Why do we have laws, and what is the purpose of laws?

[msc545]

Updates

5 mo

I guess I wasn't clear enough here. Let me expand the question just slightly. What is the purpose in writing a law? What is the purpose in invoking a law and enforcing it? What is the end goal of doing these things?

Updates

5 mo

My purpose in writing this question was not to provoke or even entertain a political discussion, but rather to explore your thinking regarding the origins, meaning, and purpose of laws, of making laws and enforcing laws, and how they serve or harm all of us. I find that I have many questions about these things myself, so your input and discussion with me are very welcome. I would ask you to refrain from political commentary, if possible, at least on this question.

[OneViewpoint]

What is the supposedly true purpose of laws? Or, what has the purpose of laws always become?

The true purpose of laws is to provide a framework to allow society to function by making undesirable behavior punishable and encouraging desirable behavior plus a way for people to enter into contracts with each other and provide enforcement mechanisms when they fail to do so. The whole "Liberty And Justice For All" concept.

What has always failed about this? The exact thing that has happen in the USA circa 1900 and again in the early 21st century.

• The 1% hoard all the money.
• Then they use the money to buy all the political power / politicians.
• Then the 1% dictate laws to their pet politicians and every law passed is passed to benefit billionaires and fuck the average person.
• The people, the 99%, are fucked into wealth inequality by a wealthy entitled class of criminals who use race, religion, and national origin to keep the 99% fighting amongst themselves and not focused on the 1% who are driving everyone else into poverty so they can have "MORE".

It's the same thing that has gone on in Europe for 2,000 years. Cycles of Aristocracy followed by bloody revolution and then it starts all over again with a new group of entitled assholes stealing whatever they can get away with until they are dragged into the streets and removed from power at the end of a rope.

[msc545]

Do you think it's possible that you might be confusing the effects of capitalism and the effects of laws? I see capitalism as being responsible for the income inequality in the US, not the laws themselves. Although the laws may be designed to further amplify the effects of capitalism.

[beefcakebradybatson]

You're right on about the effect of laws re. the application of capitalism, msc545.

[msc545]

@beefcakebradybatson okay, so going just a step further, if capitalism provides certain people with relatively unlimited amounts of money, then it is easy for them to use that money, at least in our system, to corrupt the people who make the laws and corrupt them in a way that increases the ability of the already rich people to accumulate even more wealth? Is that approximately correct?

[beefcakebradybatson]

BINGO, msc545 !!!

[msc545]

@beefcakebradybatson thank you. I didn't just make this up myself. This is actually the definition of regulatory capture, where a company like, say, an oil company is subject to federal regulation, but the oil company makes so much money that it begins to be able to literally purchase its own regulators. And ultimately regulates itself effectively. And then there is no more regulation or oversight at all of that oil company.

A good example of this might be Boeing aircraft. Boeing made so much money from government contracting that it made enough money to be able to essentially corrupt government regulators to be beginning to be allowed to regulate itself, which is what it does now. And as a result of that has been building highly profitable airplanes that are completely unsafe. This is what is known as regulatory capture. There is no meaningful, independent oversight.

[OneViewpoint]

I'm not confusing anything. If the people who enact the laws and the people who interpret the laws can be bought by a handful of people with special interests you can no longer trust the lawmakers. or the courts Capitalism is what allowed that to happen. Which only intensified after Congress began passing ONLY laws that served the 1%.

Right now our votes don't matter because our elected officials don't see themselves as employees of the people. They are loyal to the lobby groups filling their pockets with dark money as a result of the "Citizen's United" decision of 2010.

[msc545]

I'm pretty sure that this sort of thing is at the root of income inequality. What do you think?

[beefcakebradybatson]

President Kennedy was likely slain in Dallas Nov.22,1963 in part because he wanted to get rid of oil barons' Oil Depreciation Allowance (ODA), fueling much speculation they might have funded the JFK, Sr. assassination.

[OneViewpoint]

That is exactly correct. And it's the reality we live in. The problem is a handful of people with essentially unlimited power (wealth) and zero restrictions on their use of that power.

[msc545]

@beefcakebradybatson I don't really have an opinion about that, but it certainly sounds plausible. However, I'm not clear about what this is in response to. The original question is, "Why do we have laws," and "What is the purpose of laws?" How is your statement about President Kennedy related to this?

