Man made laws, do you believe in them?

[TheKingIam]

I don't... do you?

[Miserabilia]

I beleive that they are there for a reason and that they work for society.
Not all laws are good for everyone, but that's what we are in a democracy for; if something isn't right for some people they have the right to try and change it

[Gamma Male]

Wait, what is this even about? All laws are manmade. Some laws are good, and some are bad. What else is there to discuss?

[phuckphace]

gunning for Edgemaster Extraordinaire I see

[britishboy]

Show me a law you don't believe in.

[TheKingIam]

Show me a law you don't believe in.

Gun laws, sex laws, adoption laws, property laws, drug laws..... should I go on?

[Harry Smith]

Show me a law you don't believe in.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/tabathaleggett/ridiculous-and-outdated-british-laws-that-still-exist

[TheKingIam]

I beleive that they are there for a reason and that they work for society.
Not all laws are good for everyone, but that's what we are in a democracy for; if something isn't right for some people they have the right to try and change it

I'm starting to not believe in democracy :0
Imagine theirs an election for whatever, and the votes go 51% against and 49% for, well then 49% of the population is going to be pissed
or neighborhoods overun with muslims like in Tower Hamlets, since they are a majority they make their own laws
I never thought I'd ever say this but I'm leaning towards anarchy

[britishboy]

Gun laws, sex laws, adoption laws, property laws, drug laws..... should I go on?

Define each of them. E.g. gun laws too relaxed or tight?

[TheKingIam]

Define each of them. E.g. gun laws too relaxed or tight?

Gun laws , too tight

sex laws, too tight

adoption laws too tight

property laws , too tight

drug laws , shouldnt exist

[Harry Smith]

I'm starting to not believe in democracy :0
Imagine theirs an election for whatever, and the votes go 51% against and 49% for, well then 49% of the population is going to be pissed
or neighborhoods overun with muslims like in Tower Hamlets, since they are a majority they make their own laws
I never thought I'd ever say this but I'm leaning towards anarchy

You're from Denmark.

Can you stop telling us how bad Tower Hamlet it, it's really not as bad as you make it out to be. They don't make their own laws that's a complete and utter lie. You've never been to tower hamlet so can you stop giving us the right wing spunked version of how it's little pakistan because it's simply not

[TheKingIam]

Your from Denmark.

Can you stop telling us how bad Tower Hamlet it, it's really not as bad as you make it out to be. They don't make their own laws that's a complete and utter lie.

i lived 16 years of my life in London, i know what I'm talking about, and don't go off topic please

[britishboy]

Gun laws , too tight

sex laws, too tight

adoption laws too tight

property laws , too tight

drug laws , shouldnt exist

Guns need regulations.

What sex laws are you referencing to?

What property laws?

Drug laws should exist.

[Harry Smith]

i lived 16 years of my life in London, i know what I'm talking about, and don't go off topic please

Apologies for that, I'm not going off topic.

Can you give me any evidence that the people of tower hamlet have their own legal system separate from the british state?

[Gamma Male]

Gun laws , too tight

sex laws, too tight

adoption laws too tight

property laws , too tight

drug laws , shouldnt exist

I'm sorry, adoption laws are too tight? How so?

[TheKingIam]

Apologies for that, I'm not going off topic.

Can you give me any evidence that the people of tower hamlet have their own legal system separate from the british state?

This is going off topic, if you want to talk to me about that PM otherwise let's end this here

[Harry Smith]

This is going off topic, if you want to talk to me about that PM otherwise let's end this here

It's not going off topic, your talking about man made laws and you claimed you were opposed because some people can create their own laws, I believe You made this claim in this thread

neighborhoods overun with muslims like in Tower Hamlets, since they are a majority they make their own laws

I'm asking that if you make this claim in a thread you back it up with good evidence, or where you lying?



Drug laws should exist.

Whilst I agree with the very basic principle that we should have laws to stop the distribution of class A drugs e.g crystal meth I don't see why we shouldn't follow Portugal

[TheKingIam]

It's not going off topic, your talking about man made laws. You made this claim in this thread.



I'm asking that if you make this claim in a thread you back it up with good evidence, or where you lying?

