The Grapes of Wrath
8th May 2005, 09:35
Long time no post, which I guess is just fine to some. But I looked at a thread which was "discussing" Stalinism and whatnot. The Gulags were mentioned, as were Hitler's concentration camps and I couldn't help but wonder, what exactly could prevent such a thing from happening again. These things seemed to happened due to a very poorly made (or fixed) Law system.
It seems silly that the existence of Law alone caused this, but merely how the law was made, what it entailed and how it was executed. A sort of deformed Law may have helped in the creation of these evils, and others, but Law could have also prevented such things.
Law is there to provide boundaries to the activities of human beings or human agencies. These boundaries exist for a reason. If "Liberal" law exists to "hold down" the lower classes, then a change in the Law system is in order, not a complete destruction of the whole idea of it. You don't through the baby out with the dirty bath water.
So, the big questions, 1) what exactly would be the organization, the role, and the basis for socialist law? (Socialist, not communist).
2) Is it to be human over business? Is this always right? Why or why not.
3) Are the people to have rights that are protected by law? Why or why not.
4) Are courts to exist? Are lawyers? Judges? Who is going to carry out this Law?
5) Will normal people (who have families, and budgets, and work, and social lives, and sports to watch) really be able or willing to participate if they are the ones who have to carry out law? What the problems that could come from this? Would they not need training in what exactly the Law is to truly be able to prosecute or defend an individual?
6) Won't Law need to be uniform, so that way what is a crime in one place, is not a crime in another? So that way, doing something in one place that is just fine, but someplace is not, ceases to happen for the most part (except minor and trivial things).
I'm sure some one here will simply dismiss my question as "liberalist" or "right" socialist claptrap with some argument that the "people will never do bad things" or "we don't need law" as answers. Let's try to be realistic here. In a city, let alone a country, of millions of people, not everyone will be on the same page just because the lower rungs are now on top, and things will happen which require Law.
Rules will be required, there will need to be consequences for breaking said rules, and the rules need to be standardized, at least the major ones, and followed through by people who understand them and follow them through regardless of their personal belief in them. If an upholder of the law doesn't like a certain policy, they should still uphold it when they are supposed to but advocate a change in the law when the time requires, such as through election of a party or candidate who will change such a law, etc. etc. etc.
Even if professional police are traded in for a "people's militia" there will still be a court, right? With lawyers? People will still have the right to defend themselves from accusation, right? There will still need to be a prosecutor, right? Evidence will still need to exist, right?
How about an either local or national elected legislature (or whatever you want to call it)? Won't there need to be people dedicated (yes, dedicated is a bit of a stretch but you get the idea) to upholding Law that is passed down by such an elected body? Won't these people need a structure or organization to do their work?
I think these are legitimate questions to ask and be answered. Please, humor me, but please no dumb and evasive answers. Thanks.
TGOW
It seems silly that the existence of Law alone caused this, but merely how the law was made, what it entailed and how it was executed. A sort of deformed Law may have helped in the creation of these evils, and others, but Law could have also prevented such things.
Law is there to provide boundaries to the activities of human beings or human agencies. These boundaries exist for a reason. If "Liberal" law exists to "hold down" the lower classes, then a change in the Law system is in order, not a complete destruction of the whole idea of it. You don't through the baby out with the dirty bath water.
So, the big questions, 1) what exactly would be the organization, the role, and the basis for socialist law? (Socialist, not communist).
2) Is it to be human over business? Is this always right? Why or why not.
3) Are the people to have rights that are protected by law? Why or why not.
4) Are courts to exist? Are lawyers? Judges? Who is going to carry out this Law?
5) Will normal people (who have families, and budgets, and work, and social lives, and sports to watch) really be able or willing to participate if they are the ones who have to carry out law? What the problems that could come from this? Would they not need training in what exactly the Law is to truly be able to prosecute or defend an individual?
6) Won't Law need to be uniform, so that way what is a crime in one place, is not a crime in another? So that way, doing something in one place that is just fine, but someplace is not, ceases to happen for the most part (except minor and trivial things).
I'm sure some one here will simply dismiss my question as "liberalist" or "right" socialist claptrap with some argument that the "people will never do bad things" or "we don't need law" as answers. Let's try to be realistic here. In a city, let alone a country, of millions of people, not everyone will be on the same page just because the lower rungs are now on top, and things will happen which require Law.
Rules will be required, there will need to be consequences for breaking said rules, and the rules need to be standardized, at least the major ones, and followed through by people who understand them and follow them through regardless of their personal belief in them. If an upholder of the law doesn't like a certain policy, they should still uphold it when they are supposed to but advocate a change in the law when the time requires, such as through election of a party or candidate who will change such a law, etc. etc. etc.
Even if professional police are traded in for a "people's militia" there will still be a court, right? With lawyers? People will still have the right to defend themselves from accusation, right? There will still need to be a prosecutor, right? Evidence will still need to exist, right?
How about an either local or national elected legislature (or whatever you want to call it)? Won't there need to be people dedicated (yes, dedicated is a bit of a stretch but you get the idea) to upholding Law that is passed down by such an elected body? Won't these people need a structure or organization to do their work?
I think these are legitimate questions to ask and be answered. Please, humor me, but please no dumb and evasive answers. Thanks.
TGOW