This mainly goes for American society and the nonpartisan form of the government thereof.

If anyone takes through the claim of the fact that modern law "respects no establishment of religion" and is "non partisan", as in in the law is "secular"(quotations exclude sarcasm), then still considering the fact that no one is omnipotent, why have law?

I only have my small knowledge of my religion to encourage the anarchy of it (idea of no law). Its all of my own thinking and you are in no way required to agree, but here it goes: In Christianity, the rules are good because the infallible Law-Giver made them; you, as a fallible human being shouldn't try to create your own rules because it won't matter we will ignore or break them anyway. Therefore, following the laws of man is in the eyes of mine, irrational. If today's laws aren't from my God, then I shouldn't have to pay attention to them. Yeah, that makes me sound like a crazy. If they are the laws of my God, the they are partisan and in being so null and void for everyone else anyway.

This somehow makes the bureaucracy of waiting at the red light at midnight on an empty road valid. Discordianism is far overlooked in this respect. But I see no conflict in it and the former. (ignoring discordian balance)

This mainly goes for American society and the nonpartisan form of the government thereof.

If anyone takes through the claim of the fact that modern law respects no establishment of religion and is non partisan, as in in the law is secular, then still considering the fact that no one is omnipotenet, why have law?

After having read this part of your post, I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean. In what I can only assume is an effort to come off as intelligent, some people will just string a bunch of words together where, in doing so, their sentences end up almost nonsensical. When people do this, they forget that the purpose of language is to convey understanding.

Of course, you might be unable form coherent sentences even in your every day life, in which case, oh man... I feel sorry for your family.

Here's what I think you mean (please correct me if I'm wrong):

If anyone makes the claim that the law is secular, then considering the fact that no one is omnipotent, why have law?

The reason for having laws has nothing to do with religion. Religion is merely a tool through which law were enforced. The law exists for two basic reasons: 1 – to protect people. For example, when two streets cross each other, there is a stop sign/light. A law says you must stop when you see that sign. If you drive through that stop sign, you might hit another car. The people in the other car might be injured or even killed, and the law says you are accountable for their injuries/deaths. 2 – to protect property. What if you saved your money and bought a bike. The law says that bike is now your property. What if someone else saw that bike and liked it? They might try to steal it away from you. But that is against the law, and therefore, they could be arrested. Because of this they’re forced to weigh the risks versus the reward, instead of simply “acquiring” the bike.

(the above was paraphrased from here: http://edhelper.com/ReadingComprehension_33_274.html)

The kind of law you’re speaking of is the “natural law,” for which Saint Thomas Aquinas was a proponent, and the concept for which has been around since ancient Greece (and maybe before that, I don’t know). Natural law comes from each human’s (most humans anyway) inherent sense of morality, and once again, is in no way, bound to religion. For example, there are two or three relatively universal laws which nearly every society in human history has had in one form or another. These are don’t kill, and don’t steal. The third one is don’t lie (bear false witness), which isn’t necessarily universal, but is a good law, because where would we be if no one ever had any way of knowing if something was true or not (not even the slightest inclination)?

The first two (relatively) universal laws, don’t kill and don’t steal, are manifested in today’s laws that protect people and protect property, respectively. The third cannot be practically enforced in everyday situations; however, lying in court is against the law (perjury).

I only have my small knowledge of my religion to encourage the anarchy of it. Its all of my own thinking and you are in no way required to agree, but here it goes: In Christianity, the rules are good because the infallible Law-Giver made them;

That is only what some Christians want you to believe. In reality, laws are ultimately derived from each and every persons’ collective the sense of morality, and they’re enforced through necessity. By that I mean, if all concept of law suddenly disappeared, society would no longer exist as we have come to know it.

you, as a fallible human being shouldn't try to create your own rules because it won't matter we will ignore or break them anyway.

When everyone creates their own laws, it’s called anarchy.

Therefore, following the laws of man is in the eyes of mine, irrational. If today's laws aren't from my God, then I shouldn't have to pay attention to them.