2 words
Muslim
Patrol
look up what goes on there in the news every now and then
and that's it please don't quote me back about this

[Harry Smith]

2 words
Muslim
Patrol
look up what goes on there in the news every now and then
and that's it please don't quote me back about this

That's not a law-surely you know that. Those patrols were actually arrested by the police, and charged in the court. It's fucking ironic to say don't quote my on a forum

Can you please give me some evidence that the borough of Tower Hamlet has created a separate de jure legal system?

[Emerald Dream]

Let's stay on-topic, please.

[britishboy]

Whilst I agree with the very basic principle that we should have laws to stop the distribution of class A drugs e.g crystal meth I don't see why we shouldn't follow Portugal

Why what have they done? Sorry there's only 2 or 3 countries where I follow their politics.

[Green Arrow]

I'm not too sure what this thread is actually about... of course I agree with man made laws not all of the obviously but most of them are there to protect us even if they have some other effect.

2 words
Muslim
Patrol
look up what goes on there in the news every now and then
and that's it please don't quote me back about this

>posts vauge comments about topics of the thread
>complains when people don't understand
>refuses to go into detail
>complains when people reply trying to understand

http://www.buzzfeed.com/tabathaleggett/ridiculous-and-outdated-british-laws-that-still-exist

Phahaha yeah I've heard some of them, gotta love British law! None of them are considered laws, thank god, they've just never been removed.

[Harry Smith]

Why what have they done? Sorry there's only 2 or 3 countries where I follow their politics.

I quoted this from another thread but it pretty much sums up how much of a success drug reform has been in Portugal
Portugal was the first country in the world to decriminalise the use of all drugs, in 2001. Here you can use any drug you want as long as it is for personal consumption only. However, "decriminalise" doesn't mean "legalise". The use of drugs it's still considered illegal, yes, but if you are caught with an amount superior or the maximum amount limits allowed for each substance (25 grams for cannabis), you would be aggressively targeted with therapy or community service rather than going to jail.

We also have what we call "salas de chuto", or injection sites in English, which are basically places where doctors, nurses and psychiatrists provide the clean and sterilised materials to the drug users so that they can use them safely, mainly to avoid overdoses and increase the hygienic conditions of the whole process.

Since the decriminalisation, there have been much less cases of deaths by overdose, HIV cases and consumption among teenagers, so those are all positive aspects. Still, there should be a certain control because of the use of drugs by children, and to avoid public health issues as well.

[britishboy]

I quoted this from another thread but it pretty much sums up how much of a success drug reform has been in Portugal

Did you write that? It's very well written. My only objection is that I don't want it to because casual, if the police do not come down on it, would the youths see it as ok?

[Harry Smith]

Did you write that? It's very well written. My only objection is that I don't want it to because casual, if the police do not come down on it, would the youths see it as ok?

Your getting the issue wrong, it's not about stopping the police coming down on it because that already happens, the police in London and the rest of the UK do not care about kids smoking weed-literally they don't give a fuck. The whole point is to translate that into a law, I mean the evidence from portugal shows it works doesn't it?

Youths already see it as okay, and I wouldn't really class that as a good point. We have legalized alcohol -kids see that okay. We have legalized fags-kids see that as okay. The idea that's it going to destroy youth's is simply wrong because as seen in Portugal. I mean the idea your suggesting is that the police should be tough to reduce us-we've tried this back in 90's and it didn't work-look below US has the toughest laws and toughest policing and it's got 40% of teens smoking

Following decriminalization, Portugal eventually found itself with the lowest rates of marijuana usage in people over 15 in the EU: about 10%. Compare this to the 40% of people over 12 who regularly smoke pot in the U.S., a country with some of the most punitive drugs laws in the developed world. Drug use of all kinds has declined in Portugal:

I didn't write either of the quotes, but they both show just how much we need drug reform

[britishboy]

Your getting the issue wrong, it's not about stopping the police coming down on it because that already happens, the police in London and the rest of the UK do not care about kids smoking weed-literally they don't give a fuck. The whole point is to translate that into a law, I mean the evidence from portugal shows it works doesn't it?

Youths already see it as okay, and I wouldn't really class that as a good point. We have legalized alcohol -kids see that okay. We have legalized fags-kids see that as okay. The idea that's it going to destroy youth's is simply wrong because as seen in Portugal. I mean the idea your suggesting is that the police should be tough to reduce us-we've tried this back in 90's and it didn't work-look below US has the toughest laws and toughest policing and it's got 40% of teens smoking



I didn't write either of the quotes, but they both show just how much we need drug reform

If children see it as ok, we can change that. What do you suggest is legal?

