Abortion Debate - Role of Government

[MindlessPieces]

A reply to your post is apt, even if it is more in line with the postings o0f the theme of government involvement of individual choices.

Population growth has been a concern for a great many many years. At one time an author was of the opinion that the riff raff of society procreated at a fast rate, and if continued the riff raff would overtake 'us' decent folk, and lead the nation to ruin.

China had several decades previous had a limit on reproduction so as to curb a potential exponential rise in population. The law was repealed after a certain number of years.

Western society, or industrialized society, has a population growth less than that required for replenishment.
Even with benefits for pregnant and families with children, the rate is below the required rate.
Barring immigration, the only other way is for females of child bearing age conceive and birth more babies.
As the nations population declines, economic ruin of the nation ( and the species ) may follow as not enough workers are available for functioning of the infrastructure. Technology may solve the problem ( ie AI workers ), but nothing is sure.

Should a nation then:
Declare that a woman should conceive X amount of children before the age Y.
Declare that non-compliance in a violation of the law.
Declare that a violation will result in the violator's ovaries becoming the property of the state.
Declare that the state's ovaries will be fertilized, leading to conception, pregnancy and birth in a manner the state seems fit.
Declare that violators will be prosecuted
Declare that as a penalty, violators will forfeit all worldly possessions and wealth as a deterrent against non-compliance.
Declare that violators will be removed from society as having not willingly contributed to the well being of the society.

This may be a fiction of a future society, or of earth or of a colony on another planet.
Where does the morality of the woman, the morality of the state concern themselves with the continuation of the species, or the colony due to all the talk about going to the moon, Mars, and the stars.
The woman nay have individual rights ( her body ) in conflict with collective rights ( survival ).

This fiction does show that collective rights can at times trump individual rights. Morality can be a fluid concept in the minds of people when faced with an existence that has a future enveloped in uncertainty, in this case the uncertainty of survival of the collective.

Nice post.

Kinda like that tv show "The Handmaid's tale" the govt have an extraordinary problem and have taken control of women for "The Greater Good".

In my view the government can create laws limiting people's actions when justified for the Safety and Stability and prosperity of society.

Your post points out a flaw, government might deem for society to continue being prosperous they might require fertile women to have babies even if they don't want them.
But laws are about restricting unlawful activity, not forcing people to do things they don't want to do. But you could argue that abortions reduce the population numbers and to have a successful society you MUST make abortions unlawful. That would make for an interesting argument in court, and it should be put up against other alternatives, such as automation, mandatory super annuation schemes etc that might show that a society can florish even with a net negative population growth.
Govt interfering in people's lives should be seen as a last resort, when no other plausable alternative can be found.

 

[Grinkle]

courts would need to work through the arguments on how taking the morning after pill makes society unsafe

The woman in my hypothetical is being charged with a homicide. Without addressing that charge head-on, it wouldn't end up as you say - a discussion around safety. It would end up an argument about whether or not a homicide has occurred.

I don't think you are really grappling with how difficult it is to cleanly define the terms you say are the proper purview of state regulation. To me, that is the most challenging and interesting part of your whole thread.

 

[MindlessPieces]

The woman in my hypothetical is being charged with a homicide. Without addressing that charge head-on, it wouldn't end up as you say - a discussion around safety. It would end up an argument about whether or not a homicide has occurred.

I don't think you are really grappling with how difficult it is to cleanly define the terms you say are the proper purview of state regulation. To me, that is the most challenging and interesting part of your whole thread.

I get what you are saying. I'm not a lawyer, and I haven't created a robust, fully fleshed out and challenged, revised plan. I'm just thinking stuff through.

If we claim that Murder is the intentional unlawful killing of another human(citizen or visitor), against their will, not in self defence, not in defence of immanent danger of others, not as an act of war... And I guess you would need some sort of provision to classify an unborn human to be excluded in this. Either by not giving them legal "personhood", or by simply excluding them from that law by explicitly stating not including an unborn human. I mean you would have to look at a great many cases where exclusions might occur, e.g. manslaughter as opposed to murder, accidental death, euthanasia, state executions etc. You would possibly need some provision for where a person assaults the pregnant women explicitly for the purpose of killing her unborn baby as well.

And for those provisions/exclusions to be constitutional you would need to tie each one to whether the law is supporting a safe, stable and thriving society.


If a person were to challenge this law as worded above because they want protections for the unborn, then they would need to address the constitutional limits to the power of government and hence law.

 

[jack action]

You use moral in a sense that applies to those of a religious conviction in which some higher authority has assigned what code of conduct is permitted and what is not. It is of a supernatural origin.

Human authority can prescribe, apart from any higher authority, its codes of conduct, what it will permit, and what it will not. The term ethical is more suitable than moral.

Moral and ethics are synonyms. It is always presented as coming from a higher authority, whether it is claimed to be supernatural or someone who declares to be above everybody else.

The law needn't say it, but its clear since I am a proponent of the law that my motivation is my moral belief that the morning after pill cannot result in a homicide. What would you do in this situation?

