No announcement yet.

What Level of Control?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    What Level of Control?

    City laws, state laws, federal laws, global laws, unwritten laws, social laws, professional laws, etc., etc.

    Some say that no laws are necessary and some say that lawlessness would lead to a planet of barbaric animals.

    What level of control is healthy for society? Where do you draw the line?


    Muzna, ab yeh log lambe lambe javab
    likh kar sab ko bor karainge.

    Veseh to its a good subject for my PHD thesis. I will send the book to u as soon
    as I am done.


      Imran, not every long answer is boring.

      Besides...there is enough variety on this forum to provide everyone with what they no need to subject yourself to something that you find boring.


        This has been asked from the beginning to the times. What is Law and why we need laws to govern ourselves. Laws have existed for as long as we have, and continue to take shape as we grow and change, which is an ever happening phenomenon. Protohistoric laws consisted mainly of “moral judgement” as dictated by the “powerful”, and with the Union of Attica, the “Law” was redefined to have a more “popular” feel to it, (as we know it to be the concept of democracy) letme quote a historic phrase >>>>“it is clear that there is no security that equal justice will be meted out to all, so long as the laws by which the judge is supposed to act are not accessible to all. A written code of laws is a condition of just judgement.” <<< this was the beginning of the Law as we have come to know it. This is when Greek cities pressed upon their aristocratic governments and one of the first concessions these governments were to make was the “written Law”.

        Later social orders developed along with centralization, and states took justice partly in their own hands. And a few hundred years after that, there came the introduction of Divine Laws (read a book that discusses Monotheism is Imperialism of Religions, can’t recall who the author is, I think Friedmann??).

        Laws in the modern times are ever evolving mechanisms to keep the society in line from self-destruction. Here in the US, there are various layers of the Law, with each one getting compressed as it gets deeper. E.g., discrimination based upon one’s sexual orientation is covered in the NYC Charter (or NYC Constitution), but not in the NY Sate or the US Federal law. In other words if someone is discriminated for being Gay in NYC, that person can only ask for Justice in the City’s jurisdiction.

        So to answer your question Munza, (where do we draw the line?) where you feel comfortable. Laws should not be intrusive to individual liberties. In fact, Laws should be made to ensure Individual Liberties and offer protection of choice.
        I personally think that there are too many laws. I also believe that Laws should always reflect the current mode of the proletariat. If most people want to have sex in Public parks, there should be no Laws restricting that. I also think that the English Common Law (the bases of many laws all around the world) is a poor basis of legal systems.


          I feel that one can break any law as long as other's life and property are not put at risk..


            What level of control? sounds intimidating to the ones who are being controlled. The question is do I wanna give someone authority to control my expression? I would like to say NO! However, is this approach going to help me live with others and form a society! I don't think so. So am I agreeing with conforming with laws made by none better than me? u be the judge...

            Now the people who are making the laws have to draw a line somewhere hence not making everyone happy.....what if I'm among people who are on the 'other' side of the line...Am I supposed to agree with the law. Yes I do! because I believe in forming a civilized society and I have confidence in the few who I have chosen to come up with rules and regulations.

            My problem starts when people who agreed to respect the law start questioning it. I'm not saying I would like to live under circumstances which don't suit my needs...I would rather move (because its my choice) But I wouldn't dictate my views on majority who accepts the laid out laws...I might find them idiots going the wrong way but its my perception.

            I believe all humans are capable of thinking however the way we rationalize things might differ from one another but that doesn't give us the right to challenge democracy.