I'm sorry YUYUTSU, without our laws, we have anarchy, and chaos. I will admit some of our laws are somewhat anachronistic, and therefore should be repealed and updated, though without them, we have a climate of pandemonium and disarray.

For you to gather some understanding of our legal system, it would be best if you obtain a basic introduction into jurisprudence, that should acquaint you sufficiently with a better comprehension and understanding of the foundations and philosophy of our legal system?

"some of our laws are somewhat anachronistic, and therefore should be repealed" especially the laws of English language which cause chaos and damage children. Yuyutsu observes the letter of the law when expressing his impeccable syntax and phrasing without his opinion on the language being requested by editors of Oxford Dictionary and judges should bow to his eloquence.

Dear O Sung Wu and Foxy,

«without our laws, we have anarchy, and chaos»

"Anarchy" simply means the absence of control and it's a moral imperative that nobody should control another against their will.

On the other hand, we are afraid of chaos, so what to do?

The solution is, for all those who dislike chaos to consensually agree to organise themselves appropriately into group(s) where chaos is minimised (it is not possible to eliminate chaos completely). These agreements may include [but should not be limited to] laws - but these laws will only apply to that specific group which is in agreement, rather than arbitrarily to anything that walks on two. I predict that at least 99.99% of all people, once consulted in person and given due respect and a true choice, would happily embrace such arrangements.

What about the others and about other groups? Just use common sense!

If they attack or threaten members of your group (but not otherwise), then your group can defend itself. If necessary, as a last resort, this could mean sending a bullet through their head, but in any case you don't take them to your courts as they are not subject to your laws.

Notice the subtle line: you are acting in SELF-DEFENCE, which is your sole legitimate excuse: you have no hidden agenda to control, educate, "rehabilitate" or otherwise bring others to follow your system of order: you merely take those steps that are reasonably necessary for protecting yourself and your group.

«that should acquaint you sufficiently with a better comprehension and understanding of the foundations and philosophy of our legal system?»

I believe that I understand that philosophy well enough, I just disagree with it because it contradicts my own philosophy that is based on spiritual principles, including this primary principle that violence is wrong (also known as Hillel's "Golden-Rule"). As neither of us is a saint, we can for the time-being excuse violence when conducted in self-defence, but not otherwise, not for example in order to try fulfilling one's own goals and aspirations, including the aspiration for social cohesion.

Foxy and O Sung Wu,
You are wasting your time. It is one thing to disagree with another but 'you can't fix stupid'. Maybe he hit his head while riding his cycle without a helmet.

Dear Banjo,

It all boils down to the question whether you accept violence or not.

You seem to believe that violence is OK if it serves your goals. I don't.

A saint would never hurt another, and if attacked, would turn the other cheek.
An ordinary decent person will only use violence in self-defence.
A rogue uses violence whenever it suits them.

To fall on innocent people who have done you no harm and demand that they obey your laws or else, is a clear form of unprovoked violence.

Good morning Foxy
" There is a wide mix of nationalities there. I bow to many of the elderly ladies on a regular basis usually accompanied by words that I have learned from them like, "Buona sera," or "Yassou,"
or "dzien dobry," or "Zdravstvuyte."

And if a lady in burqa says "g'day Foxy" will you bow to her? If a lady magistrate wears a burqa will you bow ?