That’s a very selfish viewpoint, and doesn’t take into account the real reason laws were made in the first place.

Yeah, that makes me sound like a crazy. If they are the laws of my God, the they are partisan and in being so null and void for everyone else anyway.

The important laws are not the laws of your god.

This somehow makes the bureaucracy of waiting at the red light at midnight on an empty road valid.

What?

Discordianism is far overlooked in this respect. But I see no conflict in it and the former.

Discordianism is another word for anarchy, correct? If so, you should know that, in anarchy, only power and cruelty matter ( - Marquis de Sade). In addition, anarchism would never work in modern society because it doesn’t protect against market failures such as barriers to entry.

To address the title of this thread directly - "Are we fallible? If so, then we should have no law." I would argue that we have laws because we are fallible.

“If mankind could live without law, we would’ve been doing so for centuries.” I forgot who said that, but it’s a quote from somewhere.

After having read this part of your post, I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean. In what I can only assume is an effort to come off as intelligent, some people will just string a bunch of words together where, in doing so, their sentences end up almost nonsensical. When people do this, they forget that the purpose of language is to convey understanding. My first few sentences were the gobldygook of the modern political status quo. Doublespeak isn't restricted to 1984. I did not use them becuase I felt like it. Past that, I wasn't talking in a practical manner, I was talking in a theoretical manner, as in what WOULD happen if you considered thing in that perspective. Don't get condescending on me.


Of course, you might be unable form coherent sentences even in your every day life, in which case, oh man... I feel sorry for your family. Cheap

Here's what I think you mean (please correct me if I'm wrong):

If anyone makes the claim that the law is secular, then considering the fact that no one is omnipotent, why have law?

The reason for having laws has nothing to do with religion. Religion is merely a tool through which law were enforced. The law exists for two basic reasons: 1 – to protect people. For example, when two streets cross each other, there is a stop sign/light. A law says you must stop when you see that sign. If you drive through that stop sign, you might hit another car. The people in the other car might be injured or even killed, and the law says you are accountable for their injuries/deaths. 2 – to protect property. What if you saved your money and bought a bike. The law says that bike is now your property. What if someone else saw that bike and liked it? They might try to steal it away from you. But that is against the law, and therefore, they could be arrested. Because of this they’re forced to weigh the risks versus the reward, instead of simply “acquiring” the bike.

(the above was paraphrased from here: http://edhelper.com/ReadingComprehension_33_274.html)
Everything you just said is refuted by a Machiavelli perspective.

The kind of law you’re speaking of is the “natural law,” for which Saint Thomas Aquinas was a proponent, and the concept for which has been around since ancient Greece (and maybe before that, I don’t know). Natural law comes from each human’s (most humans anyway) inherent sense of morality, and once again, is in no way, bound to religion. For example, there are two or three relatively universal laws which nearly every society in human history has had in one form or another. These are don’t kill, and don’t steal. The third one is don’t lie (bear false witness), which isn’t necessarily universal, but is a good law, because where would we be if no one ever had any way of knowing if something was true or not (not even the slightest inclination)?

The first two (relatively) universal laws, don’t kill and don’t steal, are manifested in today’s laws that protect people and protect property, respectively. The third cannot be practically enforced in everyday situations; however, lying in court is against the law (perjury).

I do belive I saw the word morality in there. an where do morals come from? From a story or event. Whether it is true or factual is irrelevant. Yet again, the "universal laws" you speak of don't go here.



The important laws are not the laws of your god. Which laws? Define important. What are the laws of my God, don't steal other people's shit? Don't kill fuckers? Oh wait those ARE some of them. Hmm.



What?
What is Bureaucracy? Waiting at a stoplight when you know no one will show up to pass. Which is why you should go through the stoplight but don't out of some misplaced sense of order or fear of repercussion It follows from the tellings of Professor Cramulus:


"My wise friend Nopants, I have come to ask you a question,” said Golden Rod, “What is Bureaucracy?"