Your question already assumes that a homicide is wrong. If you think that and if you are confronted with a pregnancy - really, only women are - then it is up to you to determine whether the morning-after pill, an abortion at 2,4,6, or 8 months, or killing a newborn that is less than 1 day-old is a homicide. The real question is, how does this decision concern me? Even if I think that an abortion after 3 months is homicide, and you think you can go up to 6 months, why should we have to agree to what the other person does? You do you, and I do me. By discussing and sharing our points of view, we may influence each other, but there is no need for us to agree.

And yes, this could even apply to murder. It is easy to say in an unruled society, anyone can murder anyone else, but in reality, killing someone will affect your relationships with the other people who are still living with you. They may praise you - that would be good - or they may fear you or want to seek revenge - and that may not be good for you. So even if someone I don't know killed someone else I don't know, why should I be concerned with that? Why should I tell these people I don't know, in a situation I know nothing about, what the best decision to make is?

Of course, knowing that this can happen will affect how I act with other people such that I don't get murdered. But it seems everyone assumes that everyone else will necessarily be on the defensive and be ready to kill before being killed, which would turn into a vicious circle. But people can also choose to be kinder to others and try to avoid conflicts (hence the need for a good civil justice system to resolve disputes), such that murder will never seem to be a good option for others (and myself). And people will most likely choose that because it has the chance of turning into a "virtuous" circle. I think most people already did choose that. I know I have, and making legalizing murder wouldn't change a thing about my values and how I choose to interact with others to live my best life.

At the risk of repeating myself, even with extremely punitive laws against murder, some people still choose murder as part of their life decision, and I am not tempted to exchange my life for theirs, successful or not. I'm also still not convince there would be that many more murders without laws prohibiting them.

As the nations population declines, economic ruin of the nation ( and the species ) may follow as not enough workers are available for functioning of the infrastructure.

This fiction does show that collective rights can at times trump individual rights.

This is a good example of a concept elaborated by a controlling minority who profits of a stable society and wants to make sure it will never change and always go their way.

Where does it say that a society must stay the same or grow? Apparently, a reduction is always bad. And, more importantly, how is this the responsibility of any individual? I could say the same about the apparent responsibility that @MindlessPieces thinks we have as individuals to make sure the society is safe, stable, and thriving. That is is a pure moral decision based on nothing but his own values that he thinks we should all live by ... for our own good ... whether we like it or not.

The reality is that it is what is. Can you imagine that at one point people couldn't count and therefore didn't know if their society was growing or not? How would they have corrected if need be?

 

[MindlessPieces]

I could say the same about the apparent responsibility that @MindlessPieces thinks we have as individuals to make sure the society is safe, stable, and thriving. That is is a pure moral decision based on nothing but his own values

This is an absurd statement.

It would be like stating that wanting a house that provides shelter and warmth is going above and beyond the remit of housing and obtrusively inserting one's own morals into the whole thing.


A governed society is a collection of people, people need the ability to get food, shelter and be safe. This isn't a moral system, just a recognition of what people are and at the very basic, what people need. It isn't defining anything as morally good or morally bad. It isn't making rules to support someone's view of good or bad. It's just defining at the very basic, what is required to have a society that people can exist in.

 

[dlu]

Where does it say that a society must stay the same or grow? Apparently, a reduction is always bad.

It's the economic system we live under, and have lived under since when - since trading of goods between parties, since the neolithics transferred to an agro-culture where for a few it was now possible to acquire vast wealth, power, and control leading to the inequality that has persisted to the present. A reduction in population can mean a reduction in consumerism, markets face overcapacity, debts become difficult to re-pay as profits drop as sales drop, along with other social issues. No one likes a recession which is what a reduction in population ( consumers ) entails. Look at all the cities that are/ were hollowed out such as Detroit - a local reduction in economic activity through restructuring, sub-urbanization, and relocation. Any town or city dependent upon a single or few businesses or factories do suffer population de-growth from closure of the main enterprise(s) due to waning of demand for the product.

Changing the system is hard.

how is this the responsibility of any individual?

A born baby has assumed responsibilities with not even signing an agreement.
At birth they have to register with the government. As they grow older they are expected to report for an education, acquire a trade, defend the nation by a call to service if required, procreate, and obey an increasing set of imposed laws as they approach maturity. At present, the education is formal, the trade may be other than that of the parents or class/sex status, the call to service is into a profession, the laws are mainly written down rather than just beliefs, and procreation is optional.


The state imposes these criteria upon the newly born without their consent, but from the joint consent of the members of state, the state meaning the government, institutions, citizens all relying upon laws and statutes, along with culture and an holistic set of values deemed to be the morality and ethics of the land.

States, or nations as they are called in present day, tend to homogenize society, overtaking local customs and values with a new and improved set for the benefit of the - ruling class, the vocal minority, the fear mongering minority - it probably doesn't know for who in the long run as states collapse themselves due to deficiency in thinking.

The deficiency in the industrialized society is that it has resulted in an unsustainable birth rate.
The deficiency in the democratic society is that it may allow too much liberalism to flourish resulting fracturing of values of the populace. On the other hand, that may be its strength, as themes such as this are allowed, with a free exchange of ideas enlightening each other.

I certainly have learned a lot from everyone, even if I sound preachy at times, ... maybe most times.
Mansplaining ....

I get what you are saying. I'm not a lawyer, and I haven't created a robust, fully fleshed out and challenged, revised plan. I'm just thinking stuff through.

