Guys why do we have laws

>Guys why do we have laws

Because 7/8ths of the population are wild animals and need explicit rules to keep them in line.

Because human beings have no inherent moral values without the fear of consequences

To protect ourselves from the post-feudal government

Laws exist to stop stupid people from stealing from the common man. The intelligent can still work around/within the law to steal from the common man. Thus the intelligent will steal LODS OF EMONE while the thuggish oaf will rot in squalor

This is our attempt to replicate natural selection but SJW was not accounted for and now the thuggish oafs are the victims who din't do nufin and we the common people have to pay for their tomfaggotry.

>tfw the bait hits

To codify a legal response to behaviors that society as a whole has deemed inappropriate. Think of it as a computer program for bureaucracy: without written laws, individuals would have no concrete idea of how they are expected to behave, and society would have no consensus on how it can deal with people who behave disruptively without causing enough dissent to cause its own destruction.

>Guys why do we have laws
so your government oppressors can fine you for breaking them.
and imprison you for breaking too many of them.
and force you to do slave labor while making 30 cents an hour "wage"

there should be a law against postmodernists, fuck 'em

sivom twroa

To prevent school shootings and robbery

>live in poverty
>can't afford food
>steal $2 loaf of bread to feed kid
>get arrested
>"oh you can't afford a $2 loaf of bread? sorry to hear that.. here's a $250 fine + court costs"

Natural law

To protect your freedoms from the subjugation of others. Like forcing you what to think, believe, and say. Modern government does not uphold these values to be true and are no longer self evident. 10 year sentence for drug use. Drug use should not be illegal. People should be allowed to do whatever they want, so long as they keep it to themselves or don't impose themselves upon others or incite tensions amongst groups.

This is stupid. You're saying right and wrong are arbitrary

>hurr am such a rebel

>“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”

youtube.com/watch?v=rGIY5Vyj4YM

to keep you retards from ruining the lives of those around you

To protect property and the ability to derive value from that property

Needed a reason to lock up niggers when they fuck up.

What's this from?

>"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, 'Who is destroying the world?' You are."

You're curiosity and choice to follow it must lead you. A direct answer would dissuade you

But they are...

Why do we have the concept of property?

Police fag here.

You only have to face consequences if you get caught. Truth be told, just do whatever the fuck you want in your own home and the majority of us don't give a shit. Also, you can't apply enough pressure to law enforcement. Our mindset is to never lose, so, you know, glocks.

humans are generally shitty to one another, and in order to have a stable society we have to punish people who violate societal norms. These norms vary from culture to culture, and punishment varies considering the degree of deviation from the norm

>Murdering is wrong because we happened to make a law against it
>Murder would be okay if only we made a law supporting it

Not quite; murder is wrong because people don't like it. But some people do; if there were enough of those people, it wouldn't be wrong.

yes user- they call this "war"

Could a police department face an entire city rioting? They've lost before

>punishment as a deterrent

Depends. New York police? Nope. Chinese police? Sure thing.

>If murder were common, it would be accepted in society
>If murder were common, we'd still have society

So you admit that it merely takes more force to bring down tougher institutions, but it's always possible

>Natural law
Which I just described, faggot.

>stronger force will overcome weaker force
It's simple really. And it's not edgy if it's literally the most basic fact of the universe.

Not common, just not frowned upon.

>"Who is the public? What does it hold as its good? There was a time when men believed that 'the good' was a concept to be defined by a code of moral values and that no man had the right to seek his good through the violation of the rights of another. If it is now believed that my fellow men may sacrifice me in any manner they please for the sake of whatever they believe to be their own good, if they believe that they may seize my property simply because they need it—well, so does any burglar. There is only this difference: the burglar does not ask me to sanction his act."

Because the fucking can't cunts get butthurt over being inadequate. Predictably, They enforce ludicrous obstacles to "level the playing field". This, of course, drags all of us down to the lowest common denominator and stifles our true potential.
Thus endeth the lesson.

Lol, pro bait.

Or are you just retarded high?

>Which I just described, faggot.

