid of being convicts or seeing them.
Still it seems so unfair to ordinary people that wealthy people and politicians can easily deal with their crimes. And I guess that's where equality issues are raised. Without exception, every person should get the same penalty.
Even for a country where there's a death penalty, laws seem to be ineffective when it comes to decreasing crime rate. Since legal actions aren't enough to keep the nation safe, people's awareness of morality and respecting humans' rights have to be followed.
Mladen Vukmir
John Smith 30+
Random Chance 30+
People don't play 'not nice' because of human nature. They play 'not nice' because they are trying to survive.
Laws don't solve our human problems. They never have. They are irrelevant to our species.
We cannot legislate morality and we never could. Threats prevent chaos, not laws. Threats of brute force prevents chaos. And brute force prevents chaos. Those who are going to break the laws, will do so. They will risk it and as we have seen, they risk both large and small, serious and trivial, sad and evil.
They will lie about WMD's so that they can invade other countries and their network of associates can make billions on cleaning up the mess they create. They will steal trillions from the coffers of the citizens, and right out in the open.
They will create their own form of chaos because that is the only way to control it and, to then control the masses.
Laws, like prisons, failed with the first one created. They continue to do so and they are continually passed, sometimes without the knowledge and input of the masses and thus create more criminals, who previously, were not.
Those who create and enforce them, are the ones who break them. To stop this cycle, we not only need to get rid of those who do this, we need to get rid of the reasons for breaking any kind of law. People then act and behave much differently, usually peacefully, when there are no reasons to commit what we call, a criminal act. It isn't in most cases.
It is simply an act of survival.
Yes, the rule of law failed and the sooner we recognize what has failed, is failing and will fail, and get rid of them, the sooner the world can truly find peace amongst all.
Laws may regulate to some degree, ethicality in the context of social relations, but not for those who control them, enforce them and punish those who "break them".
Terry Haynes
Mladen Vukmir
Random Chance 30+
Laws don't solve problems.
Solving the problem does.
And it eliminates the reasons for making laws, that don't work.
blaire blaqua
Mladen Vukmir
Mladen Vukmir
Tod Bennett
------------------------------------
Will we come to think that ...
societies ___ failed ____ by ...
ruled by law
their capabilities
under achieving?
------------------------------------
The rest of the comment directs us to consider the issue
of complexity. It specifically asks whether the current
legal system will fail due to the accumulated complexity
of the law. Finally we are asked whether the complexity
makes any sense since its goal is to regulate social
behavior. But regulate brings us back to regulation as
a form of law.
Using evolution as a starting point is interesting because
evolution does not have a goal and therefore cannot fail to
achieve a specific goal.
Many of the answers refer to how the law has or has not
affected society. Each case clearly sees the outcome as
good or bad and answers the question accordingly.
From an evolutionary point of view the law is one component
of the fitness function. From a social point of view the law
should inform individuals how different tradeoffs, and the
expected results, are valued. From a personal point of view
the law may be used or thwarted to achieve personal goals.
"Will we come to think... ?" will be answered by people who
have either succeeded because of the environment provided for
them or failed because society did not provide what they needed.
Most societies will have members in both groups.
Should we rather ask:
For each condition we want our society to meet, is creating
and enforcing a law the way to get that result?
Tod
John Moonstroller 20+
I think it has, for the most part, always been that way in order to define criminal actions, address inequality among citizens and settle disputes about property and wealth.
While many laws are based on religious notions of right and wrong, modern laws deal with ethical questions, especially in the area of business activities, resource management and national defense.
We need contracts to do business, but we will always have a base set of rules to govern how we socially evolve and interact. If money goes away there will be little left but social norms and restitution for mistakes and accidents.
Barry Palmer 50+
It will take decades, possibly centuries for law to become marginal, but I think I understand the trend you are imagining.
In the USA today consumer law is becoming moot because every transaction is governed by a contract that gives the corporation all rights and leaves the consumer defenseless. This makes sense in a fast paced world of global corporations. Courts are expensive, time consuming and inconsistent; standard contracts are more easily managed than 190 different versions of consumer law. The terms of these contracts are already becoming competitive.
Much of the complexity in our current body of law is based on paradigms that are becoming obsolete. So there is much in the law that is hampering progress (underachievement).
Another factor is the slow pace of legal change. The cultural pace of change is accelerating exponentially, and it is difficult to imagine our legislative processes keeping up. In Washington D.C. it is becoming impossible to get anything done.
In my experience, people are very good at inventing work-arounds. When the law becomes an obstacle, people will find a way to deal with the situation without breaking the law, but without using the law either; making the law marginal. Even in the area of security and police powers, private security is already becoming more popular.
I think we will always have criminal laws, and the basics of business law will stick around in the background. But much of the complexities of the law will eventually be repealed and will not be replaced. It is becoming increasingly obvious that our tax code, with its many subsidies, tax credits and loop holes, hurts business more than it helps. Even the companies that benefit from special treatment must understand that simplification and consistency over time would allow them to plan better and would have long term benefits.
Conclusion: Yes and Yes; but it will take time and it will not be simple.
Mladen Vukmir
I don't think law will ever go away and discuss the concepts of overlaying human creations in the article too, by the end of the text. TV did not kill the radio, and radio did not killl print and so is with the human social institutions we keep inventing. Especially criminal law, which is kind of eternal having in mind the human propensity to cheat and do other nasty things is here to stay, but its role in the societies will be redifined and the societies will not be "ruled by law" to the degree they are today. I mean, we should start thinking along the lines of what kind of a society is it if it cannot be ruled but anything more worthy then law? By saying that I mean that the positional kind of thinking especially sucks in the modern, fast and hot societies. Interest based thinking is much more isuited for that.
Bob Stiglitz
Law is starting to fail to protect the public and public domain and capitalism has succesfully co-opted governments to cater to every whim of the corporate oligarchs.
I watched as the videogame industry went from an imperfect but mostly honest business to something akin to the mafia taking away customer rights to own software and use it without permission of the nanny corporation. DRM and copyright law is backdoor authoritarianism and dictatorial rule. Copyright law is probably enemy #1 threat to freedom governments and corporations are using to hide their authoritarian agenda behind commercial interests most of the ignorant capitalist people of america will get behind because they are too ignorant and unsophisticated to defend themselves from the propaganda and the media sadly.
Chris hedges on corporate power
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYCvSntOI5s
Robert Galway 20+
Law, for all its imperfections, defines an order by which communities, countries and humanity as a whole can interact. Knowledge of, concurrence with, and enforcement of this order is arbitrary and in constant transition around the world. Still, it, or the pursuit of it, has pushed the collective knowledge of the world forward through collaboration (like this one).