“In India,” said Nopants, “they tie elephants to trees using thin cords. An elephant could easily snap the cord, yet they remain tethered in place. Why do you think this is?”

Golden Rod itched himself and shrugged.

“When the elephant is young,” intoned Nopants, “she is too weak to break the cord. She tries, but eventually she gives up. When the elephant grows up, she does not try to escape her puny bonds because she believes she will be foiled.”

“So the cord isn’t the thing keeping the elephant in place,” said Golden Rod. He squinted at Nopants, “That’s very interesting, but what does that have to do with Bureaucracy?”

“Bureaucracy,” said Nopants, “is waiting for a red traffic light in the middle of the night when no one is coming.”

Discordianism is another word for anarchy, correct? If so, you should know that, in anarchy, only power and cruelty matter ( - Marquis de Sade). In addition, anarchism would never work in modern society because it doesn’t protect against market failures such as barriers to entry.
Discordianism is a modern religion centered on the idea that chaos is as important as order. Anarchy is without government or law. They are not the same.

To address the title of this thread directly - "Are we fallible? If so, then we should have no law." I would argue that we have laws because we are fallible. But you are following the laws of people who are fallible. Why listen to them? Who made them right?

“If mankind could live without law, we would’ve been doing so for centuries.” I forgot who said that, but it’s a quote from somewhere. Modern Naturalist evolutionary opinions need to go here, something about monkeys and maybe insect politics.



On the whole, you have very valid points but still, I can't quite follow.

Oh the Humanities!

EDIT: The typical theory on this is that if God wanted different laws then He would make them. The laws in place now are those that God supports.

Oh the Humanities!

EDIT: The typical theory on this is that if God wanted different laws then He would make them. The laws in place now are those that God supports.

Damn I knew that would probably have been the better forum.

In Christianity, the rules are good because the infallible Law-Giver made them;

Christianity claims that, yet has not even come lose to proving it. If you believe it, as apparently you do, it seems you've just decided it is so. Why stop with your unsubstantiated religious beliefs?

Why not hand out the same credulous courtesy to other systems of law?

First, let me say that the inability to have quotes within quotes is going to make this considerably harder. Now;

my first few sentences were the gobldygook of the modern political status quo. Doublespeak isn't restricted to 1984. I did not use them becuase i felt like it. Past that, i wasn't talking in a practical manner, i was talking in a theoretical manner, as in what would happen if you considered thing in that perspective. Don't get condescending on me.

If what you said was doublespeak as I understand it (language constructed to disguise or distort its actual meaning), please enlighten me as to what you actually meant. Was I correct in my interpretation:

If anyone makes the claim that the law is secular, then considering the fact that no one is omnipotent, why have law?

Cheap

If you can speak coherently, you have no reason to be offended by what I said.

everything you just said is refuted by a machiavelli perspective.

How? Being that I’m arguing for the status quo (laws exist, and just ones (that’s debatable) should be obeyed), and you’re arguing against it (no law should be obeyed), you must present evidence for change. Part of that responsibility is detailing what you mean, rather than making blanket statements.

As I recall, Machiavelli used (theoretically) law and its implementation and enforcement as a means to justify an end. I would argue that using those laws as a means and the reason for their implementation in the first place are not mutually exclusive.

So, if you would, please explain to me exactly how the reason for law’s existence is contradicted by a Machiavellian perspective.

I do belive i saw the word morality in there. An where do morals come from? From a story or event.

While I agree that morality is largely subjective (if that’s your viewpoint), I believe there are a few pretty universal rules even those who ascribe to cultural relativism adhere to. I also believe that these rules are a result of evolution – let me explain. It’s been estimated that everyone living on the planet today is at most a 9th cousin. Whether you believe that or not, know that we are all related, and chances are, the closer in proximity you are to another person, the closer related you are to them. This may not be true so much in today’s world where mass transit is practical and affordable, but for the overwhelmingly vast majority of human history it was true. Now, another word for being related is being “kin.” We are all kin to one another (however distant). Most every organism on the planet capable of doing so exhibits what is known as kin selection. This means that organisms tend to engage in strategies that favor the reproductive success of their relatives, at times, even at the cost of their own lives. Further, evolutionary psychologists (whom I draw from and agree with here) explain behavior associated with what’s commonly referred to as morality through kin selection by stating that “behaviors that help a genetic relative are favored by natural selection.” And because we’re all genetic relatives, we are all evolutionarily “programmed” to not kill one another. Thus, morality is but another evolved trait, like tri-chromatic vision, or the nerve cluster at the tip of your dick.

