Anarchism has implicit laws, such as respect and reverence to life.Baron Max said:
That's a retarded statement. The majority of mankind would not harm anyone even without laws. What is the incentive in harming others as opposed to working together?
Does capitalism work?
- Thread starter lixluke
- Start date
Who enforces the implicit laws? I know in your reasoning that nobody would ever do anything wrong, but if they did, what would happen?
Would the majority take action aginst them? Tyranny of the majority, thats real good. We'd still have slavery if the majority controlled everything. People who help opposing viewpoints would never get their ideas through. The majority can be wrong, and the few outspoken right people can then be ruled out or punished. The majority can be just as tyrannical as the elitist few.
Would the majority take action aginst them? Tyranny of the majority, thats real good. We'd still have slavery if the majority controlled everything. People who help opposing viewpoints would never get their ideas through. The majority can be wrong, and the few outspoken right people can then be ruled out or punished. The majority can be just as tyrannical as the elitist few.
The implicit laws are always followed by default. A good example of an "implicit law" is reproduction.
Nobody will deviate from the implicit laws if everyone is able to survive easily.
Nobody will deviate from the implicit laws if everyone is able to survive easily.
Because its easier and people are lazy. Why would someone work to get food when they can steal their neighbors food and nobody can do jack shit to him? It would be nice to think that people have morals and wouldn't do that becasue of their innate goodness but that is simply untrue.
Why do people brake laws?
TruthSeeker said:
So make it impossible for people to break laws. Create unbreakable laws by moving away from the punishment theory and into a theory which rewards people who don't break laws. Then collectively make breaking laws impossible by surveillance.
Computers and technology could literally make crime impossible, it's just a matter of deciding if you want the chip or not. Do you?
What is the incentive behind breaking the law? Is there any incentvie to not break the law?Roman said:Implicit laws are helluva easy to break.
Indeed. It has been shown that positive reinforcement is more efficient then any form of punishment!TimeTraveler said:
Truth seeker you have asked twice why people break laws and it is really quite simple and I have already answered it but i will answer it again. It is easier and can provide more benefits with less effort than following the laws. Since most people are selfish, they take the one that benefits them the most and costs them teh least, not really caring about others. A selfish person (almost everyone if not everyone) would rather rob a bank and make a million bucks in a day than actually work for years to make that money.
NOTE: I said they would rather do it, not that they would do that. Most people do not commit crime because of a combination of morals, respect for others, and fear of punishment. So even in a society where there is no punishment for breaking laws, you are correct the majority of people would not break them becasue of respect and compassion and morals. However, the criminlas in our world would definitely commit crime in your system devoid of punishment, and a new group of people who are immoral but only fear the punishment would now become criminals as well.
And about the part on giving beneifts to those who dont break the law and withholding them from those who do, it is a good idea but they are basically teh same thing except your idea is less severe. If everyone recieves a monetary benefit fro not commiting crime, them isnt withholding that benefit from criminals the same as fining them? This obviously doesnt wok with the death penalty unless you consider the right to life a benefit, but its just something to think about that giving a reward and giving punishment equate to teh same thing: discouragement of unlawful behavior.
NOTE: I said they would rather do it, not that they would do that. Most people do not commit crime because of a combination of morals, respect for others, and fear of punishment. So even in a society where there is no punishment for breaking laws, you are correct the majority of people would not break them becasue of respect and compassion and morals. However, the criminlas in our world would definitely commit crime in your system devoid of punishment, and a new group of people who are immoral but only fear the punishment would now become criminals as well.
And about the part on giving beneifts to those who dont break the law and withholding them from those who do, it is a good idea but they are basically teh same thing except your idea is less severe. If everyone recieves a monetary benefit fro not commiting crime, them isnt withholding that benefit from criminals the same as fining them? This obviously doesnt wok with the death penalty unless you consider the right to life a benefit, but its just something to think about that giving a reward and giving punishment equate to teh same thing: discouragement of unlawful behavior.
TruthSeeker said:
Okay ....what exactly would you suggest?
A man could make millions by dealing in illegal drugs in the US ...he could make it in just a few days, few weeks. What positive reinforcement would you suggest to give that man?
Please, I know the bullshit sounds nice and seems soooo easy, but it just ain't so, 'cause it just don't work in the real world!
Baron Max
So you are saying a win-lose situation provides more benefits then a win-win situation?Jeff 152 said:
Also, why do we need money? Is all conflict due to money? What happens if everyone is rich? Is ther any incentive in robbing a bank if everyone is rich? What if you can live a fairly good life? Why would you fight with other human beings then? I fail to see any incentive in that...
