Every young male, when asked what he would like to be when he grew up, probably answered at some point in his life "a Policeman", and not only that, but with a capital P. why this fascination with being a symbol of the law?
It is my personal opinion, that when asked most people would say they're the "good guys" and other people in their way are the "bad guys". while this subject deserves and will receive it's own article, i wish to discuss peoples view of the law from this perspective.
Peoples ability to see things the way they'd prefer to has always amazed me, and one of these illusions is the complete mixup between law, justice, order and chaos.
Viewing the law to be right, true or correct is a common misconception, and on this i wish to elaborate.
Let us first, in order to avoid any semantic differences, define our values for the words "law", "justice", "view" and "order".
This will enable us first and foremost, to see if there are any misunderstandings which might be caused simply by personal intepertation of a word.
We might then argue about the meaning of a word, but not about the idea said word is supposed to express.
"View" - in every society there are things which are considered acceptable and things which are considered taboo. in some societies, the death penalty is acceptable, in others it is not. in some societies war is a great thing, and in others it is not. a view, for us, would be a specific generally accepted belief or view held by this society, which matches its values etc.
ex1. it is wrong to hit children.
ex2. thieves should have their hand chopped off.
ex3. jihad is a blessed thing.
these are views of different civilizations, and we are not yet at the stage of discussion which is correct, true, good or right (we have not yet defined these values).
"Law" - in most societies there operates a force, backed by the governing authority, whose purpose it is to uphold commands given by this authority. these commands or regulations are laws.
ex.1 you will pay taxes.
ex.2 you will stop at a red light.
ex.3 you will burn witches.
these are laws of different civilizations at different time periods, again we are not ready to discuss what is correct etc'.
"Justice" - quite frankly, justice is a more acceptable form of the word revenge. it might also not contain the childish necessity of doing unto other what has been done unto you, but simply wish to resolve an uncomfortable situation. in either case, the intentions are irrelevant to us - only the deeds.
ex1. if a killed b it's just for someone to avenge b.
ex2. if a killed b it's just for a to be sent to prison, or pay a's family etc'.
ex3. if a has collided his car into b's car it's only just for a to pay for the damages.
again, ideas of justice change dramatically between societies, and we will not discuss correctness in this article.
please note that justice is a form of View.
"Order" - order is the acceptable everyday state. people in a country ruled by a dictator believe order exists where they are, and so do people in countries ruled by a democracy or any other form of government. amazingly enough, most people with ruling system a believe order doesn't exist in countries with ruling system b.
please note that Order is a function if the people lack of views, and\or their willingness to be governed.
"Chaos" - chaos is a lack of order, a state achieved usually when peoples Views have collided too strongly with the Laws set on them by their rulers, and the people are unwilling to be subjected to these rules.
ex1. rioting
ex2. increased criminal activity
please note that striking is not a function of Chaos, as it is allowed by the law.
naturally, where it is not allowed by the law, it is also a form of chaos.
a state of Chaos will not erupt unless an entire strong population be threatened by said laws, and therefore the laws and views can have differences so long as those differences aren't often relevant for the ruling class.
this means anyone not of a ruling class can be subjected to laws that are not in league with the society's views but are profitable for the ruling authority, or at least the majority of the population is docile enough to accept said law.
Now that we have these definitions we can start thinking about the way the system operates and what this means to us.
In a perfect world everyone will have the same Views, Laws would be created the guard these Views, these Views and Laws *will be correct*(which we will not discuss currently).
We do not, however, live in a perfect world and so problems arise.
Let us look at the extreme cases, and see what we can deduce.
1: laws do not exist and/or no one upholds the laws and/or the law is not kept by the common people.
It might be said civilization would function, at least for a while. it is probable to assume that eventually some criminal will evolve (ref. Chicken and Game Theory) and that society will not be able to handle said criminal.
we deduce a need for laws and an upholding force.