Whether it is true or factual is irrelevant.

No, it isn’t, because I am arguing that the two most important (or at very least, the one utmost important) laws in human history (don’t kill and don’t steal) are derived from humanity’s inherent sense of morality.

Yet again, the "universal laws" you speak of don't go here.

Yes they do. Thou shalt not kill is precisely what we’re discussing.

Which laws?

Don’t kill and don’t steal.

Define important.

For the purposes of this discussion: important - necessary for the continued function of society.

What are the laws of my god, don't steal other people's shit? Don't kill fuckers? Oh wait those are some of them. Hmm.

The point I was trying to make is that your god didn’t create those laws. They were in place before the very notion of his existence.

What is bureaucracy? Waiting at a stoplight when you know no one will show up to pass. Which is why you should go through the stoplight but don't out of some misplaced sense of order or fear of repercussion it follows from the tellings of professor cramulus:

"my wise friend nopants, i have come to ask you a question,” said golden rod, “what is bureaucracy?"

“in india,” said nopants, “they tie elephants to trees using thin cords. An elephant could easily snap the cord, yet they remain tethered in place. Why do you think this is?”

golden rod itched himself and shrugged.

“when the elephant is young,” intoned nopants, “she is too weak to break the cord. She tries, but eventually she gives up. When the elephant grows up, she does not try to escape her puny bonds because she believes she will be foiled.”

“so the cord isn’t the thing keeping the elephant in place,” said golden rod. He squinted at nopants, “that’s very interesting, but what does that have to do with bureaucracy?”

“bureaucracy,” said nopants, “is waiting for a red traffic light in the middle of the night when no one is coming.”

Ok, so lets assume for a moment I’ve been thoroughly convinced by your arguments here to the degree that I will now run every red light where I don’t see oncoming traffic from either my left or right. The probability that I will have a wreck has just skyrocketed. (What if it’s one in the morning and some guy forgot to turn his lights on? What if I simply don’t see them coming over a hill next to the light? I think two examples is enough) Laws are in place to protect people.

Not to mention the incredibly slippery slope you’re on. What’s next, I stop obeying the speed limit when I see no other cars around? Should I then stop obeying all traffic laws? Fuck it man, what about laws in general, you wanna die tonight?

discordianism is a modern religion centered on the idea that chaos is as important as order. Anarchy is without government or law. They are not the same.

Ok, they’re not the same, but discordianism and anarchy both embrace chaos (in one form or another, see: lawlessness).

But you are following the laws of people who are fallible. Why listen to them? Who made them right?

In some cases, millions of years of evolution, in others, those men simply appeal to my common sense. I don’t have to know that they’re right, I just have to believe that what they’ve mandated is in our mutual best interest.

“If mankind could live without law, we would’ve been doing so for centuries.”

Modern naturalist evolutionary opinions need to go here, something about monkeys and maybe insect politics.

I don’t know anything about insect politics, but I did try to provide the former.

fucking multi quote much

Xim,

I'll stop the quote wars. But the basic reply I can give is a question: the 9th cousin origination idea, are you referencing to a hive mind thought that makes the basic laws? And the insect politics is basically this: Insects don't have politics. It is just my opinion that since insects don't have politics, our have to originate from a source outside of this rational nature. But if they did, that would make them non-secular (opinion) on account that there is some partiality of the law makers. So why follow a partial law that is not actually impartial if it is set by someone who isn't me?

It's not that I don't think there is not an answer, it is that I just don't see it in plain view. You don't altogether convince me.

