One man kills another man. The cops come. The cop does not like the man who was killed. Can he not, without objective laws to the contrary, simply say that it was logical and self evident that the man should die? It is to prevent that sort of nonsense that laws must exist.
I don't see how this scenario makes much sense. It is not for the police to decide what is self-evident, as the self evident is just that: self evident. The cop cannot do so (without the threat of punishment) because our constitution restricts him from interfering with our rights.
Again, if a clear violation of a man's individual rights is proven, the gov't is given moral authority to use its monopoly on force to appropriate punishment. The problem with laws is that if Congress is given power to create laws that have not yet been decided through the judicial system or through the average American's choices, then crap like Prohibition, Fugitive Slave Act, SS, Welfare, New Deal (though that was more FDR), etc. gets passed. It is not for Congress to determine what is legal in this country, based on their own opinions.
Oh, yeah, if the cop really didn't like the man, would he care if there was a law against murder?
I don't see how this scenario makes much sense. It is not for the police to decide what is self-evident, as the self evident is just that: self evident.
As I put forward earlier, how exactly do you define "self-evident"? You seem to think that it's anything that logically follows from the premises, but "logical" is still a debatable term. Some people think SS is a logical solution, yet you disagree.
Oh, yeah, if the cop really didn't like the man, would he care if there was a law against murder?
He might not, but the system might. If there were a law against murder, the officer could be held accountable for his negligence (assuming his job description is to uphold the law), and he could be charged upon those grounds. If there were no murder laws, and the officer's job is simply to uphold "self-evident rights," then he could argue that he found the murder to be self-evidentially proper.
I don't see how this scenario makes much sense. It is not for the police to decide what is self-evident, as the self evident is just that: self evident. The cop cannot do so (without the threat of punishment) because our constitution restricts him from interfering with our rights.
Again, if a clear violation of a man's individual rights is proven, the gov't is given moral authority to use its monopoly on force to appropriate punishment.
The problem with this is that by not defining objective laws, you are giving the gov't literally unlimited power. Anything, alomst anything, can be logically proven.
The problem with laws is that if Congress is given power to create laws that have not yet been decided through the judicial system or through the average American's choices, then crap like Prohibition, Fugitive Slave Act, SS, Welfare, New Deal (though that was more FDR), etc. gets passed. It is not for Congress to determine what is legal in this country, based on their own opinions.
That's why you heavily, heavily restrict congress and their ability to make laws.
Your system rests on the premise that every human being is rational: if that were true, anarchy would be the ideal system. But it is not true, and therefore you can't allow the gov'ts action's to be directed by whatever the courts choose to identify as the self-evident.
The problem with laws is that if Congress is given power to create laws that have not yet been decided through the judicial system or through the average American's choices, then crap like Prohibition, Fugitive Slave Act, SS, Welfare, New Deal (though that was more FDR), etc. gets passed. It is not for Congress to determine what is legal in this country, based on their own opinions.
The basic concept of Congress is an original key philosophy behind British parliament, that the masses are too ignorant to make quality decisions of their own. The enlightened person, it was believed, was the only person who could logically decide their own destiny because they could understand the problem without personal bias or misconception. Ever since universal suffrage came into being, Congress and other such representative institutions relate more to representation by proportion rather than of the often proportionally smaller "elite" (usually propertied interests). If you wanted all issues to be decided by the public you would have to fall back to majority opinion, which you call tyranny!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I never allowed my schooling to interfere with my education" -Mark Twain
Quote from hybrid life »
The war is for oil..its one of the ways to make this huge operation worthwhile. People care more about lower gas prices than iraqis anyway.
What others say about me:
Quote from JayC »
You're obviously an ignorant conservative. I blame your hill-billy Mom and Dad.
I would say that the best system of government is Switzerland's. I wish every country would adopt it. As for the united state's, the president has way too much power. The president, not the people can appoint the secretary of state,etc. Anyway, the people aren't really governed by the national government. The state government controls their lives. Communism is perfect in theory, humans working together toward a common goal. Kind of like slivers. There are the hard workers (sinew, muscle, nearly every sliver), the ones bringing the whole group down(plague), and the ones which don't do anything except leech off others(metallic, venser's).
Just my thoughts
I don't see how this scenario makes much sense. It is not for the police to decide what is self-evident, as the self evident is just that: self evident. The cop cannot do so (without the threat of punishment) because our constitution restricts him from interfering with our rights.
Again, if a clear violation of a man's individual rights is proven, the gov't is given moral authority to use its monopoly on force to appropriate punishment. The problem with laws is that if Congress is given power to create laws that have not yet been decided through the judicial system or through the average American's choices, then crap like Prohibition, Fugitive Slave Act, SS, Welfare, New Deal (though that was more FDR), etc. gets passed. It is not for Congress to determine what is legal in this country, based on their own opinions.
Oh, yeah, if the cop really didn't like the man, would he care if there was a law against murder?
She is an excellent writer.
As I put forward earlier, how exactly do you define "self-evident"? You seem to think that it's anything that logically follows from the premises, but "logical" is still a debatable term. Some people think SS is a logical solution, yet you disagree.
He might not, but the system might. If there were a law against murder, the officer could be held accountable for his negligence (assuming his job description is to uphold the law), and he could be charged upon those grounds. If there were no murder laws, and the officer's job is simply to uphold "self-evident rights," then he could argue that he found the murder to be self-evidentially proper.
Your system rests on the premise that every human being is rational: if that were true, anarchy would be the ideal system. But it is not true, and therefore you can't allow the gov'ts action's to be directed by whatever the courts choose to identify as the self-evident.
The basic concept of Congress is an original key philosophy behind British parliament, that the masses are too ignorant to make quality decisions of their own. The enlightened person, it was believed, was the only person who could logically decide their own destiny because they could understand the problem without personal bias or misconception. Ever since universal suffrage came into being, Congress and other such representative institutions relate more to representation by proportion rather than of the often proportionally smaller "elite" (usually propertied interests). If you wanted all issues to be decided by the public you would have to fall back to majority opinion, which you call tyranny!
What others say about me:
Sven Dostei
Unofficial Official arrogant teenage elitist of The Ivory Tower
Just my thoughts
Warning for Necroing