President, Paco Parish Scholar's

This conversation is closed.

Is there too much Law to follow?

Have we created many Laws to follow that it is coming to a point of contradicting itself,Law against a law.Does it cause confusion for citizens to simply understand what's happening?

  • thumb
    Oct 1 2013: Maybe. Maybe not. The only law we would need in theory would be "act virtuously," but people seem to not know what it means, so we might need those laws to lay everything out.

    • thumb
      Oct 2 2013: How do we act virtuously in a monetary world where technology is held back for the benefit of everyone stuck in a monetary system? How do we act virtuously when we are not allowed (by law) to or always competing with each other? Are we just about out of "money making" virtues? I don't believe making children is considered a virtue last time I checked but people make bad decisions and money can be made off of having children in many ways.
  • thumb
    Oct 1 2013: When good people begin to suffer for bad decisions others make is when alternatives should really be considered. When equality is broken, alternatives should be considered. When a law is made with conditions to be met, alternatives should be considered. When a father has to prove his sanity over an accusation in order to see his very own children, alternatives should be considered. When a judge threatens a father with jail time and demands him to pay child support instead of 50/50 custody, alternatives should be considered. BUT...The law supposedly believes a father should be in a child's life. Contradicting, no? Well, I guess only under some CONDITIONS. "Hey are the rules: pay Mom X amount per month and you get to raise your kids 4 days out of the month. HAHA, then prove you are not depressed to one of our appointed 'shrinks' (bias shrinks ;-})!" Well, I assume the definition of depressed is to be unhappy with out a reason. If I took your kids away from you, your honor, and had you pay me in order to see them 4 days a month would you call your mental state sad or depressed...or a victim of organized kidnapping?

    I've seen my kids for a total time of about 4 hours in the past 2 months just for the record. I don't pay, I don't play. I"m your "DEAD BEAT DAD" America! I don't have the right to make any decisions for my kids even minor decisions even if I ever decide to "pay". If mom decides to tattoo "idiot" on one of their foreheads' I can do nothing to keep it from happening! Way to go America. I fight for equality but mostly to love (figment of our imagination which has the ability to foresee good means to an end), parent, and teach my children what they need to know in order to prepare them for this forever changing world that lays ahead of them.

    Jejomar, thanks for the topic. Yes, too much law to follow...that's how they make M-O-N-E-Y.
  • thumb
    Oct 1 2013: if i were run for presidency/whatever, my program would be cutting the amount of laws by half in the first year, and to 10% in 4 years.
    • W T

      • 0
      Oct 1 2013: Which laws would you keep?
      • thumb
        Oct 1 2013: none, but the last to fall would be laws that forbid violent crimes, theft, robbery, threats of violence. also all the laws that regulate state organizations (transparency, procedures, etc).
  • Oct 1 2013: We can't know every law. We need so many laws because so many peole or trying to slip one by.
  • thumb
    Oct 14 2013: Yes, laws cause confusion for citizens. This is not surprising since two lawyers will argue that the law "says" two differing things, depending on the case. How can you average citizen know, if lawyers can't?
  • Oct 13 2013: If there is anarchy in the home, then you will find it everywhere.
  • Oct 3 2013: You maybe right in the creating of too much laws it is a problem navigating through the whole thing. However that being said, I thought of the question then: do we need more laws? or do we need less of it?

    Unfortunately i do believe we need more laws... but as we create more laws, and as the years progress, we also need to get rid of outdated or conflicting laws. However this is easier said than done. While it is easy to create laws, it is difficult to back track all previous laws that will come in conflict with a new law. Most of the time it doesn't happen, but when it does, it is very difficult (that is the job of the supreme court to decide which law should be in priority). It does cause confusion, however that is the reason for the existence of lawyers and judges. That is their purpose.. to help navigate conflicts with laws and to find solutions among laws. Its not perfect, but think of what would happen if there are no laws to begin would be a disaster.

