Why do people believe so firmly in 'the law'

[Sindelar1938]

Social conditioning in linear, hierarchical thinking drives this kind of mindless "law abiding" behaviour

[bryant.coleman]

This is true. How many people steal things from hotels or their workplace etc. I also always find the concept of looting interesting. I think otherwise law-abiding citizens can get caught up in the chaos/excitement and heat of the moment and steal something during riots or civil unrest etc .

That's why we need law enforcement.

Social conditioning in linear, hierarchical thinking drives this kind of mindless "law abiding" behaviour

So do you support robbing some one and stealing his belongings? If you don't, then what should be done to someone who exhibits that sort of behavior.

[xkeyscore89]

I've been on the forum for some time, and it never ceases to amaze me how many people quote the law as if it were physics.
'You cannot do this' as if it were an impossibility, rather than a vague piece of legislation that has never been tested legally ,or no precedent set.

It seems half the people on here think of law as a wall made of molten rock that you can never break through, and it would be better to keep your distance for fear of being burnt.
The other half see the law as a vague line in the sand that you cross and then keep going until a friendly policeman asks you how much you've been drinking, at which point you just pay the fine.

Maybe, people cite the law in order to feel a sense of justification when giving their ensuing condemning opinion on the situation being presented.  This way, they believe they are expressing their individual opinion on an issue, comfortable in their perceived solace that any damage caused by a contradicting follow-up response is hedged by a belief that their opinion is one supported by current legislation and is thus, "correct".  The person with the legally supported view ends up looking like a cheerleader for the government to most observers. Therefore, any point made by the cheerleader should be seen as lacking originality at best and flaming at worst in any forum.  

In this forum, however, there seems to be an abundance of government cheerleaders who relish the opportunity to drown out the sound of any dissenting view being expressed.  In addition to this unsettling occurrence, you have those people who are directly affiliated with the government observing, if not participating, in this pattern of continual denial and condemnation of viewpoints that may be against the law. I believe the latter party tends to observe rather than participate in most discussions. It seems to me that there are plenty of private citizens who are vocal in their absolute confidence in our legislative system.  These people express nearly identical opinions almost automatically, unaware that it is their fear of change that feeds these beliefs.

How so many of them end up in a forum that almost exclusively focuses on Bitcoin is beyond me.  IMO, they should display their cowardice elsewhere.

[Hawker]

As if laws protects you from that.

At least the normal people will refrain from doing that, for the fear of law. And if someone breaks the law, in most cases the perpetrator will be punished.

But if there is no law, who will punish the criminals?

Normal people refrain from doing that regardless.

Law isn't required to punish those who infringe upon the rights of others.

Not true.  

http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/daniel.nettle/ernestjonesnettlebateson.pdf

Perfectly normal people steal if they think they can get away with it.  Its why looting and kidnapping flourishes when the system of law breaks down due to natural disaster or war.

Well... we weren't talking about theft.

...snip...

This is London on 6th August 2011 a few hours after the police let it be known that they would not be punishing property crime.  People being attacked in their homes and jumping from burning buildings for their lives.

Stop being naive about our shared humanity.  Evolution rewards violent aggressive species and since humans are the top predator species on the planet, violence and aggression are bred into us.  Our laws are a way to manage this violence and aggression.  

[xkeyscore89]

As if laws protects you from that.

At least the normal people will refrain from doing that, for the fear of law. And if someone breaks the law, in most cases the perpetrator will be punished.

But if there is no law, who will punish the criminals?

Normal people refrain from doing that regardless.

Law isn't required to punish those who infringe upon the rights of others.

Not true.  

http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/daniel.nettle/ernestjonesnettlebateson.pdf

Perfectly normal people steal if they think they can get away with it.  Its why looting and kidnapping flourishes when the system of law breaks down due to natural disaster or war.

Well... we weren't talking about theft.

...snip...

This is London on 6th August 2011 a few hours after the police let it be known that they would not be punishing property crime.  People being attacked in their homes and jumping from burning buildings for their lives.

Stop being naive about our shared humanity.  Evolution rewards violent aggressive species and since humans are the top predator species on the planet, violence and aggression are bred into us.  Our laws are a way to manage this violence and aggression.  

I do see your point.  However, the riots on 8/6/11 were not caused by police stating that property crime would not be punished.  The precursor to those riots occurred after an unarmed man was shot and killed by London police.  After that, there was a fabricated story about police restraining a teenage girl in connection with protests regarding the shooting that ultimately incited the riots and the property crimes which your picture documented.

Furthermore, only strategic, controlled, and acute displays of violence and aggression are rewarded consistently in our society, imo.  Uncontrolled and unprovoked instances of violence and aggression attract only condemnation and unwanted attention to the party committing the acts.   This is a way to ensure a coalition is formed against you, concerned only with finding the most effective means of stopping you or containing you.  This is far from a reward.  In fact, it will only serve to divert one's attention and resources into dealing with a new threat.  No matter how powerful, a war on two or more fronts cannot be waged successfully by a party utilizing only brute-force without a guiding, strategic component.  As Denzel would say, "This shit is chess, it ain't checkers!"

I think it is the fear and respect that come with witnessing successful, well-developed, strategic "shock-and-awe" displays of power that generate a reward.  the obvious 2001 Afghanistan example being excepted, I'm talking about a display more along the lines of the dropping of the first fission bomb on Hiroshima in 1945 and to a lesser extent, Nagasaki.  Hiroshima was such an unfathomable display of power that, initially, the Japanese thought it must've been some sort of natural disaster.  This reaction took place depsite an overt warning from the U.S. that a device with unrivaled power would be used unless there was unconditional surrender.  However, if this stimulus is overused, the novelty is lost and will simply be recorded, not rewarded.  If Japan had been bombed 10 more times after offering unconditional surrender after bomb 2,  how might our allies have responded to us and what effects would it have now?  The use of 2 bombs has generated more than enough modern-day criticism, if not enough to negatively affect our image as a benevolent, executively-misguided superpower.