Aren't we all.

Whysit say jack action.
the quite should be @MindlessPieces

 

[Grinkle]

Whysit say jack action.

@Greg Bernhardt Looks like the snip above that @dlu is asking about was mis-attributed? I'll report the post so you can look at it when you have time.

 

[Grinkle]

This is an absurd statement.

To help readability, you are referring to -

I could say the same about the apparent responsibility that @MindlessPieces thinks we have as individuals to make sure the society is safe, stable, and thriving. That is is a pure moral decision based on nothing but his own values that he thinks we should all live by ... for our own good ... whether we like it or not.

In my view, @jack action action makes a very compelling point. One must, it seems to me, define the goals of a state. Safe, stable and thriving are hard to argue with until you actually say specifically what each of these does and does not mean; they quickly become thorny. Does an abortion limit thriving, as @dlu argues can be a legitimate concern? If one believes that thriving requires an economy that has growth and includes that in the definition of thriving, and economists argue that this requires a growing population, then in that hypothetical would the state have purview to limit abortion or license it or forbid it outright? I suspect you might say "maybe so, if that were the reasoning". Then the argument, as @jack action notes, becomes what thriving really means after all.

edit: @MindlessPieces You already said as much in post #61, sorry, I didn't read that before I posted this or I would have referred to it directly.

I really like the idea that moral judgements should be minimized in favor of objective criteria when making law. That said, I don't think its possible to avoid altogether, or maybe not even avoid it very often.

 

[jack action]

Changing the system is hard.

Still, I think that is what we need, and we should aim for. I really don't like it when someone says "That's how it works, we don't have a choice" about laws and responsibilities made up by humans.

When it comes to eating, I have to. But I don't have to make sure everybody else eats. Although it may be an advantage for me to do so in certain situations. But I still want to have control over determining what these situations are, not imposed by someone else, especially a nameless institution.

 

[Grinkle]

@jack action Reading your discussion of murder, I end up picturing your ideal society as something akin to the American wild west of the 1800's, absent the genocide. If you've seen the series Deadwood, that's a reasonable portrayal of what comes to my mind. So, I'm asking - what would an ideal or better society look like for you? Do you have to carry a firearm to feel safe? Do you have to decide often if you need to do violence on your own behalf for some reason? Do you live amongst many people with enough common interests that conflict rarely arises, and if so how is this brought about? It seems very Hobbsean, they way I imagine you want to live.

I am genuinely curious, not being critical in my question.

 

[dlu]

Still, I think that is what we need, and we should aim for. I really don't like it when someone says "That's how it works, we don't have a choice" about laws and responsibilities made up by humans.

When it comes to eating, I have to. But I don't have to make sure everybody else eats. Although it may be an advantage for me to do so in certain situations. But I still want to have control over determining what these situations are, not imposed by someone else, especially a nameless institution.

The baby born has all these impositions with no say in the matter.
Any adult was once a baby, and all along the way until death a thinking adult starts to ask Why do I have to do this. Some find the impositions proper and acceptable. Others not.
I think that is why society is not static but continuously evolving ( changing ), with pockets faster or slower.
Revolutions occur ( they don't all have to be violent ) when enough people, including the power brokers, think along the same lines in order to change things.
As for institutions, they exist for themselves once created. They say they are working for you, and the workers inside may honestly think so too, but they do not get credit for your satisfaction but from their boss who looks forward to his bonus, and down the line. Nameless indeed.

 

[MindlessPieces]

To help readability, you are referring to -



In my view, @jack action action makes a very compelling point. One must, it seems to me, define the goals of a state. Safe, stable and thriving are hard to argue with until you actually say specifically what each of these does and does not mean; they quickly become thorny.

This is fair enough to call out.
Just as a quick definition.
Safe - Where any person (member of society) can walk outside and not be legally attacked or harmed.
People can be dangerous, and in a system where anything goes, there will be some people who play the part of thugs, naturally a system of Might makes Right will come about. Big strong people will prey on the weak and meak. They will take their stuff, they will rape them, beat them for shits and giggles. They will want to build up a reputation of being the boss, of being all powerful, they will want people to fear them, and give up what ever they want without any resistence.
The vast majority of people will not be the strongest, so will be vulnerable, so they will either need to form gangs to stand up to the biggest most thuggiest person or a big gang to stand up to smaller gangs.
Alternatively, people will want to belong to a society which has rules against murder, assault, theft. No necessarily because it is immoral but because they want to be safe.

Taking natural law into account, humans are social animals, we want to exist within a society of other people rather than alone hidden in the bush somewhere. We are more like dogs than cats in this manner. So being in a society has some very basic requirements of that society, and one of the most basic is being Safe. So we form a government to govern society. We create rules against murder, assault and theft and a police force and justice system to enforce those rules.

Also part of being safe, is having healthcare, hospitals, ambulance, protection laws about the safety of stuff, e.g. your electrical wiring etc.

Stable - There are many things which can make society instable. Allowing murder will eventually break down society, because to be safe, people will form gangs, they will also retaliate with revenge killings, things will quickly escalate.
Perhaps if you don't have regular elections, you will instead get violent coups as different factions vie for control of society. Stability and Safety kind of go hand in hand.

