(The first film they wanted to ban, Edison's The Kiss.)---
Have you ever thought about that laws are simply written rules of what the majority thinks is right? When we have laws about theft and murder, which maybe 99% of the population agree is wrong (at least when it happens to themselves), then they are not disputed. But when we have laws which a sizeable minority disagree with, such as laws about abortion, drugs, or censorship, then we have ongoing fighting about it.
But this is only an issue of agreements and majorities. What the majority can agree is wrong in the USA is a very different story to what they can agree is wrong in Denmark. (I doubt they would ever consider outlawing abotion in DK for instance.) And this is again a world apart from what they agree on in Lebanon or in Singapore.
I think many people, including sometimes myself, have this idea of laws as being natural law and immutable, because they feel so real. But they are nothing of the sort, they are just solidified agreements. And the greater the majority, the more solid the agreement seems, but it is still just an agreement.
One might for instance imagine a society where even theft is not illegal. This could be (in a very rough society) because criminality is so overwhelming that it can't be fought. Or it could be in a utopia where everything can be manufactured by machines (like nanotechnology) instantly and for free, so there is no reason to be upset by losing anything, and no reason to steal anything. (Such a society might even be less than a century away, but very hard for us to imagine.)
Update:
Some people challenge my idea that laws are from the people, saying that laws are made by small minorities. See, I stopped believing in this a while ago. I think that apparent rulers (dictators or not) are not at all masters, but puppets of the collective mind of the people. The funny part is that neither the "rulers" or the people realize it! The people rule themselves with an iron fist, and complain about their plight!
There are natural laws on the universe like electromagnetism, gravity but there is a more fundamental law of the universe. In a word, Nam Myoho Renge Kyo, the essence of 3000 years of Buddhist teaching. When I first invoked this law, I realized the cessation of a 8 year long illness that was causing me to sleep 12 hours nightly. It can be powerful when done correctly (see, about that, www.sgi-usa.org)
ReplyDeleteHere's a bit of History trivia that you may find very relevant:
ReplyDeleteWhen the great Reich asked little Denmark kingdom to hand all their Jews over, the Danish refused. What did the nazis do? Nothing! Without the collaboration of the people, they were helpless. Same thing happened in Bulgaria. While the other countries collaborated, because they had intrinsic antisemitism in their societies. The people represent an awesome power sometimes.
I see the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq as hopeless, for this same reason : the citizens there, in their significant majority, believe that their religion or tradition commands them to reject the heathen Westerners, and that aiding the muslim armed opposition is a holy duty. Not all, but certainly enough of them.
Bin Laden and associates knew what they were doing, when they put immense effort in their propaganda across the muslim world decades ago.
Change can only happen and last when it comes from the people. Which is precisely why ALL corrupt regimes fear truth so much and fight freedom of information by any existing means. To keep the people from changing things, the only sure way is to prevent them from wanting the change.
In my opinion, the right way to fight fanatism isn't to forbid any spreading of its contents, because people will want to know what you're keeping from them. You fight fanatism (of any kind) with education and knowledge. By teaching people to analyze what they see and hear, to think before they believe, and to understand why some ideas are false. Once destroyed, ignorance can never be rebuilt in a person.
I see here, in Lebanon, how right you are, Eolake : what gives the corrupt-to-the-core politicians their power, is the fact that they have many followers. Either by interest or sheer stupidity, there's still a dramatic number of people who eagerly keep these no-goodniks in power. Otherwise, they'd be long gone! No wonder most of them spend a lot of effort courting the various religious leaders...
Thank you Pascal.
ReplyDeletercw8888: Which natural law are you talking about?
Nam Myoho Renge Kyo is the ultimate law of life and death and was first discovered and propagated by Nichiren in Japan in 1228. It draws upon the Lotus Sutra of Gautama Siddhartha. There is a book which explains it further at www.middlewaypress.com and a follow on book which goes deeper. 1. The Buddha In Your Mirror
ReplyDelete2. Unlocking The Mysteries Of Life And Death
OR, you can simply chant those words, with your eyes open, towards a target of your own heart's desire.
OR, http://sgi-usa.org/thesgiusa/findus/index.html
will help you find local members who will assist (but not hassle) you.
If you are non-USA, then
www.sgi.org
will give you international info.
I have practiced it for over 37 years and find it to be ever more amazing as I have grown to understand human life. We all have the potential to live our every day lives as a Buddha, just as we are, without becoming anything we are not.