[Harry Smith]

If children see it as ok, we can change that. What do you suggest is legal?

You can't change what children see as okay, just like by blocking a child off from porn you don't stop sexualisation within society. Children see booze and sex as ok-we don't ban them.

I'd start off with having weed decriminalized in small doses meaning if you get caught with it the police won't arrest you and won't waste their time doing the paper work allowing them to tackle the issues that matter. I'd open up safe environments for drug addicts to take a fix of heroine in safe conditions along with rehabilitation and education rather than throwing them in a cell

[Lovelife090994]

I believe in some man made laws for order. Some are great but some blanket so many petty things.

[Vlerchan]

I believe that the laws exist and will continue to exist as long as I and the other minds that make up the Irish state agree that the laws exist and seek to enforce them.

Independent of a human mind the laws of course don't exist.

[Capto]

Laws exist. Therefore, I believe in them.

[Bleid]

Laws exist. Therefore, I believe in them.

And what does it mean to say you believe in them?

[Capto]

And what does it mean to say you believe in them?

That I affirm the existence of them.

[Typhlosion]

If you don't believe in them they cease to exist or something? Now that I actually thought about it, how the hell I put "Some of them"?

Do mean if I accept manmade laws? Yes, but if I didn't I would probably pay for that.
Do I agree with them? Some, obviously. I wouldn't agree on shorter work years for women 'till retirement or jewish circumcision, for an example.

[Horatio Nelson]

I believe that the laws exist and will continue to exist as long as I and the other minds that make up the Irish state agree that the laws exist and seek to enforce them.

Independent of a human mind the laws of course don't exist.

This is my feelings on the subject as well.

[Bleid]

That I affirm the existence of them.

Then this reasoning is circular:

1. Laws exist (In order to affirm this, you'd need to believe it.)
2. Therefore, I believe in them (I affirm the existence of them; #1).

[Capto]

You know, perhaps you're participation in a debate is more valuable if you posts actualy have content?

Irrelevant.

Yeah.

A line isn't a circle.

Geometry please?

[Bleid]

Irrelevant.



A line isn't a circle.

Geometry please?


Laws exist. Therefore, I believe in them.

And what does it mean to say you believe in them?

That I affirm the existence of them.

"I believe in them" := "I affirm the existence of them."
But yet, to say "Laws exist." is the affirmation of the existence of them.

And so, your argument of:

Laws exist. Therefore, I believe in them.

As you yourself provided us, "I believe in them" is to affirm their existence.

Thusly we have:

I affirm the existence of laws, therefore, I believe in them, which implies that I'm then affirming of their existence.

If you need visual aid:

http://i59.tinypic.com/2rnagyg.png


You need to already have established (the right hand side) in order to get yourself to (the left hand side) which is the way you got yourself to concluding (the right hand side).

Can't get much more circular than that.

[Capto]

No, it's not circular in any logical sense of the term. It's just reinforcing a prior statement. How hard is it to understand?

[Bleid]

No, it's not circular in any logical sense of the term. It's just reinforcing a prior statement. How hard is it to understand?

It is circular by the exact formation of what you presented us with.

Laws exist. Therefore, I believe in them

Let's go through it very slowly.

The bold part is what you're using as a premise leading up to the conclusion.

The conclusion being the underlined part, that you believe in them.

But as you yourself said, you believing in them is you affirming that they exist. But that's

the entire premise of the argument which is supposed to lead us to the conclusion.

This is by definition, circular reasoning. You're including the point to be proven in the premise(s).

[Capto]

The problem is that there is no argument.

There's no premise or conclusion in my statement, speaking strictly logically.

[Bleid]

The problem is that there is no argument.

There's no premise or conclusion in my statement, speaking strictly logically.

There is both a premise and a conclusion in your argument, speaking strictly logically.

You said yourself, "Therefore,"

Which is a word that precisely means that what came before the word is the reason for believing what comes after the word. There's no dictionary (and especially no logic textbook) you can consult that will tell you otherwise. That is exactly the reason that what you said is an argument. Are you maybe not aware that any form of reasoning is by definition, an argument in the logical sense?

