Abiogenesis vs. Evolution

[jason_c]

I first was interested in FMOTL by the question of authourity and where it comes from. I wondered who gave the system the right to tell me what to do. I still think this is a valid question that has never been answered on these threads.

But like evolution and abiogenesis the answers are purley acedemic anyways. The reality is that wherever life came from we understand mainly how we got to this point after the begginning. I feel that law is the same. We may never agree on where the original authourity came from but it makes little difference and any rational person can understand how we got to were we are.

The present legal system is the natural evolution of the past. As with humans it is far from perfect but none the less it is reality.

Thoughts?

[aulus agerius]

Originally Posted by jason_c

I first was interested in FMOTL by the question of authourity and where it comes from. I wondered who gave the system the right to tell me what to do. I still think this is a valid question that has never been answered on these threads.

But like evolution and abiogenesis the answers are purley acedemic anyways. The reality is that wherever life came from we understand mainly how we got to this point after the begginning. I feel that law is the same. We may never agree on where the original authourity came from but it makes little difference and any rational person can understand how we got to were we are.

The present legal system is the natural evolution of the past. As with humans it is far from perfect but none the less it is reality.

Thoughts?

This is a realistic view. The weird thing about fmotl beliefs is that they conflict with what you can observe about reality: you can see that the courts don't behave consistent with fmotl beliefs but do behave consistent with the conventional law (at least most of the time).

You can look at the law as the product of history - what we've got is what we've got an that's an end to it. For most people that is probably enough. If you're studying or practicing law a bit more is required - the story of how we got here is to an extent is the story of where we are going.

I think your evolution analogy is a good one for another reason: people (lawyers too) tend to assume that what we've got now is some how a logical conclusion, rather than substantially influenced by chance. Most people on the other hand are clear that evolution does involve a large element of random chance. The law could easily have turned out very differently. On the other hand, regarding the law as simply a product of history tends to ignore the influence that people have on the law - at least in recent centuries - a lot of legal development has been planned, and has taken place through statutes and constitutions in pursuit of particular ideals.

[dontpushme]

Originally Posted by jason_c

I first was interested in FMOTL by the question of authourity and where it comes from. I wondered who gave the system the right to tell me what to do. I still think this is a valid question that has never been answered on these threads.

But like evolution and abiogenesis the answers are purley acedemic anyways. The reality is that wherever life came from we understand mainly how we got to this point after the begginning. I feel that law is the same. We may never agree on where the original authourity came from but it makes little difference and any rational person can understand how we got to were we are.

The present legal system is the natural evolution of the past. As with humans it is far from perfect but none the less it is reality.

Thoughts?

if your gonna dis authority and say it doesn't matter what its origin is 'the answers are purley acedemic' then frankly, why stop their, why not just get rid of agreements and contracts and instead have a gigantic open air Colosseum where individuals that have refused to pay for some service they never agreed to get fed to lions or better still, give them all each a weapon to fight it out between themselves, have a leaderboard system 'stay at number 1 for a month and earn forgiveness for a service your never agreed to' -

i also suggest a tv show - we could have our very own anti-fmotl crowd as presenters, they could all be given cute names (like in the tv show gladiator) 'law of the jungle' 'modern democracy' 'slave' 'ward' 'public-private' 'behavioural clone'. the set could be set up as a gigantic religious alter (eg aztec style) with a picture of the states most iconic building at the top (give it some glowing red eyes) - each week having a human sacrifice of one unlucky individual who never agreed to a service

this would in effect have 2 benefits
1) save money - no scripts
2) high ratings - people love violence
3) scare the population into acting in a manner you find appropriate - and in doing so provide the anti-fmotl a way to win the authority debate by scaring people into submission that its easier to say no authority required then risk a date in the 'democracy Colosseum'
4) any profits get transferred into a BAR christmas party account - you know for parties at christmas

[jason_c]

Originally Posted by dontpushme

if your gonna dis authority and say it doesn't matter what its origin is 'the answers are purley acedemic' then frankly, why stop their, why not just get rid of agreements and contracts and instead have a gigantic open air Colosseum where individuals that have refused to pay for some service they never agreed to get fed to lions or better still, give them all each a weapon to fight it out between themselves, have a leaderboard system 'stay at number 1 for a month and earn forgiveness for a service your never agreed to' -

i also suggest a tv show - we could have our very own anti-fmotl crowd as presenters, they could all be given cute names (like in the tv show gladiator) 'law of the jungle' 'modern democracy' 'slave' 'ward' 'public-private' 'behavioural clone'. the set could be set up as a gigantic religious alter (eg aztec style) with a picture of the states most iconic building at the top (give it some glowing red eyes) - each week having a human sacrifice of one unlucky individual who never agreed to a service

this would in effect have 2 benefits
1) save money - no scripts
2) high ratings - people love violence
3) scare the population into acting in a manner you find appropriate - and in doing so provide the anti-fmotl a way to win the authority debate by scaring people into submission that its easier to say no authority required then risk a date in the 'democracy Colosseum'
4) any profits get transferred into a BAR christmas party account - you know for parties at christmas

You as usual miss the point trying to be made and force your own twisted view on the situation. No suprise that you have nothing of value to add. What does that mean in your fantasy world of contracts.




