Yuyutsu,

Perhaps not explicitly, you don’t.

<<No one is "under the law" unless they willingly accept that position. You seem to - I don't.>>

But by benefiting from our laws, both directly and indirectly, you have implicitly accepted them and are therefore “under” them, whether you like that or not.

NNN:

"Do not laugh , smile or lighten up"

That's what all attention seekers say when they have been exposed for what they are. Pretty much proof of it actually.

Dear Yuyutsu,

The law establishes the rules that define a person's
rights and obligations in our society. The law also
sets penalities for people who violate these rules,
and it states how governments shall enforce the rules
and penalties. However, the laws enforced by government
can be changed. In fact, laws frequently are changed
to reflect changes in a society's needs and attitudes.

Our society could not exist if all people did just as
they pleased without regard for the rights of others.
Nor could our society exist if its members did not
recognise that they also have certain obligations toward
one another.

I would have thought that you would
recognise the fact that law is a set of enforced rules
under which a society is governed and is one of the most
basic social institutions - and one of the most
necessary. You surprise me.

NNN, I shutter in terror every time I have to call a plumber! He carries a weapon of mass destruction, he calls it his invoice book.

Just the other day good mate Daveo the plumber, called around to have a look at my hose connection.

Was there 15 minutes, just long enough for him to knock back my last thee coldies, I asked for an itemized account:

DAVO'S ACE PLUMBING

Parts....... $1,000
Labour...... $2,000
PS Fee ..... $5,000
GST For Me...$1,000

Cash Only, mates rates...$10,000 (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)

I said "it seems fair Daveo, but the PS Fee $5,000?

Davo's answer; "Don't yah want me kids to have a Private School education!".."Besides, I've got Overheads, he's run'n in the third at Randwick this avo, get on the good thing!" Me; "What happen to your nag Monkey Wrench last week? Davo; "I dropped 10 grand on the mongrel me self, what's your beef?"


All I could say then was "Allah have mercy!"

As Davo walked out the door, with my wife and two kids as part payment, his parting words to me were. "Ah. cock, next time I come in.... ON YAH FEET!"

Good mate that Davo, salt of the earth, give yah anything, except maybe a good plumbing job and a fair dinkum bill.

Dear Foxy,

You are facing a legitimate problem - but this doesn't imply that your specific solution to that problem is legitimate.

Your problem is, so I understand, that you want to be safe and feel safe. Obviously there is no absolute safety in this world, where the unexpected can still happen no matter what you do, but you still wish for a degree of relative safety - you want to reduce to a reasonable minimum your chances of being killed, maimed, raped, robbed, swindled, arsoned or being run over by a stray car driven on the wrong side of the road by a drunk driver.

Fair enough!

But then, perhaps for fear, perhaps for lack of creative imagination, rather than exploring the full range of options, you stick to one particular solution, the one you grew up with and already know. While you are willing and open to explore minor variations, such as democracy vs. autocracy or monarchy, or whether parliament consists of one, two or three houses, etc., your basic solution revolves around:

1. A society based solely on a geographical area that includes everyone who lives in that, typically large, area - whether or not they want to belong to the given society.
2. Laws that bind all the people within that geographical area, whether they accept them or otherwise.
3. The concept of guilt, attached to breaking the above laws, along with the concept of punishment together with a judicial and policing system which enforces these laws, using whatever degree of violence is required to achieve this objective.

If I need to describe such a system with just one-word attribute, then this would be VIOLENT. If I am allowed to add a second attribute, this would be PRIMITIVE.

You may personally not experience this solution as violent, perhaps because only rarely you find yourself at the receiving end of its stick, but other people are HURT by this solution of yours, often even more hurt than they would from the original problem (lack of safety).

(continued...)

(...continued)

While my direct personal suffering from this solution is quite moderate, I don't want to take part in, or to be protected by, such solutions that inflicts suffering on others in my name.

The question is, can't you achieve your unquestionably-deserved objective of (relative) personal-safety by any other means that do not hurt others, or at least not as much?

For example, let's look at one simple modification that goes some way toward alleviating the suffering that is caused by this system - decrease the size of states!

This would allow those who are unhappy with the laws in their area to move, not very far elsewhere where the laws and norms of society are more palatable to them.

If all you are after is personal safety, then you don't need to force your ideas and laws over millions of people against their will. A smaller area for a state, say with a few 1000's of people, where everyone knows everyone else, could serve this purpose just as well.

"Oh no", you might say, "this would be an economic disaster..."

- if that's the case, then it exposes ulterior motives: now society, its state, its laws and its punitive mechanisms exist not solely for personal-safety, but for economic gain. If so (and no, I know that you haven't claimed this, not so far), that would mean that you are willing to cause suffering to others just for your personal economic gain. This is greed and many nations are built around it, rather than around creating safety. Would this kind of behaviour sit comfortably with your conscience?

[doesn't it ring a bell for some of us regarding the difference between refugees and economic-migrants, the former being more forgivable than the latter?]

No, I don't think that you are an evil person who is happy to hurt others for personal gain - Quite the opposite. I rather give you the benefit of the doubt, that you simply always went along with what you are used to and what they taught you in school, without considering all the implications and unintended consequences.