[OneViewpoint]

The purpose of laws can be hijacked and corrupted by people with unlimited wealth and power. There is the concept of laws and there is the reality of laws in a flawed system. Why is this ahrd for you to wrap your head around?

[msc545]

If you intended this for me, I can tell you that I understand this very clearly, and you are not wrong by any means.

[MisterWack]

Complicated.
Some laws were created with the express purpose of protecting people and maintaining order.
Other laws were created with the express purposes of keeping certain people down and maintaining others’ vast power and influence.

Many stand by the notion just because something is illegal doesn’t mean it is inherently bad and just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s inherently good.

Insurance Companies, Shady Bank Practices, Shrinkflation, Overinflated Healthcare, Environmental Harm, Lobbying Efforts, and Crypto Pump And Dumps are all legal scams in the sense that nothing is utilized to hold these powerful most influential people or parties accountable against the backs of the working class or poor. In fact, the government seemingly increases these standards allowing the richest elites to continue to grow capital at the expense of people.

Another is to think about the War On Drugs and War On Terrorism.
The further the government attacks these two areas, the less freedoms an American has.

Simply possessing a drug which is addictive gets you sent to jail. Not just drug dealers.
Simply walking down the street is warranted for companies to spy on you with AI surveillance cameras.

There is much more that can be said. This is a surface level scrape, so do your own research.

[RandomGirl42]

We have them 'cuz people don't treat others as they want to be treated.

[Bloodparadise]

Laws dictate a society..

I don't believe in constraining laws

[msc545]

Please tell me what you mean by a constraining law.

[Bloodparadise]

Like freedom of speech for example
How come there are laws that say you can sue a person of you have a lot of money, just because they said something about you?
How would the person defend if they're low on budget

[Bloodparadise]

Sorry. That was typo.

What I mean is, a rich person can go to court, sue someone, if a person badmouthed them.. that's not freedom of speech

[msc545]

That is a flaw in our legal system that hasn't been remedied. However, that does not mean that the laws regarding libel and slander are in some fashion inappropriate.

[Bloodparadise]

Why not? Didn't ancient people settle things just by talking, debating?
It could make a society psychologically healthy

[msc545]

No, ancient people settled things by killing each other. I hope that for the most part, we have moved beyond that.

[Bloodparadise]

But that's wasn't my point. I only referred to the freedom of speech part. Google panchayat..
I'm not for panchayats.. Im just for they way people respected the freedom to say whatever one wants to say

[Sevenpointfive]

they were supposed to be for the government and the people, so they could rule themselves orderly. without all of the b. s. laws we'd have a functional society. but with every single piece of legislature it changes the meaning which is a double-edged sword. it doesn't take many of those to reverse the meaning of the original law to begin with. the whole system should be scrapped until we can follow it at all levels. just become venezuela for a little while and see how they like it when everyone breaks the rules too and there's no punishment!

[lightbulb27]

To control people. Ultimately, it's for security.

[msc545]

How do laws control people, and how do they make people more secure? Can you expand on those thoughts a bit please?

[lightbulb27]

Its all about this is my space and that's your space. I control my space you control yours. As a larger group of societies, we make laws to secure each other. e. g. your car can go fast but going fast puts others at risk. So you are limited by speed where officials deem it safe. You must also do maint to your car to keep it safe... for you and others. you buy insurance not just to replace your car but to insure me and mine.
you don't dump your oil into the sewer like we used to... to keep our water supply secure.

Laws control people by having a consequence. If there is no consequence, and if there is no enforcement, there is no law. Anything goes. Which is what we have in some areas. Can I drive down the road and trash the wonderful car you worked so hard to maintain... and say "oh well, it's your problem"... because I don't have the $ to buy insurance, get a license, register it? Or am I responsible.

King's are high above the law. Singapore has a king... it's safest place to be and very rich. It can also be oppressive, like NK.

Kings are dangerous, we don't want them, but in some ways, is necessary to correct pent up problems. but one hopes it doesn't go really bad as the order is being shredded.

In essence, laws say "this is mine that is yours". It's selfishness. The whole issue is human security, trust, value... which results in control.

That's why I continue to support a King... Jesus! This world is screwed, he called that a long time ago, it's clear as day. Maybe we get through this time without a scratch. It's still screwed, as is the state of humanity. Why people don't see that and cling to science is beyond me... when science affirms that.