Why are there criminals? What creates the conflict, which creates the criminals?
It's proven that positive reinforcement is more efficient then any form of punishment. Ever studied psychology?
Yes, the real world is more complex. But positive reinforcement is more efficient, so that is certainly something to be considered.Baron Max said:
If you want to keep the system you have, maybe a combination of those two systems would be more efficient, wouldn't it?
Baron:
From which university did you obtain your PhD in political science?
I never knew you were qualified in political theory, Baron!
From which university did you obtain your PhD in political science?
Leading anarchists and political scientists disagree. While they bicker over exactly how one would establish a legal framework and go about enforcing the laws to avoid coercion by an elitist body, they all agree on one thing. A legal framework can exist within an anarchist society.
Truth seeker you fail to realize that if eevryone is getting a bnefit except a criminal, he will view his situation as punishment. Its all the same to teh criminal.
Positive enforcement leads to less apathy and more good, it does not diminsh the bad though it makes more polarization. For example, in a restaurant, if workers wer only punished (fired) for doing something wrong but as long asd they didnt do an ything explicitlu wrong tehy al receivge the same pay, then yo create a restaarant full of mediocrity. If you offer more money (tips) to better workers howeevr, it encourages peopel to be excellent. Postive reinforcement does a better job of encouraging the apathetic or mediocre to be excellent. In both situations however there will be people who will fall below the quota and either be fired or be payed teh minimum. If someone is lazy enough to not work and therefore decrease his wage from 8$ an hour to zero, waht makes you think that person will work to increase his income from 8 to 10$ an hour. If he is willing to sacrifice his income, his survival, then he would feel no obligation to want to increase his wage from 8 to 10. Its not worth 8 bucks less to him, why would it be worth 2 bucks more?
While postivie reinforcemnt discouarges mediocrity better than punishment, it is actually less effective at discouraging blatant disbedience, which is more of a problem with the law becasue nobody excels at following the law and nobody is just mediocre at it, you wither follow it or you dont.
Positive enforcement leads to less apathy and more good, it does not diminsh the bad though it makes more polarization. For example, in a restaurant, if workers wer only punished (fired) for doing something wrong but as long asd they didnt do an ything explicitlu wrong tehy al receivge the same pay, then yo create a restaarant full of mediocrity. If you offer more money (tips) to better workers howeevr, it encourages peopel to be excellent. Postive reinforcement does a better job of encouraging the apathetic or mediocre to be excellent. In both situations however there will be people who will fall below the quota and either be fired or be payed teh minimum. If someone is lazy enough to not work and therefore decrease his wage from 8$ an hour to zero, waht makes you think that person will work to increase his income from 8 to 10$ an hour. If he is willing to sacrifice his income, his survival, then he would feel no obligation to want to increase his wage from 8 to 10. Its not worth 8 bucks less to him, why would it be worth 2 bucks more?
While postivie reinforcemnt discouarges mediocrity better than punishment, it is actually less effective at discouraging blatant disbedience, which is more of a problem with the law becasue nobody excels at following the law and nobody is just mediocre at it, you wither follow it or you dont.
Jeff, go study psychology! 
i think the idea of punishment is retarded and backwards ass in the case of society.
a society should not be vindictive nor seek revenge. it's pointless.
to the society, risk minimization is the only pertinent factor in reaction to the demonstration of undesirable behavior from an individual.
you can't undo a wrong.
"punishment" is emotional vindictiveness, in an unreasonable desire to change events that have already happened, or that somehow "getting even" settles an actual score somewhere.
it should be considered carefully though, the potential danger that the behavior demonstrates - and risk minimized to the best it can be, which it is arguable is how it is right now, at least for right now. at least IMO, this is what should be considered when determining what parameters of the individuals freedom must be limited.
a society should not be vindictive nor seek revenge. it's pointless.
to the society, risk minimization is the only pertinent factor in reaction to the demonstration of undesirable behavior from an individual.
you can't undo a wrong.
"punishment" is emotional vindictiveness, in an unreasonable desire to change events that have already happened, or that somehow "getting even" settles an actual score somewhere.
it should be considered carefully though, the potential danger that the behavior demonstrates - and risk minimized to the best it can be, which it is arguable is how it is right now, at least for right now. at least IMO, this is what should be considered when determining what parameters of the individuals freedom must be limited.