From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Jun 20 2003 - 05:16:27 BST
Hey Johnny and all,
JOHNNY
> [Rick, I'm going to break our Transformation of Love discussion up into
some
> sub topics because it's gotten so long, and also in the hope that others
who
> are put off by polarized arguments about marriage and sex may be
interested
> in other aspects of the conversation.]
RICK
Turns out my message wouldn't go through as whole because I was using a bad
text format, probably in the legal text I copied into the message (thanks
Wim). But nonetheless...Break it down Johnny....
JOHNNY
> Yes, I would say that all laws are mainly self-enforced. The policeman's
> gun, or fear of getting caught, is not the main thing that keeps us from
> commiting crime, respect for society's laws is. I do realize that if
> society stopped enforcing laws with policemen, then more people who do not
> respect the law would break it. And that would contibute to other people
> following suit, and eventually we'd be overrun with crime. By enforcing
the
> laws and punishing criminals, we keep the number of criminals down, and
> crime under control. I agree with Pirsig on that, because not all people
> respect the law. But I disagree that it is the primary thing that keeps
> most people from crime, as Pirsig seems to imply, and I don't think it is
> glib at all to say that.
RICK
In the first two sentences you say that you think it's "respect for
society's laws", rather than the policeman's gun, which primarily keeps us
in line. But in the next three sentences you say that if policeman weren't
there it would set off a chain reaction which would result in society being
"overrun" by crime. Which is it? If "respect for society's laws" were
really the primary motive I would think the absence of the policeman
wouldn't make much of a difference. Similarly, if the absence of the
policeman results in a overwhelming crime-wave, how could you doubt that the
policeman is the "main thing that keeps us from committing crimes"?
Either way, there is an ancient legal distinction between crimes that are
'malum prohibitum' and crimes that are 'malum per se'. The former
(prohibitum) are crimes because they are violations of government policy
(ie. tax evasion, running a stop-stop sign when no one is coming the other
way); the latter (per se) are crimes that are crimes because they are
thought to be inherently evil acts (ie. murder, rape, arson).
Now, the distinction is only so useful as whether a particular crime is one
or the other or both is often in the eye of the beholder (ie. abortion,
drugs). But to use the distinction momentarily to make a point, I think
that you're right in saying most of us (or at least many of us) don't need a
policeman watching to prevent us from engaging in 'malum per se' crimes (ie.
most of us just know it's wrong to rape, murder and pillage--- although a 6
month stint as an intern in the Manhattan DA's office often made me question
even that much).
However, it's the 'malum prohibitum' crimes that I seriously doubt most
people would follow if they knew the police were looking the other way. I
think most people would run that stop-sign if they KNEW nobody was watching
and most people would 'forget' to pay their income tax if they KNEW the IRS
would never come knocking.
Basically, I guess what I'm saying is that I think most people won't commit
acts they think are inherently 'evil' whether or not they are illegal (it
doesn't matter if the cop watching); and conversely, most people won't be
dissuaded from committing an act they don't think is 'evil' by mere
illegality (it only matters if the cop is watching).
JOHNNY
Don't you think that respect for law is something
> to be cultivated and instilled in people?
RICK
Yes. But then I think that every high-school student should be required to
memorize Thoreau's essay on Civil Disobedience.
JOHNNY
So saying my statement
is
> glib (as in trivial? or deceitful? or obvious?) seems to say that
respect
> for law is trivial, no one really has it, and indeed it is saying that
> respect is trivial in general.
RICK
Actually, by 'glib' I just meant that I thought the statement was
deceptively oversimplified. It would be an odd positon indeed for me (a
lawyer) to argue that respect for law was trivial :-).
JOHNNY
Respect is not a constant, some cultures
> cultivate more respect than others, they expect more respect from their
> citizens.
>
> This goes to the heart of the MoQ, in that morality drives behavior,
> morality maintains patterns. Water doesn't need a gun to get H and O to
> bond, H and O bond because of the moral pattern to create the pattern of
> water.
RICK
H and O have had infinite eons to work out their patterns. Societies have
only been around for what is, by comparison, a virtually insignificant
amount of time... I think you expect too much of social patterns if you
think they should behave as neatly as H and O.
JOHNNY
> I think more than sometimes. It is just that we don't realize how often
we
> choose to do the expected moral thing rather than commit a crime, because
we
> don't even consider committing the crime.
Once we start considering the
> crime and posible punishment as an option, we've lost half the battle, and
> that is when the policeman comes in.
RICK
Again, I have no problem with this thought as applied to the harmful, evil
kinds of crimes that we most fear. I think most of us never seriously
consider murdering, raping, robbing, etc. However, when it comes to crimes
where driving force is behind the criminalization of the act is seen as
'policy' rather than because the act is itself inherently bad or evil, I
think most of us do think long and hard about the policeman at our elbow.
take care,
rick
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 05:15:12 BST