Yeah, we're in agreement

>niggers

>Murder defined as unjust killing of another
>Unjust killing is not unjust

>e ludicrous obstacles to "level the playing field". This, of course, drags all of us down to the lowest common denominator and stifles our true potential.
What's our true potential then?

NB4 Fresh Prince reference
NB4 theist/atheist debates
NB4 banana memes
NB4 OP is a faggot
NB4 How do I shot web

Just is like Right, it's arbitrary

I like to beat my children and waterboard my guests against their will. This is all done in my own home. Assuming I don't get caught, is this fine?

There's a common basis in most "unjust" things that if they were generally practiced life would be kind of shitty.

Can an action be both just and unjust at the same time?

>"If you choose to deal with men by means of compulsion, do so. But you will discover that you need the voluntary co-operation of your victims, in many more ways than you can see at present. And your victims should discover that it is their own volition—which you cannot force—that makes you possible. I choose to be consistent and I will obey you in the manner you demand. Whatever you wish me to do, I will do it at the point of a gun. If you sentence me to jail, you will have to send armed men to carry me there—I will not volunteer to move. If you fine me, you will have to seize my property to collect the fine—I will not volunteer to pay it. If you believe that you have the right to force me—use your guns openly. I will not help you to disguise the nature of your action."

Sure, just ask two different people. Example, the death penalty.

Can a killing both be murder and not murder at the same time?

Most, if not all, of them were commonly practiced for a long time. And yes, life was shitty. But society has changed over time, as have our definitions of right and just vs wrong and unjust.

Sure... Example, the death penalty... Why did you bother to ask again?

Sleep tight kitters

"""""all"""""

>hurr can't even refute points but ur rong cuz i is rite

So in saying that a killing can both be murder and not murder, you admit that there is a difference between murder and killing. Tell me, what is the difference?

>"You propose to establish a social order based on the following tenets: that you're incompetent to run your own life, but competent to run the lives of others—that you're unfit to exist in freedom, but fit to become an omnipotent ruler—that you're unable to earn your living by use of your own intelligence, but able to judge politicians and vote them into jobs of total power over arts you have never seen, over sciences you have never studied, over achievements of which you have no knowledge, over the gigantic industries where you, by your own definition of capacity, would be unable successfully to fill the job of assistant greaser."

My PERSONAL definition of murder is killing without a "good" reason, with my definition of good in this case being logically or emotionally explainable in such a way that I would agree with it. For example, killing because you think you will starve is not, by my definition, murder. Killing to punish someone for something, to me, is murder (e.g. death "penalty"). However, my definition allows almost any killing to be a murder or not, depending on what reason you give. In this way, the death penalty is not murder if the offered explanation is to protect further people from "harm," which to me is defined as emotional distress.

By contrast, my definition of killing depends on what is being killed, but for animals it is to cause the permanent cessation or, in some cases, severe alteration of brain activity.

>My PERSONAL definition of murder is killing without a "good" reason

Does there exist a definition of murder that means killing with a good reason?

I don't know, but I have never heard of one.

why don't we just google it?
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder
the only lawful killing i can think of is in self defence.

Throwing lawful in to the mix opens up a whole other can of worms. In some countries, it is legal to kill women because their faces are visible in public.

yeah and while that is awful it is not considered murder there. what a good reason is isn't universally agreed on either so i don't see your point.

Laws exist as a codification of rules against behavior that is unsustainable to the livelihood of mankind or a community. People cannot exist in.a society where murder was allowed and widespread, because they literally could not exist. They would be killed, and there wouldn't exist enough people or production to constitute a society. Defense of property is defense of sustenance, and ultimately, life.

Moral laws follow this simple concept, but not all legal laws are moral. Many are made with the objective of hindering life. Citizens of a civilization should make it their priority to detect the bad laws and expunge them.

THAT! That is my point. There is no universal definition, good is arbitrary.