2: laws exist and are obeyed to the extreme.
on the one hand crime will be at a low, presuming the population is reasonably docile. on the other hand, blindingly following laws, which are as we stated earlier, the commands issued by the rulers is not a good thing. Consider the Nazis. Consider crimes of war. we won't discuss the Death Penalty here, but again, it should be considered.
we deduce that following laws to the extreme leads to a state of harm on the weaker classes, who will eventually revolt, but only after the camel's back is broken, which could take a long time.
how do these to conclusions add up?
one says - don't do as you're told, the other says - you must do as you're told.
not exactly.
what we actually deduced is that laws have to exist, and that people must not follow laws blindly.
if laws have to exist, but you don't always follow them, how is this state different than laws not existing and people doing what they think they should do? we continue..
our conclusions don't mean people must break laws, it means they must only go along with them if they match their Views, or if they don't object to the laws too strongly.
this means you should do what you think is right, even if it is against the law, because in an imperfect world the law can be corrupt, wrong, irrelevant, outdated or simply doesn't consider all facts.
questions you should ask yourself are:
who made this law?
who profits from it?
who is oppressed by it?
when doing jury duty you swear to uphold the written law.
in many places the law includes the punishment as a sub-clause (though this is not a separate part in our definition)
at the time you take that oath you are not completely familiar with the law, which means you might be swearing to, for example, killing the entire family of the individual charged with the crime.
what kind of oath is that?
you rely that the law matches your views, and that your view match the views of the general populace.
note that earlier we mentioned laws such as "you will burn witches" when in fact that law was "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" and the crime for being a witch was burning at the stake. this is because by letting the state do things on your behalf, while staying in a state of order, is in every practical sense the same as accepting the authority's solution, which makes you partly responsible, which means when a witch was burned it wasn't the witchfinder in charge that bore responsibility, but everyone there who didn't revolt.
there is a problem with doing what you think is right, however, and that is your views do not necessarily coincide with the views of the general public, who may or may not have Correct views.
please note that Correctness(which we have not yet defined properly) is not a democratic variable:
ex1. 300 years ago people believed the world to be flat, that stinking was the only safeguard against the "demons of ill-health", and that should you be insane a hole must be drilled in your head to let "the madness demons" out.
this is the basic defect (and strength) of democracy - it's versatility, and the actual reason why we require laws - not because they're correct, but because they give us a relatively measurable standard.
a democracy that's willing to customize it's laws to the populace views will be relatively safe from the problems we mentioned (but no system is truly safe, because systems don't think, nor do law, only people do).
we will also note, that all systems are corruptable at least to some extent, which also gives rise to privliges (private laws).
now that we've discussed laws, we should discussed their upholders - the police, military or religious forces.
should the laws match the views of the society, these people can then be considered heroes fighting for a society against those who wish to harm it.
should the laws not coincide the views of the society these people are then the oppressors fist.
supposing we have a benign society that one day starts to undertake a change for the worse, under a totalitarian leadership (such as the Nazis, again). do you believe that the said force's personal will resign?
some will. others just need a job, and that's all it is to them.
conclusion, do not give credit or respect to those who haven't earned them - a uniform is made of cloth, which comes off, and everyone's made of the same flesh.
heroes are hard to come by (but they do exist, maybe you know one, maybe you are one).
on a final note, both laws and democracy are nothing to be proud of because as stated earlier - they're flawed in the extreme. this doesn't mean however, they are not the best tools currently available to us (nor does it mean that they are). i would like to one day try and live in areas divided to groups and subgroups by views, but i fear that'll never happen.
when confronted with a legal issue, consider the laws, consider your views, consider the views of the general populace, consider the damage to Order and strengthening of Chaos should the law you are breaking be abolished, consider the questions mentioned earlier, but whatever you do, the key word is CONSIDER = THINK.
do not accept what you are told by any authority to be true, try and contradict arguments, don't accept a truth because it's probably just a View, and be open to other arguments.
if a conclusion is correct, it will stand no matter how rigourus the testing procedure.
i will also state that if a law causes harm to you personally, you don't necessarily have to revolt against it, if you wish to be considerate with others opinions (though you are obviously not obligated to any such thing).
a few last examples of laws that may or may not be corrupt, depending on your Views,
many laws exist supposedly as a view the populace has of intolerance against a certain group:
ex1. homosexuals
ex2. drug users
ex3. gypsies
just because i don't mention the laws already makes you think are there laws? should there be laws? were there laws? were they abolished? who is oppressed by such laws? why should such a law exist? why should such a law not exist? who gains something from this law? what are the public's views concerning these groups? what are are the relevant authorities?
this is good practice.
it might be that a law needs breaking, and it might be that it's not such a bad law after all.