In fact, when they teach logic in school, they will straight out tell you (both the professor and the textbook) that when you see "Therefore," you know to place what comes after that word as the concluding proposition of the argument, and what comes before will be the premises that you'll further break down into what's called 'atomic sentences'.

[Capto]

There is both a premise and a conclusion in your argument, speaking strictly logically.

You said yourself, "Therefore,"

Which is a word that precisely means that what came before the word is the reason for believing what comes after the word. There's no dictionary (and especially no logic textbook) you can consult that will tell you otherwise. That is exactly the reason that what you said is an argument. Are you maybe not aware that any form of reasoning is by definition, an argument in the logical sense?

In fact, when they teach logic in school, they will straight out tell you (both the professor and the textbook) that when you see "Therefore," you know to place what comes after that word as the concluding proposition of the argument.

Meh. I never enjoy dealing with debatists. Y'all always throw your smart sounding words at people to place words in their mouths that never bloody fucking existed in the first place. I apologize at my sincere lack of ability to be able to make a statement without a 'logic expert' come shove their irrelevant, elitist, ideals into my face. I fear many lack that ability as well.

I still fail to see where circular reasoning, or my apparent 'argument' pertains to anything in the first place.

I'm done with this.

[Bleid]

Meh. I never enjoy dealing with debatists. Y'all always throw your smart sounding words at people to place words in their mouths.

Which words are 'smart sounding'? I'll gladly clarify anywhere that I may have used too much jargon. All of what I described isn't very high-level and can be explained in a few sentences.

I still fail to see where circular reasoning, or my apparent 'argument' pertains to anything in the first place.

Let me try explaining again, only with a different argument of the same logical form.


God exists. Therefore, I believe God exists (affirm "God exists").

Do you see it a bit easier, now?

The conclusion (I believe God exists) affirms the premise, but the premise is the entire reason you'd believe the conclusion.

But without the conclusion, you won't have the premise, because the conclusion is the entire reason you're affirming the premise.

[Capto]

That I affirm the existence of something, though, is not the same of that thing existing. :/

[Bleid]

That I affirm the existence of something, though, is not the same of that thing existing. :/

Yes, precisely. But you were affirming it.

Tell me, if I say to you, "God exists" am I affirming that God exists, or am I saying something else?

[Capto]

Yes, precisely. But you were affirming it.

Tell me, if I say to you, "God exists" am I affirming that God exists, or am I saying something else?

No. You're saying that God exists.

I could affirm that by saying: "Indeed, God does exist". At which point I would have affirmed your prior statement.

[Bleid]

No. You're saying that God exists.

I could affirm that by saying: "Indeed, God does exist". At which point I would have affirmed your prior statement.

Yes, precisely. But then this affirmation on our part is not reason to believe the affirmation. Right?

Since, the conclusion was you believing in the laws (believing they exist). But we have not been presented with any reason that wasn't already in the conclusion towards believing the conclusion. It's like if I say:

1 + 1 = 2. Therefore, I believe 1 + 1 = 2

That's not a reason to believe it, because we have not established 1 + 1 = 2, we've merely stated it to be the case.

When we reason, our goal is to have premises that give us justifications to believe our conclusion. Not simply give our conclusion in the premise and then produce that as the conclusion.

For example:

1. A.
2. If A then B.
____
3. Therefore, B.

This argument is not circular whatsoever, because B is not given as a reason for why B is the case.

However if we said:

1. A.
2. If A then A.
___
3. Therefore, A.

Now we're simply using A as a reason for its own accuracy. That's circular reasoning.

[Vlerchan]

Consider I to be the sole mind in the universes.

If I consider an idea (of a law) then the idea (of a law) exists within my mind.

If I cease to consider an idea (of a law) then the idea (of a law) ceases to exist.

Right?

[Capto]

So what I said boiled down to: I support the existence of the existence of the objects referred to as 'laws' because of their existence.

Isn't that just f(x)=y=arbitrary function of x? Or dy/dx=y'=the derivative of y regarding x? In that I was saying the exact same damn thing two different ways?

I'm confused now. I'll just get back to linguistics homework. :C

[Bleid]

So what I said boiled down to: I support the existence of the existence of the objects referred to as 'laws' because of their existence.

Somewhat accurate. Yes.

More specifically,

Laws exist. Therefore, Laws exist. (Since, to believe in them is to affirm that they exist.)