So murder has only ever been defined, and forever will be defined as killing someone for a bad reason. So a killing cannot both be for a good reason and a bad reason at the same time. Something cannot both be murder and not be murder

And while it may be up for debate if something IS murder, it still remains the fact that if it is murder, then it is wrong

My point was that one person's good reason is another person's bad reason. To one person it is murder, to another it is justified execution. You're right that it can't be both murder and not murder to the same person, but that doesn't even make sense. A death cannot simply BE murder, because good depends on the person.

>Implying fining/punishing people for rape, murder, armed robbery, hostage situations, parking in a no parking zone is bad
Make em suffer for the sin

you know laws are being interpreted by judges? so one judge may interpret an ambiguous case to be murder while another will say it is self defense.

>What is welfare
>Why do you have a child if you are poor
>Why do poor people have more kids even though they can't support one
>You can beg for money
>You can get a job
>Many other ways to get food
Don't follow you m8

You can have a child and then become poor. And many times they actually can't get a job, either they have become physically or mentally unemployable or just plain nobody likes them.

So, Google then. Found it. Thanks!

To keep the niggers in check, white people DONT need laws

Atlas something

>You can beg for money
>Many other ways to get food
>Organizations for those situations
>Shelters
M8

The only reason that is judged is the killer's reason. If a killer killed someone because they looked at him funny, that would be a bad reason. It wouldn't make sense to say that it was a bad reason for the killer to kill, but a good reason for someone else to kill. Looking at someone funny would never constitute a justified execution.

Good on ya, m8. I hope the information you've found today changes your life

i meant with an ambiguous case how far you can go while still acting in self defense.

>Beg for money
That's very hit and miss, especially if you live in a high-asshole area, and in shit weather you're basically screwed.
>Many other ways to get food
Such as what? Dumpster diving, which is against the law and likely to kill you of poisoning out infection? Hunting or fishing, which is against the law unless you pay for a license? Gardening, which is fairly expensive and easy to fuck up, as well as taking a long time?
>Organizations / shelters
Only in some places, most of which are in America and UK

The reason that's judged is why it happened, because self-defense is an inalienable right of man while murder is one that we gave up when we entered society.

No, the reason is weighted by the judge. It's not that a reason is good enough for one person, but not another; it's that if the same person appeared before two different judges, they may get different rulings.

...

>Huge asshole area
Walk around and find a place where people are kind, tell them you have a family and they will get the hint its not for drugs
>All that
Illegal for good reason. Dumpster diving is illegal because if someone finds something like some old documents or some shit you can ruin them. Hunting and fishing you need a license for because if not we would have made everything extinct by now. How the fuck are you going to garden
There are places where you can get free food and there are even food drives for canned food.
>America and UK
I'm sorry you don't live here, but norway or whatever else place has to have something

So that people at church can say that you're a representative of the evil (you know, normal behaviors like speeding in a car, using drugs, wanting to fuck people) that they want to quash out.

Donjo

So the only way morality is subjective, you admit, is if you come up with an ambiguous example. But you also admit, if a killing is in self defense, it's OK, but if it's murder, it's wrong (by definition).

So morality is not subjective. Wrong actions are wrong. What you are arguing is that something is not wrong if it has not been given proper justice. That is not true. Murder is still wrong even if someone escapes justice with a self defense verdict

>has to have something
Do they really? What imposes that requirement?

>Bringing in religion to this
Did your mom and dad force you to go to church till age 13 or something

Do your homework by yourself, faggot.

>What you are arguing is that something is not wrong if it has not been given proper justice.
way to miss the point. what a wrong action is is subjective.

>You wouldn't be judged for murdering a member of another clan during early era of man
>They'd just let you go because they haven't invented a law against murder yet

>Not wanting your fellow man to die so you pay taxes so they can have food and welfare checks
If your city spends so much money making sure people are happy and educated make sure they can get something to eat or live too.
Like fucking hell America is known for beefing up or military but we pay tax for people's welfare too

That was hard to get through, your logic was a little frayed. Let's see if I understood you: you're saying that wrong is absolute, because murder is wrong by definition?

