Laws Do Not Work

There seems to be a misconception by the general public that laws are actually capable of solving problems.

Let us clear this up right now – laws are, by definition, incapable of actually solving any problem.

No law ever created in the history of mankind has solved the underlying problem it was created to address.

Murder laws do not solve the problem of murder.

Rape laws do not solve the problem of rape.

Robbery laws do not solve the problem of theft.

Fraud laws do not solve the problem of fraud.

Financial regulations do not solve the problems of cronyism, moral hazard, counterfeiting, or wealth disproportionately being moved into the hands of politically connected industrialists/financiers.

By and large, most laws don’t even reduce the problems they were created to address; they generally make the problems in society larger than they would have been otherwise; they transfer problems from one area of society to another.

Let us take the most extreme example of murder laws and look at their effects. When a person is murdered, our current laws prevent the victim’s family from extracting revenge on their own. Vigilantism is prohibited by law. The State says IT ALONE shall be the dispenser of “justice.” - But what justice is given to the surviving family members?

Are the victim’s family members given compensation for their loss? No, they are not.

Are the victim’s family members made to pay for the “punishment” of the murderer by having a gun stuck in their face by an IRS agent? Yes, indeed they are.

Are the victim’s family members allowed to chose a form of punishment that most appropriately compensates them for their loss? No, they are not.

Are the victim’s family members allowed to keep the profits of the murderer that the State generates from his labor in the prison workhouse? No, they are not.

Are the victim’s family members forced to pay for the murderers attorney fees if the murderer uses a public defender? Yes, indeed they are.

Do police have any financial incentive actually solve the murder in the first place? No, they do not. In fact, on average about 35-40% of murders go unsolved every year. Of course, it is the victim’s families who pay these police detectives salaries. A rich family is more certain to at least figure out who did it because they can hire private investigators to solve their murder instead of relying on the State’s incompetence for justice.

In addition to looking at all of these visible effects, we must also consider the unseen effects that occur because of the way our system of justice is structured. Money is violently looted from the victims of crime in order for the State to administer “justice” on their behalf.

As more crime is committed against innocent victims by murders, thieves, and looters – the State is necessarily forced to increase the amount of thieving and looting it engages in so that it may apprehend and punish offenders on behalf of their victims. In our system of “justice,” violence against the innocent necessarily begets more violence against the innocent.

We see a classic transference of problems and very little justice. Consider that as the State violently loots from the working people, the marginal benefits of engaging in productive peaceful behavior diminish. If the State violently expropriates 40% of the common man's wealth through taxation, it will induce more people to seek monetary gain through illegal means. The illegal means may take the form of robbery, dealing in black market goods, or simply lying about their income.

Today, the most common alternative illegal source of tax free income is for people to engage in the sale of illicit drugs. Either as a supplementary or primary means of income. Since the sale of these illicit drugs is violently prohibited by the State, the market participants create their own justice system to protect their goods.

Most homicides in America are related in someway to the violent prohibition of drugs. Gangs, drug cartels, and other violent black market organizations are a direct outgrowth of the violent prohibition on the sale of narcotics. The gangs and cartels ARE A SYSTEM OF PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION created and maintained by the black market. As perverse as it sounds, gangs and cartels are necessarily no different than police departments and criminal court systems in terms of the functions they serve.

Individual actors collude in gangs in order to acquire the protection of their person and property that the civil society refuses to accord them. Drug related murders are not generally an outcome of people robbing to fund a drug habit; they are almost always the actions of a gang enforcing its brand of property rights within the black market. Gangs generally murder people over property or personal disputes, not because their members are trying to fund drug habits.

So here we see the cycle of violence laid bare. The State creates violence by violently prohibiting voluntary transactions. As the violence created by the State intensifies, the State violently loots ever more in order to prevent and punish the violent offenders it created in the first place. As the State increases its looting of the innocent, the innocent turn more and more to the black market and other illegal behavior to fund their lifestyles.

In all of this, not one single social problem is ultimately solved. Poverty is not eradicated, drug use is not wiped out, murder is not prevented, and real justice is NEVER administered.

Because laws are completely incapable of solving the underlying problem they were created to address, they necessarily can ONLY PUNISH, NEVER PREVENT, CRIME. Thus, we must have an extremely clear definition of what constitutes “a crime.”