It is my personal opinion, that when asked most people would say they're the "good guys" and other people in their way are the "bad guys". while this subject deserves and will receive it's own article, i wish to discuss peoples view of the law from this perspective.
Peoples ability to see things the way they'd prefer to has always amazed me, and one of these illusions is the complete mixup between law, justice, order and chaos.
Viewing the law to be right, true or correct is a common misconception, and on this i wish to elaborate.
Let us first, in order to avoid any semantic differences, define our values for the words "law", "justice", "view" and "order".
This will enable us first and foremost, to see if there are any misunderstandings which might be caused simply by personal intepertation of a word.
We might then argue about the meaning of a word, but not about the idea said word is supposed to express.
"View" - in every society there are things which are considered acceptable and things which are considered taboo. in some societies, the death penalty is acceptable, in others it is not. in some societies war is a great thing, and in others it is not. a view, for us, would be a specific generally accepted belief or view held by this society, which matches its values etc.
ex1. it is wrong to hit children.
ex2. thieves should have their hand chopped off.
ex3. jihad is a blessed thing.
these are views of different civilizations, and we are not yet at the stage of discussion which is correct, true, good or right (we have not yet defined these values).
"Law" - in most societies there operates a force, backed by the governing authority, whose purpose it is to uphold commands given by this authority. these commands or regulations are laws.
ex.1 you will pay taxes.
ex.2 you will stop at a red light.
ex.3 you will burn witches.
these are laws of different civilizations at different time periods, again we are not ready to discuss what is correct etc'.
"Justice" - quite frankly, justice is a more acceptable form of the word revenge. it might also not contain the childish necessity of doing unto other what has been done unto you, but simply wish to resolve an uncomfortable situation. in either case, the intentions are irrelevant to us - only the deeds.
ex1. if a killed b it's just for someone to avenge b.
ex2. if a killed b it's just for a to be sent to prison, or pay a's family etc'.
ex3. if a has collided his car into b's car it's only just for a to pay for the damages.
again, ideas of justice change dramatically between societies, and we will not discuss correctness in this article.
please note that justice is a form of View.
"Order" - order is the acceptable everyday state. people in a country ruled by a dictator believe order exists where they are, and so do people in countries ruled by a democracy or any other form of government. amazingly enough, most people with ruling system a believe order doesn't exist in countries with ruling system b.
please note that Order is a function if the people lack of views, and\or their willingness to be governed.
"Chaos" - chaos is a lack of order, a state achieved usually when peoples Views have collided too strongly with the Laws set on them by their rulers, and the people are unwilling to be subjected to these rules.
ex1. rioting
ex2. increased criminal activity
please note that striking is not a function of Chaos, as it is allowed by the law.
naturally, where it is not allowed by the law, it is also a form of chaos.
a state of Chaos will not erupt unless an entire strong population be threatened by said laws, and therefore the laws and views can have differences so long as those differences aren't often relevant for the ruling class.
this means anyone not of a ruling class can be subjected to laws that are not in league with the society's views but are profitable for the ruling authority, or at least the majority of the population is docile enough to accept said law.
Now that we have these definitions we can start thinking about the way the system operates and what this means to us.
In a perfect world everyone will have the same Views, Laws would be created the guard these Views, these Views and Laws *will be correct*(which we will not discuss currently).
We do not, however, live in a perfect world and so problems arise.
Let us look at the extreme cases, and see what we can deduce.
1: laws do not exist and/or no one upholds the laws and/or the law is not kept by the common people.
It might be said civilization would function, at least for a while. it is probable to assume that eventually some criminal will evolve (ref. Chicken and Game Theory) and that society will not be able to handle said criminal.
we deduce a need for laws and an upholding force.