When is it okay to kill someone because they waved at you? When would that be ever okay?

ay that's pretty good, saved/10

If you were an emperor in ancient China who didn't like people waving at you

I'm saying that you can't say that murder is ever OK, because murder is wrong by definition. This you admit. And by admitting that understand the concept of murder, you understand that certain actions are inherently wrong

Freedom

Yes, murder is always "wrong" by my definition, but what I refer to as wrong and what you refer to as wrong are two different things. Wrongness is subjective, whether a killing is murder is subjective, I'm having trouble seeing what part of this doesn't make sense to you. An action that is wrong to you could make perfect sense to anyone else.

That would make the action legal, but not right. Laws are predicated on morality. Therefore, morality precedes and exists independently of laws

What does right mean to you?

Ah, I made a mistake. By my definition, murder is not always wrong; it is always unreasonable.

I like how you keep trying to say that definitions are subjective, too.

There are certain actions that no individual aware of reality would admit to as being OK. These actions are wrong.

Give an example?

Read the social contract. It's bullshit but it paints a good picture.

Give an example of a murder that isn't wrong

Behavior which allows others their freedom

Murder

Destroying the entire human race

A fishing license is like 15 us dollars. Nut up, suck someones' dick, boom you can start fishing. And sucking dick on the side

Oh man, you're going to have to qualify that a bit.

Nice one, m8

Why? Because it doesn't give you a good example to attack? Being good isn't hard, it just involves not being a dick

What about the fact that everybody living today didn't choose to live in a society. It's cool for these people to be oppressed all their lives? In the US you know it's illegal to go off the grid right? They will do their best to fuck your day up.

So when they take your cash, which they made a necessity, they can say it's legal. Like near mandatory work, shit that should be free people are forced to waste time daily for, then there's tax, what a joke, they even tax your tax, but no people love fucking love it,Duped into wage slavery, the lot of us, one way or another. Fuck it, how can you fight a scam that big? There are ways, but you get called nuts and a kook by the "happy" slaves, the created division by supposed class, as a distraction from the bullshit they feed us. But that's another story.

A "wrong" action, to me, is any action that causes emotional distress. Any action that does not cause anyone emotional distress is not wrong, which is not to say it is right. There are very few such people, but to kill someone that nobody cares for, who does not fear death, in a painless manner, is not wrong unless it causes yourself emotional distress.

rules are for the wise who follow and the foolish to ignore.

Dude, quit being a retard. Altruism does not exist. You're not a "good" person because of what's inside you, you're a "good" person because the civilization you live in has conditioned you to think as such.

Then your idea of what is wrong is incorrect and leads you to the incorrect conclusion that morality is subjective.

SJWs are distressed over bullshit all the time, it doesn't make any of it wrong

I definitely agree with don't be a dick, but that is not the same as don't infringe on others' rights. Also, being a dick might not mean the same to me as it does to you.

It can't be incorrect. That's absurd, how can an opinion be incorrect? I'm baffled that you just said that.

niggers

Altruism? Lol, maybe you didn't see the quotes I was posting. I'm an Objectivist.

Right and wrong are not based on feelings, nor are they based on subjective standards. They are based on reason

Ugh, do we have different definitions of action, too? People who just ARE distressed aren't wrong, because they didn't do anything to distress themselves. Likewise their brain chemistry isn't wrong, because it is incapable of acting.

Do you believe in anything spiritual? I think you're a bit daft if you dont. For thousands of years people have believed in spirits in your ancesteral lines and that belief is powerful. That's what hurts people when they have schitzophrenia - it actually comes from dark spirits, not just some imagined concept. They can infect reality and change everything so that they can somehow falsely justify your torture.

Reason imposed by civilization, right?

Reason based on reality.

I was just gonna ghost you, but I'll give you the courtesy of letting you know I'm going to bed. Good debate tonight. Look into what I said

So people who say they want anarchy aren't all murdered.

When's the last time you got to decide what was bad and was good? Hmm gyom

laws exist as part of a complex enslavement system, their primary function is to place you into a cycle through removal of options, once locked in you become predictable, controllable and programmable, much like herding cattle, fuck authority and fuck your world view.

Nuclear winter now