[msc545]

I think the problem with having a king is that you ultimately have to get rid of the king. That may create a whole set of problems since kings are just typically deposed via violence, and a lot of it. Would you agree?

[lightbulb27]

that's one. the other is they are not a good king or others are motiated to overthrow them and so there is extreme violence. ex. China for thousands years.

[slatyb]

We need written laws because we are associating with large numbers of people so we can't rely on tribal justice to control behavior. It's easy to see the result of anarchy in the failed states where there is little to no government.

[exitseven]

We have laws to protect people's rights and property. We are supposed to be a nation of laws and when certain leaders decide that some laws are inconvenient therefore they can ignore them it will lead to chaos.

[Telekinetic-Potato]

For the progression of a productive state, a solid foundation of expectations being necessary for that. It's also a form of contract between a government and it's citizens.

[loveslongnails]

Theoretically, every law in a society should be made with the intention of bettering life for ALL the members of it's group, as a whole. That's the general heading. Most laws have something to do with public safety in one form or another.

[Mike_Hum]

To set a framework to prevent other people from infringing on your inalienable rights

[msc545]

Okay. If rights are inalienable, then why do we need laws to protect them? What is the purpose in writing a law and what is the purpose in invoking the law? What is the end goal here?

[Mike_Hum]

Because human beings are flawed so some people don't have good intentions.

[msc545]

Yes, I know that. But how is simply writing a threat into the law an effective deterrent against the sort of behavior you are talking about?

[Mike_Hum]

Most people don't want to go to jail..

[msc545]

Okay, so if I understand you correctly, the threat is the point?

[Mike_Hum]

There are negative consequences to violating people's rights. get to your point.

[msc545]

What if there are no negative consequences to violating people's rights? I don't have a particular point here. I'm just trying to explore your thinking a little bit.

[Mike_Hum]

There's always a negative consequence.

[Buford_T_Justice]

Because society can't function without law and order.

[msc545]

Yes, I'm aware of that, but how do laws create order?

[Buford_T_Justice]

Jails

[msc545]

What about jail?

[Buford_T_Justice]

If you don't play well with others you get put in jail. That helps establish the order you've been asking about.

[msc545]

Oh, yes, that's the punishment that's inherent in the law or described in the law. To some extent, I think you're correct. I think that the threat of jail is what establishes order or promotes order. It is not always effective, unfortunately, and so we have continued disruptions of order by people who have already been in jail or even prison.

[Buford_T_Justice]

Good

[msc545]

Good in what way?

[Buford_T_Justice]

Good that you learned what Law and Order is.

[msc545]

I've learned that as children. I am no longer a child, as you may have noticed.

[NaultD]

100% seriously. Zero sarcasm. It's a level of cancel culture. There's 1000s of years of anthropology and theology debate going on here.

Also called cancel culture.

[NaultD]

youtube.com/shorts/_UDx6SxAhCw?si=z9p5mKpMZ5i4YrkR

This is good metaphor.

Who is in power?

[msc545]

I'm sorry I'm getting tired but I really don't understand your point here. wouls you elaborate on it for me please?

[NaultD]

Who's in charge?

God? In the video "are you whining? I'll throw this food away. I don't want to but I'll do it. .

Or are we together on humanity with a level of cooperation? Part of that comes with laws and jury of peers. A process at the very least.

Compared to a disinterested god/owner

[msc545]

What is the purpose of a law, and what is the inherent goal in formulating and invoking a law?

[beefcakebradybatson]

Laws are meant to maintain semblance of order and hopefully fairness if they are humanely applied. Of course, lawfare, using "legal" means to oppress, has been used against POC forever in the U. S.

[Lament_]

Laws primarily create the healthy layout of the circumstances in a country and provides the justice by the enforcement.

[msc545]

Does a good law contain its own enforcement provisions?

[888theGreat]

For order and keep the Peace and to protect individuals and their rights. That has been erased by Trump.

[Staximus]

Because you have to draw the line somewhere

[msc545]

Yes, agreed. But what is the purpose of the law, and what is the inherent goal in writing and invoking a law?