2: laws exist and are obeyed to the extreme.
on the one hand crime will be at a low, presuming the population is reasonably docile. on the other hand, blindingly following laws, which are as we stated earlier, the commands issued by the rulers is not a good thing. Consider the Nazis. Consider crimes of war. we won't discuss the Death Penalty here, but again, it should be considered.
we deduce that following laws to the extreme leads to a state of harm on the weaker classes, who will eventually revolt, but only after the camel's back is broken, which could take a long time.
how do these to conclusions add up?
one says - don't do as you're told, the other says - you must do as you're told.
not exactly.
what we actually deduced is that laws have to exist, and that people must not follow laws blindly.
if laws have to exist, but you don't always follow them, how is this state different than laws not existing and people doing what they think they should do? we continue..
our conclusions don't mean people must break laws, it means they must only go along with them if they match their Views, or if they don't object to the laws too strongly.
this means you should do what you think is right, even if it is against the law, because in an imperfect world the law can be corrupt, wrong, irrelevant, outdated or simply doesn't consider all facts.
questions you should ask yourself are:
who made this law?
who profits from it?
who is oppressed by it?
when doing jury duty you swear to uphold the written law.
in many places the law includes the punishment as a sub-clause (though this is not a separate part in our definition)
at the time you take that oath you are not completely familiar with the law, which means you might be swearing to, for example, killing the entire family of the individual charged with the crime.
what kind of oath is that?
you rely that the law matches your views, and that your view match the views of the general populace.
note that earlier we mentioned laws such as "you will burn witches" when in fact that law was "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" and the crime for being a witch was burning at the stake. this is because by letting the state do things on your behalf, while staying in a state of order, is in every practical sense the same as accepting the authority's solution, which makes you partly responsible, which means when a witch was burned it wasn't the witchfinder in charge that bore responsibility, but everyone there who didn't revolt.
there is a problem with doing what you think is right, however, and that is your views do not necessarily coincide with the views of the general public, who may or may not have Correct views.
please note that Correctness(which we have not yet defined properly) is not a democratic variable:
ex1. 300 years ago people believed the world to be flat, that stinking was the only safeguard against the "demons of ill-health", and that should you be insane a hole must be drilled in your head to let "the madness demons" out.
this is the basic defect (and strength) of democracy - it's versatility, and the actual reason why we require laws - not because they're correct, but because they give us a relatively measurable standard.
a democracy that's willing to customize it's laws to the populace views will be relatively safe from the problems we mentioned (but no system is truly safe, because systems don't think, nor do law, only people do).
we will also note, that all systems are corruptable at least to some extent, which also gives rise to privliges (private laws).
now that we've discussed laws, we should discussed their upholders - the police, military or religious forces.
should the laws match the views of the society, these people can then be considered heroes fighting for a society against those who wish to harm it.
should the laws not coincide the views of the society these people are then the oppressors fist.
supposing we have a benign society that one day starts to undertake a change for the worse, under a totalitarian leadership (such as the Nazis, again). do you believe that the said force's personal will resign?
some will. others just need a job, and that's all it is to them.
conclusion, do not give credit or respect to those who haven't earned them - a uniform is made of cloth, which comes off, and everyone's made of the same flesh.
heroes are hard to come by (but they do exist, maybe you know one, maybe you are one).
on a final note, both laws and democracy are nothing to be proud of because as stated earlier - they're flawed in the extreme. this doesn't mean however, they are not the best tools currently available to us (nor does it mean that they are). i would like to one day try and live in areas divided to groups and subgroups by views, but i fear that'll never happen.
when confronted with a legal issue, consider the laws, consider your views, consider the views of the general populace, consider the damage to Order and strengthening of Chaos should the law you are breaking be abolished, consider the questions mentioned earlier, but whatever you do, the key word is CONSIDER = THINK.
do not accept what you are told by any authority to be true, try and contradict arguments, don't accept a truth because it's probably just a View, and be open to other arguments.
if a conclusion is correct, it will stand no matter how rigourus the testing procedure.
i will also state that if a law causes harm to you personally, you don't necessarily have to revolt against it, if you wish to be considerate with others opinions (though you are obviously not obligated to any such thing).
a few last examples of laws that may or may not be corrupt, depending on your Views,
many laws exist supposedly as a view the populace has of intolerance against a certain group:
ex1. homosexuals
ex2. drug users
ex3. gypsies
just because i don't mention the laws already makes you think are there laws? should there be laws? were there laws? were they abolished? who is oppressed by such laws? why should such a law exist? why should such a law not exist? who gains something from this law? what are the public's views concerning these groups? what are are the relevant authorities?
this is good practice.
it might be that a law needs breaking, and it might be that it's not such a bad law after all.
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה