Therefore, it isn't very surprising that it isn't always perfect, makes errors and sometimes if not often even deliberate wrong choices.
As a result, even if some or even a lot of matters ARE illegal, give or take, I prefer to discuss how bad and wrong some things are without JUST bringing law into it.
And besides, what if we had NO laws - although to many including myself sometimes that is rather a moot point because a). Laws DO exist and b). For many that would be the kind of obvious and official de-facto tragedy and threat to safety so many wouldn't want to always go towards that type of line of thinking.
Plus, what about the bad things that happen inside jails and prison cells, with certain matters gaining various types of inexplicable and inescapable popularity? Or the fact that police themselves at times break the law and do bad deeds or grievous errors in the line of duty etc?
But anyways, law being man made, how significant is it to you, thanks.
In addition to this, when it comes to discussing the wrongness of certain matters, many people often make reference to how something is bad because it is illegal and a crime. They are not wrong, of course, but remember, the term "crime" is a LEGAL matter, and it also can and does apply to other matters that can be wrong but less harmful and damaging for some or other reasons.
And plus, the law does NOT allow to say have people take violent revenge on the offender. Even if many offenders themselves may not want to be caught and turned in and may even threaten to kill others to avoid prosecution. (I wonder then, whom will they be threatening if say laws were not formed and non-existant?)
So yeah, sometimes, its worth going the extra bit and not just referencing the legal aspects of certain things and matters.
Also, in at least one matter, why can't law and courts organize themselves in a way that do NOT do further damage to certain victims? And if it can't, how can we expect to respect it and not endorse vigilante justice?
It is notable too that many old laws don't make sense anymore.
Like how it was legal to kill a Scotsman within the city of York if he was carrying a crossbow.
Oh, it is true that it probably was a really sensible law at some point in history.
But it managed to survive into our modern age and maybe still hasn't been properly abolished.
Haha oh yes, so many fun laws here and that one is very close to home for me.
I lived in York and moved to Scotland 🤣
I don’t think it is that the Scot has a crossbow and therefore you’re allowed to kill them; it’s that you can shoot the Scot with a longbow.....and specifically this can only be done within the city walls and not on a Sunday!
I can’t find out whether this particular law has been repealed yet in one of the Queen’s speeches, so potentially it is still there....but obviously illegal today due to human rights and murder legislation!
This excerpt from a newspaper article is of interest; I wouldn’t have ever been bothered to contact York Council about it for an update because they are quite crap!
As for killing a Scot in York, a Mr Henry Shrimp submitted this Freedom of Information request to York City Council in 2012:
"In York, excluding Sundays, it is perfectly legal to shoot a Scotsman with a bow and arrow. As such, please tell me the number of Scots who have been shot in the last ten years by those taking advantage of this law."
In response, the council replied:
After an extensive search of our records I can confirm that there are no records of any Scotsmen being legally shot with a bow and arrow in the last ten years. There is however a vague recollection of an alleged occurrence several centuries ago which involved a group of men from the Nottingham area, dressed in green, who were enjoying a stag night in York.
Regardless of any ancient legislation, the Law Commission said: "It is illegal to shoot a Welsh or Scottish (or any other) person regardless of the day, location or choice of weaponry."
Another gem is that pregnant women in the UK had the right to pee in a policeman's helmet.
You have to wonder how and why somebody even came up with that law!
Laws are created to control the masses by elites whether government, religious, class, etc.. Many laws overreach. It used to be illegal to shop on Sunday.
You know why it was illegal to shop on Sunday? To keep rapacious businesses from eroding important sacred and cultural traditions that are vital to society. Has nothing to do with control.
One of the reasons why American is becoming increasingly morally bankrupt and divided is that Big Business successfully hijacked and destroyed the very national holidays and institutions that both stressed positive values and gave Americans a sense of cultural unity. Thanksgiving was the holiday of family and gratitude, Christmas of giving and goodwill towards your fellow men. Thanks to businesses opening on these days, they're just another shopping day where people do their own thing and no one thinks about what these holidays were meant to represent or engender.
> You know why it was illegal to shop on Sunday? To keep rapacious businesses from eroding important sacred and cultural traditions that are vital to society. Has nothing to do with control.
Yeah, I bet that was a wonderful comfort for those families and their children who had to work 7 days a week 12 hours a day before there were laws that eroded our sacred rights to enslave workers in any way possible.
man-made laws are man-made and at least to some extent, culturally driven (e.g. nudity laws, age of consent, what side of the road to drive on).
among the man-made laws are laws which could be considered 'natural' (e.g. prohibitions against murder/rape/theft/fraud).
without laws, humankind would be a much messier affair, until a collective demand for laws re-emerged.
iow, man-made laws are essential to civilization. isn't this all completely obvious ? if you disagree, i wouldn't dream of arguing about it, because folks who don't pick up on the obvious are generally a waste of time arguing with.
So you basically just want to have the same discussions over laws that were had when those laws were passed.
I assume you'll accept that murder is wrong, I assume you'll accept that depriving someone of something they own is also wrong... unless you want to start claiming people can't actually own anything.
I fail to see how you bring something new to this discussion, in the end you'll just concede that most things that are illegal actually have a wrongness to them.