Thriving - This one is a bit different, but if we consider a global world, where there are many different societies and people have free choice to belong to a society of their choosing. Each society needs to compete with each other, in order to win people over. They do that by trying to thrive. Have infrastructure, have industry, have education, have jobs, have a thriving economy, have a thriving trade with other societies. Government should have responsibility and obligation to setup a society were people can thrive.

Does an abortion limit thriving, as @dlu argues can be a legitimate concern?

Yeah it was a great point, and would be something that would need to be argued in court, given the current and perhaps future situations that society is in.

At the moment people could potentially argue that unwanted pregnancies could contribute significantly to poverty and disruption of society. But in a society where super annuation and taxes will no longer keep up due to a reduction in population, it could be argued that the government needs to outlaw abortion in order to keep population numbers growing. But as a defence against that extreme level of govt intervention, people could argue for increased immigration, perhaps financial incentives for people to have more children or for people to store a certain percentage of their own income into a mandatory super annuation fund for themselves, certainly a more softer and less intrusive approach. The courts will ultimately decide based on the arguments, the outcome will not be decided by me.

I really like the idea that moral judgements should be minimized in favor of objective criteria when making law. That said, I don't think its possible to avoid altogether, or maybe not even avoid it very often.

One argument against a system that I am proposing for could be that it would be hard for government to make it illegal to harm animals, laws against cruelty to animals.

I would personally like animals, pets and the like to be treated well, not tortured, not starved.
But I don't see how my system would allow govt to intervene.

The people of course could choose not to buy chicken or pork from farms that are known to treat livestock poorly. But buying free range is a luxioury for people that can afford it. But this doesn't help for a person that buys dogs and participates in dog fights for gambling. or a cruel person who kicks their dog, or burns it for fun.

 

[Grinkle]

@MindlessPieces Very thoughtful post.

One argument against a system that I am proposing

How, in general, would you change the US Constitution to adhere closer to the system you are proposing? Or alternatively, if you could outline NZ's constitution and say how you would change that?

If you consider only those policies for which Trump has made an argument appealing to any or all of safety, stability and thriving, which imo is almost any time he opens his mouth, I can't think of a single policy he hasn't framed this way, do you have any criticisms of Trump? Is he an ideal a-moral leader as you picture your system? If not, why not?

 

[MindlessPieces]

How, in general, would you change the US Constitution to adhere closer to the system you are proposing? Or alternatively, if you could outline NZ's constitution and say how you would change that?

I don't know how one would go about changing a country's current system.

At the moment, almost everyone thinks they want morality codified into law, that's why, (in particular in USA) people keep arguing about the morality of abortions.

I think the USA system has some good things, but also many ridiculous things as well.
Good things are the concept of a constitution and separations of power etc.

Ridiculous things are that you vote in a President rather than a party. Everything then seems to be about that President. It is the Biden Border Policy, Obama Care, the Trump Tarrifs etc. As if the president himself is the brains behind all the policies. The President then has extraordinary powers, they can pardon whomever they please from any federal crimes, even if those crimes were carried out for their own benefit, even if the person being pardoned received it due to a bribe or was a family member or was a special personal favour somehow.

Trump and his willingness to test every part of the system, has showed us that the President is now immune from the law, that the DOJ will refuse to investigate the president for any crimes, that the only way to hold a president accountable outside of an election is the impeachment process and no party has ever been willing to impeach a president from their own party. We have learned that a President can behave illegally to circumvent a free and fair election and if they "win" the election then there will be no legal recourse. The Supreme Court of USA have confirmed that the President can order the killing of his political opponents without any legal repercussions.

If you consider only those policies for which Trump has made an argument appealing to any or all of safety, stability and thriving, which imo is almost any time he opens his mouth, I can't think of a single policy he hasn't framed this way, do you have any criticisms of Trump? Is he an ideal a-moral leader as you picture your system? If not, why not?

Trump is a very interesting case.

For him everything seems to be about his own money, power and fame.
Born into extreme privilege, he has lived a very elite life, being the boss of his own company, he isn't held to account for anything, ethics, laws etc don't seem to apply to him.
He also operates somewhat like a Mob boss, he seems to have a personal policy to relentlessly go after anyone that gets in his way, probably to show others as an example, what will happen if they don't give him everything that he wants.

To get into power on the Republican ticket he has had to publicly take up certain positions, e.g. pro Christian, pro Life, anti gay, anti trans etc. IMHO I don't think he cares at all about any of those things, one way or another. Somehow (I have no idea how) many USA Christians consider Trump to be an instrument of God, doing god's will for the USA. They treat him with such reverence, they believe everything he says, they excuse all his disgraceful behaviour, they revere Him.

Yeah his is a-moral. But he is also probably a narcissist, self centred, and probably looks to the presidency as something that can give him power and opportunity, rather than a job that he can work hard for the betterment of the country.

Not all a-moral people are the same, just as not all Christians are the same and not all atheists are the same.

I think Trump is a pretty disgusting person, he goes on the attack on half the country all the time, he attacks the media, he extorts USA's allies, extorts universities, lawyers, he even tries to steal the election, does this out in the open for all to see, only his MAGA fans simply don't belief there illustrious leader would ever do such a thing. The right wing media in USA is so biased, they don't expose anything against Trump, they excuse it and call it all radical looney left wing conspiracies.

The fleas on the back of my cat would make a better president than Trump.

 

[Grinkle]

Not all a-moral people are the same, just as not all Christians are the same and not all atheists are the same.

Fair enough.

Take your cat to be dipped! ;-)

 

[jack action]

what would an ideal or better society look like for you? Do you have to carry a firearm to feel safe? Do you have to decide often if you need to do violence on your own behalf for some reason? Do you live amongst many people with enough common interests that conflict rarely arises, and if so how is this brought about?

No firearms needed, no violence at all. I'm not saying it won't happen, but there are no reasons why it would happen more than it does now.

What you need as a backbone of this society is a strong, cheap, fast, and accessible civil justice system to resolve disputes.

Everybody is seen as equal to the next. Everybody conducts their lives as they see fit. It doesn't mean they do always what they want, as they must live, negotiate, and compromise with others. The only social contract you have is agreeing to resolve disputes in civil court instead of fighting it out. Without forgetting that a bad compromise is always better than a good lawsuit. People who do not want to play by those rules can live somewhere else.

I see a monthly Universal Basic Income (for everyone, including minors) as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product per Capita. GDPC goes down, UBI goes down, and vice versa. Normally, the UBI should be equivalent to what someone with a revenue equivalent to GDPC pays in taxes (a percentage of their revenue), i.e. the average person should be able to live with what they have. The mother manages the UBI of her kids.

I see a common and obligatory health insurance. The insurance shouldn't cover 100% of the cost, leaving a small percentage to the person to pay, such that they have a sense of what it costs and choose their health care providers accordingly.

All services provided by the government (including health insurance, roads, defense. etc.) should be priced per capita and paid with the UBI received. Everybody knows exactly what it costs to live in this society.

Then anyone is free to choose where they get their health care, their education, their food, etc. but they all pay for it with their UBI, health insurance, and whatever money they can make above the UBI they received.

The UBI costs no more than what taxes costs in most socialist societies. But instead of giving help under the form of programs or free services, it is help given to everyone, unconditionally. No need for begging or proving your needs or your worth. But if nobody works, there will be nothing to receive.

 

[jack action]

People can be dangerous, and in a system where anything goes, there will be some people who play the part of thugs, naturally a system of Might makes Right will come about. Big strong people will prey on the weak and meak. They will take their stuff, they will rape them, beat them for shits and giggles.

I completely disagree with this negative view of human kind.

people will want to belong to a society which has rules against murder, assault, theft.

We create rules against murder, assault and theft and a police force and justice system to enforce those rules.

The thugs will go where the power is to commit their murders, assaults, and thefts. They usually are the ones creating the rules of a society and often have partial or complete control of the police force. At this point, of course, the thugs are now "civilized", living by their rules.

Also part of being safe, is having healthcare, hospitals, ambulance, protection laws about the safety of stuff, e.g. your electrical wiring etc.

The etc. part of that sentence is what leave openness to abuses in law making.

Allowing murder will eventually break down society, because to be safe, people will form gangs, they will also retaliate with revenge killings, things will quickly escalate.

Again, that is a very pessimistic view of human kind. I just don't want to live in a society with that kind of people. And to avoid gang formation that controls everything, you basically create one "official" gang that will control everything.

Each society needs to compete with each other, in order to win people over.

I completely disagree with that "need" as well. I don't need to compete with anyone. I don't need to bring more people in my group. If I survive by myself or with my small group, it is perfectly fine.

Theoretically, having one "perfect" society, including all human kind, could be seen as an ideal situation as well. No competition needed in such a scenario also.

Have infrastructure, have industry, have education, have jobs, have a thriving economy, have a thriving trade with other societies. Government should have responsibility and obligation to setup a society were people can thrive.

This opens the door to have laws forcing people to built things they don't want, just because others want them.

 

[MindlessPieces]

I completely disagree with this negative view of human kind.

It's neither a negative nor positive view of human kind.
It's just accepting life as it is.

There are limited resources in the world and we all must compete for them.

If there were unlimited resources, we could all just have everything that we have ever wanted. Alas life is not like that.

The thugs will go where the power is to commit their murders, assaults, and thefts. They usually are the ones creating the rules of a society and often have partial or complete control of the police force. At this point, of course, the thugs are now "civilized", living by their rules.

Not necessarily. But sometimes, yeah.

Trump is a thug, he has gravitated towards the power of the presidency and has used it to control others, to seek revenge against others. He extorts, he blackmails, he does whatever he can to excerpt dominance over people.

I think many of the people in ICE are thugs.
I actually think Trump and his think tank team have sought after people that are willing to do thuggery, it is part of their values based administration.

The etc. part of that sentence is what leave openness to abuses in law making.

Yeah, I haven't had the time to fully flesh my thoughts out. I was hoping readers would have the grace to understand the gist of it.

Again, that is a very pessimistic view of human kind. I just don't want to live in a society with that kind of people. And to avoid gang formation that controls everything, you basically create one "official" gang that will control everything.

You already do live in a society where some people are like that. The Gang, the government, aren't supposed to have a vested interest, they are simply defining the structure that all people need to abide by. But yeah, govt can abuse their power for their own benefit. a.k.a. Trump.

I completely disagree with that "need" as well. I don't need to compete with anyone.

Maybe you are super rich, IDK. Maybe your life partner isn't very desirable and no one else wanted them?

I don't need to bring more people in my group. If I survive by myself or with my small group, it is perfectly fine.

If your society isn't thriving, maybe everyone except you and your undesirable partner will leave and go to a society that is more desirable.

Theoretically, having one "perfect" society, including all human kind, could be seen as an ideal situation as well. No competition needed in such a scenario also.

Even with just one society, (Do some people really want a global government?) people within the society will always compete, as resources are limited, jobs are limited, partners are limited. Competition is unavoidable.

This opens the door to have laws forcing people to built things they don't want, just because others want them.

Govt needs tax money to pay for roads and schools and hospitals. Maybe you are super rich and don't want to pay taxes because you can afford this stuff privately. Maybe a society with only rich people and private pay as you go systems is for you. But then, who are you making your money from? Whose broken backs are you living off? Are there enough of them, such that as some die due to not having access to healthcare, you can continue making money off the poor to fund your own priviledged and easy life?

 

[gleem]

I'm also still not convince there would be that many more murders without laws prohibiting them.

Even with this MAGA movement and what appears in our news, you believe this? You do not understand the situation. Over 30% of the population owns at least one gun, that's 54M people. About 19M have felony convictions. 77M voted for Trump, approving his nationalistic and racist policies. And you say it's OK to kill anyone with over 150 years of festering racial and immigration hatred in this country.

Most current homicides are spontaneous without thought of the consequences and usually involve people who are known to one another. Killing strangers is easier, especially if they are viewed as a threat.

In 2005, Florida introduced the "Castle Doctrine", the right to stand your ground and use deadly force on any intrusion into your house if you feel your life is threatened. A study on the rate of killing in 2017 in Florida showed a 30% increase in homicides by gun immediately following the introduction of this rule. The shooter is exonerated if they convince the authorities and/or jury that his life was in fact in danger.

These are people who have at least a reasonable opportunity to kill. They were not looking for trouble. You say it would only be a minor uptick in homicides before we would be singing "Kumbaya". Even if 1% of MAGA adherents went berserk, you are looking at millions of deaths, not only of strangers but fathers against sons and brothers against brothers.

 

[Grinkle]

What you need as a backbone of this society is a strong, cheap, fast, and accessible civil justice system to resolve disputes.

Why include the word 'civil'? Why not just the rest of it? What's the flaw with criminal justice?

Regarding civil, some loopholes occur to me - if you have thought of these, what are your solutions?

What is the penalty for bankrupt people?

What if I decide that killing my estranged SO and their new partner is worth my net-worth. Am I then good to go for their murders? Can I just leave the check at their home for their descendants to collect if I don't want to bother with a trial?

What if I simply don't pay? Am I sued again, or are is there some backup criminal system that manages not paying, if indeed that would be a crime?

 

[jack action]

Even with this MAGA movement and what appears in our news, you believe this?

The gun problem in the USA is because there are laws, and some people want to change these laws.

The Constitution says that everyone has the right to bear arms to protect themselves. Already, this law kind of says that you need one, influencing everyone in society. There are gun sellers who use that to their advantage and enrich themselves.

Then some people think it might not be such a good idea that everyone walks around with guns, so they want to repeal that law. Consequence: the first group wants to make a point about owning guns as their right, so they buy more guns and try to convince more people to join their ranks.

Then some people are afraid that they won't be able to buy guns in the future - because it will be forbidden - and thus they buy a gun, just in case, just not to be left out.

Then some people see guns everywhere and think to themselves: "Boy, the only way to protect myself against all these fools is to have myself a gun, I should buy one too."

So now you have a society full of guns, mostly owned by people just having them to make a point or, worst, people who don't even want to own one.

All of this is because people are arguing about whether they should permit or forbid gun ownership.

Laws are bad. And the ones that "work" are the ones that have such harsh punishments that people have no freedom at all to do something else. There are always people suffering from these laws or the bureaucracy they involve. I don't see a bunch of people forced to do the "right" thing as a success, except for the people forcing others to go their way. Success is people choosing to do the "right" thing. And the "right" thing may not be the same for everyone.

 

[jack action]

@MindlessPieces

It is not about being rich or poor; it is about choosing between cooperation and competition.

I see myself cooperating with people around me. You see yourself competing with them.

Assuming I would want to compete with others, why would I want to help them? If I think they are out to get me, why would I want to help them? If the rules are fight, fight, fight, then the only reason to have laws is to prevent others from getting to me or because I want to get more from them, such that I win the competition.

 

[jack action]

What's the flaw with criminal justice?

The Criminal justice is always "the People" or "the King" suing a single person. The object of the complaint is always that the person sued has done something against the entire society that is suing them, even though we don't ask the opinion of the entire society in every case. The criminal law often decides what the outcome will be: there is no place for special cases.

Civil justice is always one person vs another person. It is always a case-by-case scenario where every angle is studied from both sides. That is especially true when no specific laws are prejudging "good" behaviors.

What is the penalty for bankrupt people?

What if I simply don't pay?

If you don't play by the rules, then you don't get to stay in this society. Also, what makes you think the price you'll have to pay will be in money?

What if I decide that killing my estranged SO and their new partner is worth my net-worth.

It depends on who is suing you. These people might be worth more than their net worth to somebody else, like, say, their bosses, who counted on them for their thriving businesses.

What if nobody cared about them, and nobody's suing you? Just like in today's societies, people have different treatment (including how they die) depending on who they know. You must create connections with others to matter; that won't change, no matter what type of society you create.

EDIT: I wanted to add another possible reason for people not suing you: they may forgive you. In these societies built on revenge, we rarely see it, but with other outlooks on life and what it means, it is a very strong possibility.

 

[Grinkle]

Also, what makes you think the price you'll have to pay will be in money?

What other penalties do you have in mind, and who would enforce them?

you don't get to stay in this society

What does it mean to not stay, deportation, dis-enfranchisement-in-place, death, other? Who enforces whatever it is?

These people might be worth more than their net worth to somebody else

I'm sure that's usually the case, but my point is in a civil case I can only pay what I have, regardless of the award amount.

I'm doing some superficial nit-picking, but I will also say that I fundamentally disagree with your assessment of how human nature would interact with such a system. I predict behavior would be Hobbesian, not co-operative. Do you have any historical society in mind that you can use as an example of where this approach has the outcomes you want?

 

[gleem]

The Constitution says that everyone has the right to bear arms to protect themselves. Already, this law kind of says that you need one, influencing everyone in society. There are gun sellers who use that to their advantage and enrich themselves.

The Constitution states that states are entitled to have an armed militia for security, and an individual may not be denied ownership. Only about 32% of adults seem to need a gun.

Then some people think it might not be such a good idea that everyone walks around with guns, so they want to repeal that law. Consequence: the first group wants to make a point about owning guns as their right, so they buy more guns and try to convince more people to join their ranks.

Most think it is not a good idea.

Then some people are afraid that they won't be able to buy guns in the future - because it will be forbidden - and thus they buy a gun, just in case, just not to be left out.

Doubtful.

Then some people see guns everywhere and think to themselves: "Boy, the only way to protect myself against all these fools is to have myself a gun, I should buy one too."

You don't see them. I live in Florida, which has liberal gun laws. Since 2023, about 2.5M persons are permitted to conceal carry, meaning about 1 in 7. I regularly try to determine if someone is carrying, and so far have not seen one.

Reports of crime seem to be the reason people want to have a gun.

So now you have a society full of guns, mostly owned by people just having them to make a point or, worst, people who don't even want to own one.

No, as a form of life insurance. Mostly your source, please. Do not forget that many have guns for hunting, and yes, target shooting, which by the way is an Olympic sport.

Laws are bad. And the ones that "work" are the ones that have such harsh punishments that people have no freedom at all to do something else. There are always people suffering from these laws or the bureaucracy they involve. I don't see a bunch of people forced to do the "right" thing as a success, except for the people forcing others to go their way. Success is people choosing to do the "right" thing. And the "right" thing may not be the same for everyone.

This is plain crazy talk. Is there any society in which people do the right thing all the time? Even you say that the right acceptable thing for one person may not be right (acceptable) to another. How is this addressed?

There are small groups that do not have written laws but instead depend on culture and tradition. This depends on the individuals' being able to feel that they understand one another's behaviors. Each person is predictable concerning responsibilities, expectations, or accountability, for example.
It seems that this works for groups up to about 150 (Dunbar's Number). This is the number of people a person can reasonably understand the network of relationships in a group.

 

[MindlessPieces]

@MindlessPieces

It is not about being rich or poor; it is about choosing between cooperation and competition.

I see myself cooperating with people around me. You see yourself competing with them.

Assuming I would want to compete with others, why would I want to help them? If I think they are out to get me, why would I want to help them? If the rules are fight, fight, fight, then the only reason to have laws is to prevent others from getting to me or because I want to get more from them, such that I win the competition.

It's not an either/or thing. We do both, we cooperate AND we compete. It is impossible to avoid competition simply because resources are finite.

We want a candy bar in a store, we have to get there and buy it before someone else does. The store doesn't have an infinite amount of that candy bar, so they set a price such that they won't sell out. We must get a source of income (generally a job) so that we can get the money to buy that candy bar. Others are also competing to land that job. There aren't an infinite amount of suitable jobs.

Evolution itself wouldn't work if resources were unlimited, in a world of survival of the fittest, those genes that are better suited to compete in the environment become more prolific, those less suited die off.

It's just the nature of reality.


Why would you want to help people?
Alliances can be very helpful to you. You help them, they help you in return. We aren't always in prime physical condition. We help others in need, when we are in need, perhaps we've twisted an ankle or broken an arm, others help us. It is mutually beneficial. But let's say you are trying to win the love of someone. If you are adverse to competition, does that mean as soon as someone else comes along that shows an interest in your love interest, you just step back, walk away and wait to see if it works out between them? Sounds quite pathetic to me. It means you put yourself last in everything. Because you want to avoid competition, so you only go after jobs that no one else wants, a partner that no one else wants, a house that no one else wants. At a buffet, you wait until everyone is full before you dare go in to fill your plate with the left overs.