[quone17]

I think one of the most basic functions of law (something that is abused sometimes in current day China and is holding them back) is to protect people's property.  Maybe this seems cynical but without law, someone could just come live on your front lawn if they wanted.  If that was allowed, why would you want to even bother working to try to contribute to society and make money, if it was worthless and you couldn't buy property without someone taking it?

[xkeyscore89]

I think one of the most basic functions of law (something that is abused sometimes in current day China and is holding them back) is to protect people's property.  Maybe this seems cynical but without law, someone could just come live on your front lawn if they wanted.  If that was allowed, why would you want to even bother working to try to contribute to society and make money, if it was worthless and you couldn't buy property without someone taking it?

By the same token, without law, what's to keep me from aggressively protecting my property to the point of causing mortal injury to the would-be camper?  If there wasn't any law concerning this scenario, how many faced with this situation would even bother with issuing a warning if they happened to be keeping a farm full of hogs that could deal with any "evidence".

[Hawker]

Stop being naive about our shared humanity.  Evolution rewards violent aggressive species and since humans are the top predator species on the planet, violence and aggression are bred into us.  Our laws are a way to manage this violence and aggression.  

OK. You rely on laws. I'll rely on something else.

Provided what you rely on is based on a separation of powers, that is fine.  But if you have some idea about 1 person with a gun making his own rules, deciding that someone else has broken his rules and killing that person, then you are just another advocate of tyranny.

[Hawker]

Stop being naive about our shared humanity.  Evolution rewards violent aggressive species and since humans are the top predator species on the planet, violence and aggression are bred into us.  Our laws are a way to manage this violence and aggression.  

OK. You rely on laws. I'll rely on something else.

Provided what you rely on is based on a separation of powers, that is fine.  But if you have some idea about 1 person with a gun making his own rules, deciding that someone else has broken his rules and killing that person, then you are just another advocate of tyranny.

I would never advocate for a ruler, no matter how petty.

Great.  We are in agreement then.

[xkeyscore89]

Stop being naive about our shared humanity.  Evolution rewards violent aggressive species and since humans are the top predator species on the planet, violence and aggression are bred into us.  Our laws are a way to manage this violence and aggression.  

OK. You rely on laws. I'll rely on something else.

Provided what you rely on is based on a separation of powers, that is fine.  But if you have some idea about 1 person with a gun making his own rules, deciding that someone else has broken his rules and killing that person, then you are just another advocate of tyranny.

I would never advocate for a ruler, no matter how petty.

Great.  We are in agreement then.

At what point does a representative become more ruler than representative?  The way that some members of congress as well as the House have succeeded in manipulating the redistricting of many congressional voting districts means that future elections are hedged in their favor.  This is in addition to the large salaries commanded by a mandate to complete real work at a rate inversely proportional to the amount of the salary earned. Special interests are the only groups represented here.  When can this system change?

[surfer43]

I think one of the most basic functions of law (something that is abused sometimes in current day China and is holding them back) is to protect people's property.  Maybe this seems cynical but without law, someone could just come live on your front lawn if they wanted.  If that was allowed, why would you want to even bother working to try to contribute to society and make money, if it was worthless and you couldn't buy property without someone taking it?

What gives a person the right to deny people from living on that land? Contributing to society != making money in the current Corporatocracy . A person would more than likely not camp on the lawn of a middle class person, but rather on empty large plots of land. The only reason the owner of the land can take the right to use it from other people is because they are recognized by the government to be the "owner" of the land. They acquired the land not through use of it, but with paper (fiat).

[beetcoin]

it's kind of like how crazy right wing nutjobs like to quote the constitution as if it wasn't flawed.

[hilariousandco]

it's kind of like how crazy right wing nutjobs like to quote the constitution as if it wasn't flawed.

I've never understood this either. Same goes with the bible.

[Mike Christ]

it's kind of like how crazy right wing nutjobs like to quote the constitution as if it wasn't flawed.

I've never understood this either. Same goes with the bible.

It's caused by overactive Si, which is worsened by Te; see here and here for the most obvious examples.  These are your rule-followers; bible-thumpers and government lapdogs, and their main job, when it comes to social concerns, is to ensure everybody else is following the rules as well.  Nothing you'll ever say will convince them to believe otherwise; they believe what they believe and you should, too.

In comparison, Ni-Fe users are rule-makers; see here and here.  These are, in recent times, very frequently the libertarians and anarchists, who are against the status-quo since it gets in the way of their own rules.  These two groups clash with each other because the former wants the latter to follow the accepted rules, and the latter wants the former to accept the new rules.  Not to mention, they make sense within their groups, but not at all between.

[jinni]

I've been on the forum for some time, and it never ceases to amaze me how many people quote the law as if it were physics.
'You cannot do this' as if it were an impossibility, rather than a vague piece of legislation that has never been tested legally ,or no precedent set.

It seems half the people on here think of law as a wall made of molten rock that you can never break through, and it would be better to keep your distance for fear of being burnt.
The other half see the law as a vague line in the sand that you cross and then keep going until a friendly policeman asks you how much you've been drinking, at which point you just pay the fine.

Well, what would you do when confronted with the policeman? Let's say you tried to make all the excuses you could think of and there is no way out except the slim chance of run for it (gambling that you are better at running than them) or take the punishment, which would be less severe than if you ran for it.