Aulus:

Interesting point about law and it being driven by man. I think though that it fits in well with the idea of domestication of plants and animals, we have controled evolution to a point but as you rightfully point out most of it has been random.

[dontpushme]

Originally Posted by jason_c

You as usual miss the point trying to be made and force your own twisted view on the situation. No suprise that you have nothing of value to add. What does that mean in your fantasy world of contracts.

i'm sorry my thoughts don't tally with the collective, the legal system is about as naturally evolved as a nuclear power station - is that more in resonance with what your thinking, or perhaps you might prefer 'heartbeat = state authority.... beep.... beep'?

[penfold9]

Authority is derived from essentially the ability to exert it.

FMOTL unfortunately starts with the premise that the individual can exert his authority over the masses whilst lacking the force to actually do it.

[dontpushme]

Originally Posted by penfold9

Authority is derived from essentially the ability to exert it.

FMOTL unfortunately starts with the premise that the individual can exert his authority over the masses whilst lacking the force to actually do it.

ah the sweet smell of democracy

[jason_c]

Originally Posted by dontpushme

i'm sorry my thoughts don't tally with the collective, the legal system is about as naturally evolved as a nuclear power station - is that more in resonance with what your thinking, or perhaps you might prefer 'heartbeat = state authority.... beep.... beep'?

I agree completely that yout thoughts dont "tally".

How has our system not evolved naturally? Or does the fact that people of power have had disproportiionate influence somehow made it un-natural?

[dontpushme]

Originally Posted by jason_c

I agree completely that yout thoughts dont "tally".

How has our system not evolved naturally? Or does the fact that people of power have had disproportiionate influence somehow made it un-natural?

is a nuclear power station natural?

[penfold9]

is a nuclear power station natural?

Of course.
Can you identify one molecule of a power station that doesn't originate in nature?

[jason_c]

I would agree with penfold9. What is outside of nature about anything that exists today? Or does your definition of natural mean I need to be able to pick it up in the forrest at any time? If that is the case I would suggest very little in your life is of nature at this point.

[dontpushme]

natural |ˈna ch ərəl|
adjective
1 existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind : carrots contain a natural antiseptic that fights bacteria | natural disasters such as earthquakes.
• (of fabric) having a color characteristic of the unbleached and undyed state; off-white.

i highlighted the important bit

[jason_c]

That is a fine defintiion. The word is therefore meaningless in any discussion of mans endeavors.

[penfold9]

i'm sorry my thoughts don't tally with anyone else

ftfy

[dontpushme]

Originally Posted by jason_c

That is a fine defintiion. The word is therefore meaningless in any discussion of mans endeavors.

bingo - this talk of 'man made systems' and 'natural evolution' is akin to trying to force a sphere through a triangular hole

how about we chat about the tv show 'democracy Colosseum'? i was thinking something 'colosseum democratica' has a bit more of a medi evil thing going on that could broaden the scope of the show - burning at the stake etc - any thoughts?

[dontpushme]

Originally Posted by penfold9

ftfy

erm keep up?

[penfold9]

bingo - this talk of 'man made systems' and 'natural evolution' is akin to trying to force a sphere through a triangular hole

how about we chat about the tv show 'democracy Colosseum'? i was thinking something 'colosseum democratica' has a bit more of a medi evil thing going on that could broaden the scope of the show - burning at the stake etc - any thoughts?

Yes, can you put the bong away.

[undeadcreature]

Originally Posted by jason_c

I first was interested in FMOTL by the question of authourity and where it comes from. I wondered who gave the system the right to tell me what to do. I still think this is a valid question that has never been answered on these threads.

But like evolution and abiogenesis the answers are purley acedemic anyways. The reality is that wherever life came from we understand mainly how we got to this point after the begginning. I feel that law is the same. We may never agree on where the original authourity came from but it makes little difference and any rational person can understand how we got to were we are.

The present legal system is the natural evolution of the past. As with humans it is far from perfect but none the less it is reality.

Thoughts?

The legal system isn't necesarily natural in the sense that it came from nature, but the natural progress of society would need a system of structure and order to be able to function effectively and acheive its goals. Law is one of those methods of structuring a society, the others being language and a common goal.

[dontpushme]

Originally Posted by penfold9

Yes, can you put the bong away.

i'm very interested in how a nuclear power station being natural correlates with 'existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind'

[penfold9]

Well, the natural evolution of man would also take into account things created by man, but if you wish to use the singular definition of "natural" as opposed to the other definition of "as is normal or to be expected; ordinary or logical" then it just shows how close minded you are.
Naturally