    Now, i was also thinking, how can we reduce the number of all these laws? ... i was just hypothesizing, that if all humans were truly perfect beings (honest, helpful, high EQ, content with life etc..).. we would need less laws, or even none at all.
  • Oct 2 2013: Yes.
    Laws don't solve problems. Getting rid of the cause of problems does.
    Passing more laws just makes more people into criminals at some point in their lives
    because living is made more difficult by those in power and eventually, one will
    break the law, intentionally or otherwise, simply for survival. Yet, those who make and enforce the laws,
    break them at will, secretly or even right out in the open, using other laws to
    justify what they have done or do.
    Laws are not part of a just system. They are part of unjust systems, benefiting
    those who make them, pass them and enforce them.
    Create a just system in which to live. An unjust system can never be made just and it is
    foolish and fruitless to attempt to do so. It also keeps the populace fooled into thinking
    one day they might get it all right.
    And breaking the law is not an indication of human nature. It is an indication of human response,
    to some degree, in the mere desire and need to simply survive.
    There is no such thing as a criminal mind unless and until you have a system in which truly there
    are no reasons to commit a crime at all. Then, you might be able to say, maybe, one has a
    criminal mind. And, in such a system, there are no reasons for laws. They are not needed, or at
    the least, not many are needed at all.
  • Oct 1 2013: Those ideologues who wish to abolish laws, who think that country's should live under essential anarchy as as dangerous if not more dangerous that the communist ideologues. They are naive. The funny thing jejomar is that a story I love to tell involves your country. There was a person I knew who lived here in the US. He became convinced that we had a terrible overbearing government and when Obama got elected he was dead certain democracy would fall and we would become a socialist dictatorship. So, he left the US and moved to the Phillippines. Initially, he loved it there. He did not live in one of the big cities, he wanted mostly to be left alone. But, he was accustomed to a certain level of luxury. He was also accustomed to a certain level of structure and discipline. It was not long before the power problems bothered him, extended brown outs practically every day. Then there was general lawlessness, the need to bribe local law enforcement and politicians who seemed to make up laws as they went. He struggled with things like lack of any ability to enforce contracts reliably or the lack of any safety regulation regarding food or roads. Now, you and I both know these things exist in the Philippines for -of all places - Canada. Too many laws are useless. Too few is dangerous. What is genuinely needed is stability in the law. The system of laws must be enforced clearly, across the board. No system is perfect and no legal system will work all of the time. But, be extremely cautious in the laws are bad approach. Anarchy is not all that its cracked up to be.
    • thumb
      Oct 2 2013: I don't believe the nature of the question is anywhere near calling for anarchy or a country peeing contest. Roads? Have you ever been to New Orleans? LOL, Potholes there deep enough the torque, when you hit them, nearly yank teeth out of your skull.
    • Oct 2 2013: Sharon McCann, no one is advocating anarchy as a system. Why did you simply jump to that stone to place your next step? That's what prompted my comment. Please don't take it as an attack. I'm writing as fast as I can since the internet here regularly goes out.
      Methinks, it is more indicative of being somewhat brainwashed than in thinking for yourself but that is what many have been led to believe (jump to as a conclusion), without learning and trying to discern another or other and better ways that humans can and are capable of living and behaving. Do you think we can't? Then I pity you and the world you will soon inherit. (I'm going to die soon). Only laws that solve problems are needed, in a just system and do you believe we humans can create and install a just system? I do.
      • Oct 2 2013: I am sorry your time here is short Random, I would hope that you would see that the most vital thing we have is each other and our love for one another. You say no one is advocating anarchy as a system but I fear that I am encountering a large number of them. Many call themselves ararcho-capitalists and they tend to be - along with the US' tea-partiers - so vehemently anti-government that yes, they are not only calling for anarchy but actively doing what they can here an din their own countries to dismantle government. When you realize that the drift in this direction in the US means that today's republicans would consider the republicans of the 50s liberal as communists you can see how what appears to be incremental drift can take on dangerous overtones. I have spoken in the last year with leftists anarchists and rightist anarchists. Both are dangerously naive and unwittingly working together to create what they think they seek. Sadly, I think the leftists anarchists are the more naive and will be the bigger losers in the end. I have posted a debate about this issue maybe you'd like to join me there?
  • thumb
    Oct 1 2013: i think laws has made people all around the world separate from each other.why no one has ever heard of my country?