Nature makes the definition of a crime quite simple. We all learn it in kindergarten. It is wrong to cause harm to another person or damage/steal their property. That is the extent of what nature says constitutes “a crime.” All laws must necessarily reflect this if real justice and peace is to ever be achieved in society. Because this axiom is necessarily true, all crimes MUST have a clearly defined victim that can stand before society and articulate the exact nature of damages they incurred. If no one was harmed and no property was damaged or stolen, then we can necessarily say that no crime was committed and no one is in need of any punishment.

It is literally impossible to have a peaceful and just society if the instruments of peace and justice within that society are themselves predicated on the violent expropriation of wealth from the innocent.

The question we must ask ourselves is this – is there a way to ensure people and property are protected that does not rely on destroying property rights in the process of offering this protection?

Is there a voluntary way to ensure justice is administered, in a just fashion, that does not rely the victim being victimized twice?

I believe such a way does exist, but the form it may take is something ONLY VOLUNTARY MARKETS may determine. It is as impossible to determine all of the potential forms this proposed system of justice may take as it is impossible to tell what technology humanity may have invented through the free markets in the year 2100.

While it is not possible know, without the use of markets to weed out the bad systems from the good, what the absolute best system of justice may be; we do know that the current system is a monopoly that is predicated on violence itself.

Philosopher and economist Hans Hoppe has put forth one proposal on what a market based system of justice might look like:

reply to post by mnemeth1


Only a complete prat would come up with these sort of post's, What was the one the other day?! "Legalise Drunk driving" Yes because thats a good idea! Fool.

How about been productive and suggesting an alternative? No?
We all know what poeple do without laws, They do what they want! The Good will Hide in their homes frightend for their lives, and the Bad will spread anarchy on the streets, Killing without regret,

Thats why we have a Justice system mnemeth1 and thats why most of the Good people are safe

Laws don't solve problems no you are correct in saying that.

However, surely you would agree that laws reduce them?

If i could rob somewhere for money or batter someone who p*sses me off I would. The only thing that stops me 9 times out of 10 is that fact that I may get charged and/or fined/sent to prison.

They are a deterrent to the majority of people. Thats all they are.

If there were no laws I would be a drug toting pimp ridin dirty in an Aston Martin popping people out of the window. As it stands I would probably get life imprisonment for that...

This is perfectly well articulated. This is the truth. If you don't believe that then you are ignorant.

Well it certainly doesnt eradicate crime, these laws.

Some people will do what they please no matter what the consequences may be. If there was a mental assesment on every repeat offender, Im sure that there would be data supporting a common mental ailment.

People in power, who know they can get away with whatever they please, will also break the law as they see fit, as they have no consequences. Why wouldnt you? If it is swept under the rug?

For the general public however, they are somewhat effective, which is better than the alternative-anarchy.

Fantastic post

reply to post by onequestion

Of course its the truth! The guy does his research, But is it a preductive post?..No.. does it offer an alternative to the current legal system?..No..
The post purely contradicts a system that is in place, Every system has it faults, So theres no point been made in it, Only an oppinion, Nothing to improve the current system.
Its easy to identify faults in something its another thing to work towards a solution

reply to post by KingDoey


I think in our current system of justice, a law may reduce some crime at the expense of increasing other crime.

So over all, crime is never reduced in total under our current system of justice.

reply to post by mnemeth1


"Laws Do Not Work".

While there are people who will break the laws if they don't see them fit, it is important that, through laws, the criminal deeds have been publicly announced so that the people will know when their actions are violating the civil consensus.

While true that laws don't prevent behaviour which they declare illegal, it is important for the citizens to be aware what activities are illegal. The purpose of laws is not to enforce their content, that is the task of law officers and policemen (=law enforcement).

-v

Originally posted by TedHodgson
reply to post by onequestion

 

Of course its the truth! The guy does his research, But is it a preductive post?..No.. does it offer an alternative to the current legal system?..No..

ummm yeah.

See the video and last few lines of the post.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Im looking but i arnt seeing anything that 1. Is usefull towards creating a new system of "Law" 2. Makes me think law shouldnt exist.

Im just interested what do you think we should replace law with?

Not this guy again, with the anarchy. If you want anarchy fine, I say it lasts not even a week laws are in place as a preventative. It causes fear and fear keeps people in line, anarchy creates chaos and disorganization. I'm not going to argue further since its pointless.

Originally posted by TedHodgson
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Im looking but i arnt seeing anything that 1. Is usefull towards creating a new system of "Law" 2. Makes me think law shouldnt exist.

Im just interested what do you think we should replace law with?

I think we should arrest IRS agents for engaging in theft.