Isn't that just f(x)=y=arbitrary function of x?

Not necessarily, because that's making a declaration of a state of affairs. That's just using the identity law. There's not actual reasoning going on there.

That's the same as saying f(x) = f(x). Well, that's necessarily true. Clearly f(x) is itself. But there's no reasoning going on there to make it circular reasoning.

Or dy/dx=y'=the derivative of y regarding x? In that I was saying the exact same damn thing two different ways?

Yes. The last part of what you said in this quote is correct, however we should keep in mind that the mathematical statements you provided about functions and derivatives are not sets of reasoning. Those statements would be used for reasoning. (which is what any mathematics solution consists of - reasoning)

I'm confused now. I'll just get back to linguistics homework. :C

You got this.

[Capto]

Yep, definitely getting back to linguistics homework.

Also, never taking a logic class. Ever.

[Bleid]

Yep, definitely getting back to linguistics homework.

Circular reasoning is one of the most difficult ones to convince someone they're engaging, because it's difficult (when they already believe they're talking about two different things) to explain how those two things are actually the same. Trust me, this is one of the most hard-to-notice subtleties of logic. It's not an over-complication or anything too crazy going on above. It just seems it because we were going through a lot of examples in order to try to bring it out clearly.

Also, never taking a logic class. Ever.

But it would be much easier in a class, because you would have a whole semester to go through the topics and ideas presented, instead of having to deal with one of the more subtle, difficult-to-analyze logic concepts in only a short few forum comments.

Pretty much, just:

A = Some arbitrary statement.

If the argument takes the form:

1. A.
...
...
...
...
_____
Therefore, A.

It's circular.

[Capto]

Circular reasoning is one of the most difficult ones to convince someone they're engaging, because it's difficult (when they already believe they're talking about two different things) to explain how those two things are actually the same. Trust me, this is one of the most hard-to-notice subtleties of logic. It's not an over-complication or anything too crazy going on above. It just seems it because we were going through a lot of examples in order to try to bring it out clearly.



But it would be much easier in a class, because you would have a whole semester to go through the topics and ideas presented, instead of having to deal with one of the more subtle, difficult to analyze logic concepts in only a short few forum comments.

Makes sense. :)

[Bleid]

Makes sense. :)

I'm glad!

And to respond to what Vlerchan said before he was drowned out:

Consider I to be the sole mind in the universes.

If I consider an idea (of a law) then the idea (of a law) exists within my mind.

Of course.

If I cease to consider an idea (of a law) then the idea (of a law) ceases to exist.

Right?

Would this part of what you said be following as the conclusion from what you said just before it, or would it be an entirely unrelated, but still true statement?

[Vlerchan]

Would this part of what you said be following as the conclusion from what you said just before it, or would it be an entirely unrelated, but still true statement?
It's independent of the first statement. However its the first statement thats significant and the one I seek to concentrate on:

If an ideas existence is resultant of my due consideration then conversely it must be true (?) that my due consideration results in the existence of an idea.

Right?

So ... If a laws (in the sense of an idea) existence is resultant of my affirmation then conversely it must be true (?) that my affirmation results in the existence of a law (in the sense of an idea). It exists for me because I believe it exists for me. I believe that this is what Capto might have been attempting to get at. It then exists for others through legislation and consequently the violent imposition of such legislation on dissenters (- edit: this last line reads sorta off to me:/).

Right again?

[Bleid]

It's independent of the first statement. However its the first statement thats significant and the one I seek to concentrate on:

If an ideas existence is resultant of my due consideration then conversely it must be true (?) that my due consideration results in the existence of an idea.

Right?

So ... If a laws existence is resultant of my affirmation then conversely it must be true (?) that my affirmation results in the existence of a law. It exists for me because I believe it exists for me. I believe that this is what Capto might have been attempting to get at.

Right again?

In order for the second part to be true, we'd need to make sure we clarify and explain how:

The idea I have of a law.

is equivalent to

The law itself.

Previously, it was all regarding the idea of a law existing because you conceive of it.

Is the idea of a law the same thing as the law itself?

[Vlerchan]

Is the idea of a law the same thing as the law itself?
This depends entirely on how we define law.

The relevant legislation embodies the idea of the law in its writing. The law that is enforced is that of the relevant legislation.

[Bleid]

This depends entirely on how we define law.