[Staximus]

Because you can't just have a bunch of out of control fuckers doing whatever the hell they want

[msc545]

Do you think that a well-written, well-publicized law that is not effectively enforced is still effective? Also, is a threat an important part of any well-written law?

[Staximus]

Sometimes you need threats written into the law. There has to be consequences for actions or the law is ineffective. Like for example, if you murder somebody, you should be hanged in the town square at sunrise.

[msc545]

Okay, let's try and discuss this a bit more dispassionately if you don't mind. Do you think that a law that contains a threat yet is never effectively enforced is essentially meaningless? Or does it have some inherent meaning I'm not recognizing?

[Staximus]

Of course laws that aren't enforced are ineffective, that's common sense. Most laws are a threat.

[Staximus]

Most laws are a threat of consequences for actions

[Staximus]

In Blythe California you can be fined for wearing cowboy boots within city limits if you don't own at least two cows. In Palm springs you can be fined if you walk a camel down Palm Canyon Drive between 4:00 and 6:00 p. m. Those are both threats that are not enforced.

[msc545]

In lawmaking, what is the purpose of including threats that are actually never enforced?

[Staximus]

Well if you pass the law then you're supposed to enforce it. The threats are supposed to be a deterrent to breaking the law. Not enforcing the law is a whole other enchilada

[msc545]

We have a number of laws on the books that have actually never been enforced. Some because they are ridiculous, but others for reasons I don't understand. Can you think of a few laws that have not been enforced that probably should have been? And talk about why?

[Staximus]

The people who pass the laws, enforce the laws, interpret the laws (at least in our country) are separate entities. Not to mention laws are passed on the city, county, state, and federal level. All these entities might not see eye to eye politically, financially or for other reasons,. One agency or branch may consider it impractical to enforce that law,. You have City district attorneys and courts and judges as well as county, state, and federal. Then you have city, county, state, and federal law enforcement. Then you have City council, board of supervisors, county board of supervisors, state legislature, and federal legislature. They may not all see eye to eye and cooperate. Some law enforcement agencies may not have to manpower, resources , abilities, or budget to enforce those laws. Or they might just not want to.

[Staximus]

Also some district attorneys attorney generals, etc might choose to not enforce those laws

[Staximus]

And judges

[msc545]

So, basically, in the legal framework, including creation, authorship, publication, decision enforcement, and other facets of the law are all so complex that the consistency is not practical, essentially? I'm trying to arrive at a summary statement to encompass what you wrote above. Is what I just wrote reasonably accurate in that regard?

[Staximus]

I'm no legal expert but that's pretty much what I see. It's the good old "too many chiefs and not enough Indians" I guess a good example would be what I often see at one of my jobs. The police not enforcing the "under the influence of a controlled substance" laws. You have a bunch of homeless people on meth, fentanyl, tranq, heroin, etc. that are obviously totally intoxicated and being a public nuisance. If the cops pick them up and take them downtown, they are going to get shit from their watch commander, the jailer, etc. because there's no room in the jail, they're going to take a shit or piss on the floor, and in the morning the judge or district attorney is going to kick them loose with a fine or decline to prosecute so they have time to deal with more important cases or save room in jail for more serious offenders. We are only on the tip of the iceberg here, though

[msc545]

So perhaps laws like the "under the influence of a controlled substance" law are not really practical in real life. Is that basically your point?

[Staximus]

That all depends on the jurisdiction

[msc545]

How does the jurisdiction matter? I think what people put in their own bodies is their business.

[msc545]

I agree.

[Iron_Man]

Law and order. Not to break laws

[msc545]

Are you saying that you think laws exist in order to maintain order?

[Iron_Man]

We all need to follow Joe Bidens son and live by example

[Iron_Man]

Yes…

[msc545]

Okay, I agree with you. However, could you then talk a little bit about what you mean by order in this context.

[Iron_Man]

Well, you have to have laws you can’t go around robbing Banks and stealing from people, selling drugs to kids and things like that

[msc545]

Well, you can do those things but inherit in each law is a description of the punishment as well. This is particularly true of laws relating to crimes. I want to point out to you that if the law does not describe consequences or if the consequences cannot be carried out, that is, the law cannot be enforced then the law itself becomes meaningless. Would you agree with us?

[Pterodon]

If we didn’t it’d be vigilante justice. Do you really want that?

[DrPepper12]

To smooth or enforce the social contract