I think we should arrest the Fed for engaging in counterfeiting.

I think we should arrest politicians for perpetuating the invasion of foreign countries and the murder of their people.

I am all in favor of punishing those who violate the golden rule - I'm just against the use of violence to fund the justice system. As we all know, two wrongs do not make a right.

I like Hoppe's system he has proposed in his lecture to achieve this.

Originally posted by Xiamara
Not this guy again, with the anarchy. If you want anarchy fine, I say it lasts not even a week laws are in place as a preventative. It causes fear and fear keeps people in line, anarchy creates chaos and disorganization. I'm not going to argue further since its pointless.

Anarchy is peace.

The State is chaos.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Well that we can agree on! However it doesnt mean laws dont work, it means a system should be in place in which the legal system cant be perverted like it currently is been, The law Should be: no exceptions no escape and No compromise when it comes to justice.
But when it comes to normal standard people laws seems to work.
However Higher up they dont because they arnt followed

reply to post by mnemeth1


tl;dr version - The invisible hand of free market will also cure human nature and solve the justice system, now watch this one and a half hour video of a guy that's equally silly as I am to prove my point while I over exaggerate everything.

I am anarchist in a sense. But I don't see that anarchy will work with current mind set of the majority. Look at the americans for example, they're stupid in average (statistically - now I don't mean you, yes, you. Don't get offended).

-v

Originally posted by TedHodgson
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Well that we can agree on! However it doesnt mean laws dont work, it means a system should be in place in which the legal system cant be perverted like it currently is been, The law Should be: no exceptions no escape and No compromise when it comes to justice.
But when it comes to normal standard people laws seems to work.
However Higher up they dont because they arnt followed

Laws do not work at solving problems.

The "solving problems" part is left out of the post title, but that is the overall intent of the post.

The intent of the post is to highlight this fact and the gross injustices that occur because of our current system's structure.

reply to post by TedHodgson

does it offer an alternative to the current legal system?..No..

reply to post by mnemeth1


From the original post.

Philosopher and economist Hans Hoppe has put forth one proposal on what a market based system of justice might look like:

Burned.

mnemeth1, don't you know that laws actually make it physically impossible to commit crimes? One time in high school, I tried to smoke pot, but it wouldn't light on fire. Then God came down and told me I was going to hell if I tried to light it again, and the pot turned into a dove and flew away. A heavenly host did sing his praises. God's in his Heaven - All's right with the world!


Also, did you know that without laws, people would get the wrong idea about what is wrong and what is right? Seriously, how are we supposed to know that beating people and stealing stuff is wrong if not for the laws against it?


Without the government, we would have to wipe our own butts. Robert Browning's zombie would still be terrorizing the countryside.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

I think we should arrest IRS agents for engaging in theft.
I think we should arrest the Fed for engaging in counterfeiting.
I think we should arrest politicians for perpetuating the invasion of foreign countries and the murder of their people.

I am all in favor of punishing those who violate the golden rule - I'm just against the use of violence to fund the justice system. As we all know, two wrongs do not make a right.

You contradict yourself greatly here, mnemeth. And you betray a glimpse into the workings of your mind.

You want to use laws (that you don't believe in or support) to punish those you do not agree with. And you want to do this all in the name of lawlessness, or "anarchy".

Clearly the underlying message is that you don't really want to undo the system, as it exists. You merely long to put yourself in charge of it. This is not a quest for change... as I see it... it's really just dissatisfaction with the role you currently play within the system.

Maybe the most revelatory and important statement I can make here is this: Laws do work. For all their pitfalls and shortcomings, they do protect us from surreptitious and questionable grabs for power made by those who would scorn law as a means of gaining power.

~Heff

While i disagree with the posters overall conclusion that laws do not work I also see the point he is making that laws do not stop the problem itself.
But - what is the alternative? no laws - this would see an increase in crimes.
Perhaps there is a middle ground, somthing we can take from a post most would consider pointless.. (like how myself and others considered his legalise drunk driving post pointless.)
The OP has pointed out that the police force do not have a real incentive to solve crime compared to a private investigator - perhaps just maybe there is some wisdom behind this... if the police had competition just like most other markets then perhaps we would see more crime being solved, people themselves may report things alot more if they knew there was a reward for them, and criminals would likely sell each other out to get this incentive - we might be able to turn criminals in to a security force in themselves if we turned them on each other.

Just a thought and an expensive option indeed but I do see some value in this otherwise useless post so I am going to give a star and would like to hear back from the rest of you on this.