The relevant legislation embodies the idea of the law in its writing.

It does embody the idea. Is the legislation that enacts something to be followed the actual law, or is the idea on the legislation the law, or is the law something else, or both of these?

Since, for example, I could have an idea of a law against men being able to enter the grocery store.

Doesn't that very statement imply that the 'law' is something outside of the idea, since I am having an idea of this law?

[Vlerchan]

It does embody the idea. Is the legislation that enacts something to be followed the actual law, or is the idea on the legislation the law?
If we consider the legislation that enacts something to be followed (law-legislation) to be the law, and the (various) idea(s) of the law (law-idea) itself to be a separate construct in its own right, influencing the course the law might take but not actually a law in and about itself, then would such not conclude that the law (law-legislation) exists objectively in the material world through the form of legislation?

The problem is that laws don't need drafted legislation in order to be upheld. Legislation is just a written account of the general consensus (commonly accepted law-idea) amongst the individuals resident in any given jurisdiction - with note to violently enforce such a law-idea on those who dissent. However no law-legislation restricts myself (a male) from wearing a skirt but because of unwritten/unlegislated laws (social codes - law-ideas) I then don't wear a skirt regardless. In this case a law has arisen as a result of an unspoken agreement between me and my peers in that I will not wear a skirt. It did not require legislation. It simply required the emergence of a single dominant idea.

Of course, as said, the two (law-legislation and law-idea) can exist separately in their own rights but I'd still consider the law-idea to be the 'true' law.

Doesn't that very statement imply that the 'law' is something outside of the idea, since I am having an idea of this law?
To me it implies that the law needs to be backed by the threat of violent action against dissenters (or other such generally effective means) if it is to be upheld in any given jurisdiction. It implies to me that many differing ideas of the law applying to the same instance can exist at one single time but at the same given time only one single idea of the law can be upheld. In the case you outlined the law-idea that 'men cannot enter the grocery store' exists but as a result of the more dominant 'men can enter the grocery store' existing simultaneously it is not upheld as the law.

It's 2am and I'm tired so I'm not sure how coherent the above is. It's probably made worse by the fact that I only came to this realisation 30 minutes ago and am still trying to explain it to myself. If I'm confusing you highlight the relevant and I'll try expand or reiterate.

[CharlieHorse]

all of these Lawthiests are oppressing me and my belief and faith in the law.
XD

omg lol
the law is bullshit if it causes problems and hurts people.

[Bleid]

If we consider the legislation that enacts something to be followed (law-legislation) to be the law, and the (various) idea(s) of the law (law-idea) itself to be a separate construct in its own right, influencing the course the law might take but not actually a law in and about itself, then would such not conclude that the law (law-legislation) exists objectively in the material world through the form of legislation?

The problem is that laws don't need drafted legislation in order to be upheld. Legislation is just a written account of the general consensus (commonly accepted law-idea) amongst the individuals resident in any given jurisdiction - with note to violently enforce such a law-idea on those who dissent. However no law-legislation restricts myself (a male) from wearing a skirt but because of unwritten/unlegislated laws (social codes - law-ideas) I then don't wear a skirt regardless. In this case a law has arisen as a result of an unspoken agreement between me and my peers in that I will not wear a skirt. It did not require legislation. It simply required the emergence of a single dominant idea.

By that description, 'peer pressure' situations are law situations. Would we consider that to mean the description is a bit too loose, or would it still be fine?

Of course, as said, the two (law-legislation and law-idea) can exist separately in their own rights but I'd still consider the law-idea to be the 'true' law.

To me it implies that the law needs to be backed by the threat of violent action against dissenters (or other such generally effective means) if it is to be upheld in any given jurisdiction. It implies to me that many differing ideas of the law applying to the same instance can exist at one single time but at the same given time only one single idea of the law can be upheld. In the case you outlined the law-idea that 'men cannot enter the grocery store' exists but as a result of the more dominant 'men can enter the grocery store' existing simultaneously it is not upheld as the law.

It's 2am and I'm tired so I'm not sure how coherent the above is. It's probably made worse by the fact that I only came to this realisation 30 minutes ago and am still trying to explain it to myself. If I'm confusing you highlight the relevant and I'll try expand or reiterate.