Also since you brought up the points about the traffic light, I post the end of the story from the last excerpt. You should like it.


Across space and time, a gong sounded.

Golden Rod left the basement and returned to the real world, thoroughly confused. As he drove home, he ran five red lights. His mirth rose with each light. By the end of the voyage he was giggling like a ninny at his newfound freedom.

Years went by and Golden Rod continued drive towards Aftermath. He rolled stop signs, blew through red lights, and opened his moon roof when there was danger of falling rocks.

“Sweet Merciful Ass!” cried out Bung-Fu the Fool as he clawed at the dashboard. “You’re gonna get us both killed!”

“I am self-emancipated from these mundane traffic laws,” cackled Golden Rod. “I am a harbinger of Aftermath!”

“Do you always drive like this?” said Bung-Fu as he buckled his seat belt.

Golden Rod nodded. "Always."

Meanwhile, the monk Nopants was wheeling his gong across the street towards his basement. He patiently waited for the light to turn red, then pushed the ponderous percussive instrument upon the pavement.


The collision made the exact sound of enlightenment.

But the Christian god is fallible, hence the reason for Noah's ark...or all of his failed species.

Xim,

I'll stop the quote wars. But the basic reply I can give is a question: the 9th cousin origination idea, are you referencing to a hive mind thought that makes the basic laws? And the insect politics is basically this: Insects don't have politics. It is just my opinion that since insects don't have politics, our have to originate from a source outside of this rational nature. But if they did, that would make them non-secular (opinion) on account that there is some partiality of the law makers. So why follow a partial law that is not actually impartial if it is set by someone who isn't me?

It's not that I don't think there is not an answer, it is that I just don't see it in plain view. You don't altogether convince me.

Man, dissecting posts like that, and making multiple quotes is the best way to debate on a forum, because it's easy to follow. Don't let killallthewhiteman scare you away from debating me in that fashion.

---

I said nothing of a hive mind. Humanity doesn't have a hive mind, that's preposterous. What I meant was the practice of kin selection being extrapolated into one of the basic laws of human society: don't kill.

---

Your post was very hard for me to make sense of. From what I can tell, you ignored most of my arguments, and that's fine, I suppose... it just sort of kills the debate.

---

Seriously though, I don't know what this means:

"It is just my opinion that since insects don't have politics, our have to originate from a source outside of this rational nature. But if they did, that would make them non-secular (opinion) on account that there is some partiality of the law makers. So why follow a partial law that is not actually impartial if it is set by someone who isn't me?"

Could you restate that so that it makes sense?

My bad I'll try again.

From the remake of the fly there is a quote on insect politics.

Seth Brundle: Have you ever heard of insect politics? Neither have I. Insects… don’t have politics. They’re very… brutal. No compassion, no compromise. We can’t trust the insect. I’d like to become the first… insect politician. Y’see, I’d like to, but… I’m afraid, uh…
Ronnie: I don’t know what you’re trying to say.
Seth Brundle: I’m saying… I’m saying I - I’m an insect who dreamt he was a man and loved it. But now the dream is over… and the insect is awake.
Ronnie: No. no, Seth…
Seth Brundle: I’m saying… I’ll hurt you if you stay.

Insects don't follow law. Insects are natural. I think law is not. If it is not, where did it come from? Why?

where did it come from?
God gave it to us.
Why?
Ask Him.

I think law is not [natural]. If it is not, where did it come from? Why?

I would argue that law is a natural consequence of human society. And because the development of human society is inherent in the human form, law is, therefore, natural.

Hell, even animals have forms of society. It would only follow that more advanced animals would have more advanced society.

I would argue that law is a natural consequence of human society. And because the development of human society is inherent in the human form, law is, therefore, natural.

Hell, even animals have forms of society. It would only follow that more advanced animals would have more advanced society.

I see your point in other animal relations as a valid one, but do we act like them? We deviate constantly don't we? The wolf pack doesn't flip out unexpectedly, the school of fish doesn't decide to quit swimming, but I see this deviation in us.

What deviation? Please explain.