Si modo
Diamond Member
Disclaimer: I am no political scientist, far from any expert in history, certainly not a sociologist, etc.
My hypothesis (and likely some scholar of those subjects has said the same thing): When laws are more subjective than objective; there is no longer a system of law, rather there is tyranny.
Simple definitions:
Subjective: existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective)
Objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion; of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
When we have what I call the "feel good" legislation (for example, this recent legislation about WBC and funerals), I think of how this sort of thing breeds tyranny.
That legislation, and other laws/rules, depend on such a subjective determination of what is offensive, insulting, attacking, etc.. Maybe WBC is not a great example, as I know of no one who doesn't think they are a bunch of horrible lunatics.
But, maybe examine your country club or some other social group's rules. For example, your neighborhood association's bylaws on use of the club house. Perhaps the bylaws state that you cannot insult and/or personally attack (verbally) another member in the dining room.
Who decides what an insult or personal attack is? Perhaps you told another member to go fuck himself. On its face, that sure seems like a personal attack. But, maybe this other member was a drunken buffoon who came over to your table while you were having dinner with your boss and his/her spouse. Although he wasn't really saying anything offensive to you, he was breathing his alcoholic breath all over your plate of proscuitto and melon and ruining your appetite and everyone else's appetite at the table. He wasn't getting your less-than-subtle hints to leave you alone, so you finally told him to go fuck himself. He left in a huff and reported you to the board the next day.
If I were the adjudicator in that instance, I would call it a wash.
But, what if the adjudicators don't particularly care for you? They certainly could rule that you insulted another member and they could tax a heavy fine on you or even yank your membership.
But, my point is, when the law is so subjective - what does the adjudicator think an insult is - there really is no law or rule at all. The decision is ONLY what the adjudicator wants it to be. That is tyranny in the form of authoritarian and totalitarian rule.
So, I am often stunned that many would support such subjective legislation. Sure, most of us would like everyone to be nice to each other and we often cheer when "bullies" get punished, but do you ever stop to think what would happen if someone in authority decides what you are doing or saying is offensive? It may not be offensive to you, but it may be to the authorities.
One person's trash is another's treasure.
(As a side note, when there are also so many laws that the inevitable contradictions exist, it can breed tyranny, too. Depending on the adjudicator's opinion of you, s/he can pick whichever law will lead to a punishment of you.)
My hypothesis (and likely some scholar of those subjects has said the same thing): When laws are more subjective than objective; there is no longer a system of law, rather there is tyranny.
Simple definitions:
Subjective: existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective)
Objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion; of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
When we have what I call the "feel good" legislation (for example, this recent legislation about WBC and funerals), I think of how this sort of thing breeds tyranny.
That legislation, and other laws/rules, depend on such a subjective determination of what is offensive, insulting, attacking, etc.. Maybe WBC is not a great example, as I know of no one who doesn't think they are a bunch of horrible lunatics.
But, maybe examine your country club or some other social group's rules. For example, your neighborhood association's bylaws on use of the club house. Perhaps the bylaws state that you cannot insult and/or personally attack (verbally) another member in the dining room.
Who decides what an insult or personal attack is? Perhaps you told another member to go fuck himself. On its face, that sure seems like a personal attack. But, maybe this other member was a drunken buffoon who came over to your table while you were having dinner with your boss and his/her spouse. Although he wasn't really saying anything offensive to you, he was breathing his alcoholic breath all over your plate of proscuitto and melon and ruining your appetite and everyone else's appetite at the table. He wasn't getting your less-than-subtle hints to leave you alone, so you finally told him to go fuck himself. He left in a huff and reported you to the board the next day.
If I were the adjudicator in that instance, I would call it a wash.
But, what if the adjudicators don't particularly care for you? They certainly could rule that you insulted another member and they could tax a heavy fine on you or even yank your membership.
But, my point is, when the law is so subjective - what does the adjudicator think an insult is - there really is no law or rule at all. The decision is ONLY what the adjudicator wants it to be. That is tyranny in the form of authoritarian and totalitarian rule.
So, I am often stunned that many would support such subjective legislation. Sure, most of us would like everyone to be nice to each other and we often cheer when "bullies" get punished, but do you ever stop to think what would happen if someone in authority decides what you are doing or saying is offensive? It may not be offensive to you, but it may be to the authorities.
One person's trash is another's treasure.
(As a side note, when there are also so many laws that the inevitable contradictions exist, it can breed tyranny, too. Depending on the adjudicator's opinion of you, s/he can pick whichever law will lead to a punishment of you.)