And so then, if we're to agree that 'law is an idea' - would this also mean that the ideas about a law are themselves laws? Such as:

1. I have an idea of a law against men entering grocery stores.

2. Someone else has an idea of a law allowing men to enter grocery stores.

Are these both to be considered 'laws' at once, even though it would be impossible to uphold both of these at once, and they are both together contradictory?

Would we fall upon the one that has the most favor (#2), and the other would no longer be considered 'law'?

[Vlerchan]

Law (n): a system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social institutions to govern behaviour.

The above is the definition of law that I'm using. You'll find that the term 'social institution' encompasses peer pressure as exhibited by ones own family, community, etc., as defined here (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/social-institutions/). It's from here that I can now present my thoughts - which now seem a lot more coherent:

Laws exist as a result of an agreement of ideas within a community, local, regional, national, international, or otherwise, and thereafter, further agreement as to the maintaining of the laws within the community though the threat, and up to use of, violent-force, social-ostracisation, or other generally effective means of coercing compliance. The law objectively exists within a community as a result of the conscious or unconscious, unconscious referring to social codes stemming from ingrained prejudices, etc., action of the community in upholding the aforementioned pre-conditions for the existence of law. Independent of the community that the law is agreed upon and maintained the law itself does not exist, though this does exclude the law-idea from existing.

tl;dr: the existence of a law requires both belief and active maintenance.

Would we consider that to mean the description is a bit too loose, or would it still be fine?
I'd consider it to be fine.

You don't have a problem right?

Would we fall upon the one that has the most favor (#2), and the other would no longer be considered 'law'?
I'd consider the one that is activily being maintained to be the law. If that is #2 then I'd consider #2 the law.

[Abyssal Echo]

I have to abide by the law(s) I believe they're necessary to govern. I believe in God I don't believe in the law.

[Lovelife090994]

I have to abide by the law(s) I believe they're necessary to govern. I believe in God I don't believe in the law.

I just noticed the thread's title. It said do you "believe" in them. You "believe" in faith. You "follow" or "agree" with laws.

[Hudor]

Order and Chaos are the cornerstones of civilization. Each is equally essential and prudent only when they operate in harmony.
I believe in learning lessons from the past which help guide us and prevent us from making the same mistakes as our ancestors.
Having said that I don't believe in the Codes of Conduct laid down by heretics and absolutists simply because I would never want to fit into the expected or appropriate mould built to trap me in a sightless and senseless herd

[Bleid]

The above is the definition of law that I'm using. You'll find that the term 'social institution' encompasses peer pressure as exhibited by ones own family, community, etc., as defined here (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/social-institutions/). It's from here that I can now present my thoughts - which now seem a lot more coherent:

Laws exist as a result of an agreement of ideas within a community, local, regional, national, international, or otherwise, and thereafter, further agreement as to the maintaining of the laws within the community though the threat, and up to use of, violent-force, social-ostracisation, or other generally effective means of coercing compliance. The law objectively exists within a community as a result of the conscious or unconscious, unconscious referring to social codes stemming from ingrained prejudices, etc., action of the community in upholding the aforementioned pre-conditions for the existence of law. Independent of the community that the law is agreed upon and maintained the law itself does not exist, though this does exclude the law-idea from existing.

tl;dr: the existence of a law requires both belief and active maintenance.

That's fair.


I'd consider it to be fine.

You don't have a problem right?

I wouldn't see any problem with that.

I'd consider the one that is activily being maintained to be the law. If that is #2 then I'd consider #2 the law.

I would, as well. This definition would also allow us to not have an inconsistency between (laws of nature) and (laws of legislature) - since, laws of nature are laws precisely because nature actively maintains and follows them.

[proshots]

Yes because otherwise people can just go around shooting each other

[Jean Poutine]

I don't understand how one can believe in laws.

Laws are a governing tool enacted by an entity with enough support from the population that they agree to give up a part of their base freedom for security, with that entity having enough force to enforce them if necessary.

Laws are a tangible thing, they aren't theoretical, they aren't ideas, they aren't imaginary. They exist, and as a part of society, we follow (the majority of) them. We do not believe in them, because even if we don't, we'll get arrested for violating them.

I do not follow laws that have no other goal that to stymie personal freedom without an added gain of corporal, patrimonial or humanitarian (human rights, like the right to privacy) security in return.

You'd have a much more interesting debate if you asked on which basis laws should be promulgated. There are a hundred mostly decent answers to that one.