 

[MindlessPieces]

The gun problem in the USA is because there are laws, and some people want to change these laws.

The Constitution says that everyone has the right to bear arms to protect themselves. Already, this law kind of says that you need one, influencing everyone in society. There are gun sellers who use that to their advantage and enrich themselves.

Then some people think it might not be such a good idea that everyone walks around with guns, so they want to repeal that law. Consequence: the first group wants to make a point about owning guns as their right, so they buy more guns and try to convince more people to join their ranks.

Then some people are afraid that they won't be able to buy guns in the future - because it will be forbidden - and thus they buy a gun, just in case, just not to be left out.

Then some people see guns everywhere and think to themselves: "Boy, the only way to protect myself against all these fools is to have myself a gun, I should buy one too."

So now you have a society full of guns, mostly owned by people just having them to make a point or, worst, people who don't even want to own one.

All of this is because people are arguing about whether they should permit or forbid gun ownership.

I like this post of yours, it highlights the maddness that is the American psych. It is pure insanity, highly driven by fear and with a massive amount of commercialism thrown in, not to mention the insane partisan politics also.

Many people in USA are fearful that someone will forbid gun ownership. This is driven by insane partisan politics. The USA left have no interest in forbidding gun ownership, they just want pragmatic gun laws much of which most free Western styled countries have. But people like Trump and organisations like Fox News tell the USA right that "they are coming for your guns" and so panic ensues and the gun manufacturers get a boost in sales and hence keep donating to the Republican party.

 

[Grinkle]

Many people in USA are fearful that someone will forbid gun ownership.

True.

This is driven by insane partisan politics.

Wishful thinking. Its not so recent, and not so straightforward.

Roughly 45 years ago, as a child, I recall a conversation with a gun-owning adult. He was in his 20's at the time, and was and still is an avid gun owner, although his politics have moved significantly left over the decades. He is not at all a Trump supporter.

In this conversation, he explained to me that it was possible and likely enough to worry about that the UN would take over all or part of the US and confiscate guns. This was in response to my asking him if he thought firearm registration was a good policy. Because he didn't trust the UN, or national defenses against Russia (we were deep in the cold war at the time) or even the relatively moderate American political left not to come and take guns away, he didn't support creating any record at all of which citizens owned guns.

My point is that his thinking on this was mainstream NRA member thinking at the time, and ever since that time, and probably well before that time. It hasn't gotten any more extreme, because it can't - it was as extreme 40 years ago as it is today. Its not a MAGA thing. Left leaning people own guns, too, and if one is at all participating in American gun culture, as opposed to simply being a firearm owner, one always has a list of boogeymen who are trying to frog-boil their way into full-out firearm confiscation.

Keeping gun owners convinced of "give an inch and they will take a mile" is the only way to get them to object to any regulation, no matter how pragmatic it may be. Its not new, unfortunately. Its a deeply rooted gun-culture characteristic that is generations old.

Anyway, the person in my anecdote today has no concerns around gun registration, no longer belongs to the NRA, doesn't think anyone wants to take his guns away, and remains a very responsible gun owner. He hunts and target shoots and legally carries, concealed where required and openly when in rural areas where that is permitted. When I remind him of his decades-old mentality, he ruefully shakes his head and says he's glad he grew out of that, its a crazy mentality and not good for society. He supports common sense gun laws and believes the best way to limit violence would be to control ammunition supply and magazine size. So, there is hope for people to mature out of the insanity - I wish I had more such anecdotes.

 

[MindlessPieces]

True.



Wishful thinking. Its not so recent, and not so straightforward.

I wish I had more such anecdotes.

I'm not saying that Trump started it all, all the paranoia about guns being taken away. But it has become a partisan political thing, certainly a talking point for many Republican politicians.

 

[dlu]

he Criminal justice is always "the People" or "the King" suing a single person. The object of the complaint is always that the person sued has done something against the entire society that is suing them, even though we don't ask the opinion of the entire society in every case. The criminal law often decides what the outcome will be: there is no place for special cases.

Civil justice is always one person vs another person. It is always a case-by-case scenario where every angle is studied from both sides. That is especially true when no specific laws are prejudging "good" behaviors.

There is also the determination 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and accessing 'guilt' and the subsequent 'rehabilitation' in the Criminal code.

An accused may not be the person who actually did the crime, just there at the scene and assumed to be guilty party, or have more circumstantial evidence pinpointing him/her than others.

Present day civil cases have a lower bar with regards to the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' than criminal in assigning 'guilt' and 'rehabilitation' ( compensation ), As such, we have OJ Simpson declared not guilty in Criminal Court, but guilty for wrongful death in the civil case brought against him. ( which I had/have a difficult time understanding these outcomes since the two tried cases seem connected but apparently not )

Any way to get around this?
The 'you're a witch' trials of the past are just one example of what appears to be more civil than criminal prosecutions.

The Criminal trials do have problems.
A judge takes appearance of remorse into sentencing ( An actual innocent must pretend remorse )
Innocent until proven guilty is supposedly the norm, but the stigma of just being accused is a difficult attachment to throw off. Suspicion lingers.
And fake outrage at light sentences, crime do the time, do show that some fearmongers use the criminal justice system as it stands to stoke up and rattle the population.