Richard 310-980-7636
Pascal R., you are right on target. Peace on this planet will come from a widely supported culture of peace--from the people, not the governments. And this support will come from what we in the SGI call the Human Revolution--the elevation of an individual's life condition which occurs when the fundamental darkness in human life is overcome by the fundamental light present in everyone.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the interesting post.
ReplyDeleteWhat I find interesting, too, is that the only situations you suggest where theft is not illegal is if it can either not be controlled or items are easily replaced. As if property - that someone can actually claim ownership of something - was a natural law instead of an idea propagated by society. Of course, without property, there's no theft.
I remember that I read once about a society some would call primitive, which gained material wealth because of their natural resources (it could actually have been Guano) but had not adopted the rules that come with it in our societies. Each time one family got their injection of money, they would buy large amounts of consumers goods and throw a big party.
Then the guests would try out all the nice new things and take with them what they liked. One example was one friend (or brother, I don't remember) driving away with the new 4WD. And nobody had a problem with it - he doesn't need a car on that small island anyway (and if he did, he would just take it) and they seemed to be used to just sharing all resources amongst them in that fashion rather than assigning them any personal value, or claiming them as their own property.
Well as I said, if there's no property (which is a debatable concept in and by itself, without even talking about "intellectual property") there's no theft.
The guys mentioned above probably wouldn't know what you are talking about if you asked them about theft.
Just my pretty long 3 Cents.
History shows that where there is no rule of law, thugs and scoundrels will always step in to exploit, expropriate and terrorise their fellow-humans.
ReplyDeleteThe bodies of law which nations accumulate over the centuries are repositories of both the collective memories and the prevailing values of their societies.
This can be both good and bad, but on balance I believe it is a positive thing. As individuals most of us do not live long enough, and often lack sufficient judgment, to acquire by ourselves the experience, wisdom and attitude of co-operation needed that would enable us to live harmoniously with our fellows. That is where the law, which at its best applies a distillation of cumulative wisdom and common sense to human affairs in a framework striving for fairness, plays an essential role in curbing the antisocial excesses of behaviour that would otherwise occur.
Meanwhile, by its very nature, the law is always a step behind social change. This is because it tends to be reactive rather than preemptive -- in other words, it responds to problems after they occur rather than seeking to identify them in advance and prevent them from occurring in the first place. On the whole, this is probably also a good thing, otherwise most of us would be living with legal systems that were overbearing, frequently mistaken in their assumptions, and excessively intrusive.
The other advantage of the legal system being inherently conservative is that by the time a particular law is eventually changed to meet new circumstances, in a liberal democracy the issue in question will usually have been subjected to thorough public debate and scrutiny.
I can think of four general situations (some of which overlap with each other) where this legislative process has shown itself to be either inadequate or in need of supplementation by external institutions:
1) When hasty measures are adopted, with minimal scrutiny, to deal with an emergent domestic threat. Much anti-terror and anti-drug legislation falls into this category.
2) When a complex threat develops very slowly. The problems associated with disease, global warming and the over-exploitation of natural resources (which have the potential to cause entire societies to fail, especially in the context of trade globalization) fall under this heading.
3) When a chronic problem requires a solution that involves multiple legal jurisdictions. Money laundering, people-trafficking and organised crime in general -- as well as the effective addressing of environmental problems -- belong in this category.
4) When a serious problem arises in a foreign country. Famines, natural disasters, genocide and civil collapse are typical instances.
With items 2), 3) and 4) the approach taken by governments and institutions has ranged from unilateral action to the setting-up of NGOs and pan-national institutions of various kinds, often with disappointing results. The problems here have included the difficulty of co-ordinating both actions and legislative frameworks, under-funding, and competing national priorities. Frequently the changes of government that occur in democratic countries have made the solving of such problems even more complicated. This is not a reason to abandon democratic principles, but represents a challenge to us to devise more effective ways to solve these problems.
Anyway, to get back to the original topic of your post: yes, the law does generally reflect what the majority thinks is right, which may not always be what you or I would regard as right or desirable. But what realistic alternative is there that we could comfortably live with, given the fact that we live in a society and not on private islands?
Yes, you said it.
ReplyDeleteYou'll notice I have not stated that laws are bad. I have tried living four people together, and laws quickly develop.
I am just saying they should not be regarded as holy writ, they change with time and place.