Active Now

Element 99
Zack
Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » What is the ACTUAL purpose of rules and laws? To mitigate/ameliorate or exacerbate? What good are they if they're ignored?
RosieG

What is the ACTUAL purpose of rules and laws? To mitigate/ameliorate or exacerbate? What good are they if they're ignored?

Are rules/laws constrictive to do harm or to do good?

They are ludicrous and absurd and ridikkalus if they are not enforced. Window dressing packaging that gets ripped off and discarded when convenient. Yet some really think they are very pro law and order. Delusional?

Posted - December 14, 2019
Tags : None

Responses


  • 1152
    I think the real problem you are attempting to address with your question occurs at a slightly broader societal level.

    I recently read an analysis (I cannot remember where) which posed the following problem:  We cannot have a society with no laws, as that would lead to anarchy or a Mafia-like culture where social norms are enforced by revenge-taking. HOWEVER, we also cannot have a society where we have laws which specify every form of behavior, because such a society would be horribly rigid and the enforcement costs would be enormous.

    Hence, we need to have a framework of informal but mostly-universal social norms and principles which "fill in the gaps" and build social trust. The exact form and nature of those informal social norms evolve over time, but they need to be present. Without them, we end up with societies where the law is enforced, but social trust is missing (the former Soviet republic of Moldova reportedly suffers from this issue).

    What I have observed over my lifetime is that many of the social norms which were present when I was young, particularly in the business and political spheres, have weakened or disappeared in favor of naked pursuit of money and/or political power, even if those pursuits are still within the letter of the law.

    For example, most of the behavior of Enron Corp. was technically within the letter of the applicable laws. But those behaviors still subverted the intent of those laws and, in aggregate, committed a great fraud on the public.

    One person gave the following colorful analogy of Enron's accounting practices: If the legal definition of a duck in accounting law was 1) Yellow color 2) Orange beak  3) Webbed feet, then Enron's managers and accountants would take a dog, attach an orange plastic beak to its nose, put artificial webbing on its paws, and paint it yellow. They would then claim the dog was a duck for accounting purposes.

    When reality finally caught up with Enron and it became apparent their ducks were actually dogs, all heck broke loose. Yet Enron could claim they met the letter of the law.

    I think this analysis is valid for many other situations we see in contemporary society where it seems some are "getting away with murder" yet are not legally sanctioned for it.
      December 14, 2019 6:51 AM MST
    2

  • 113301
    We have been operating with no laws since January 2017. It is getting more emboldened with the hiring on of the fake AG liddlebillybarr who believes the head is above all law and head is the law. Also you have moscow mitch that son of an itch who has told us in advance that the Senate and White House are working together and there is NO DAYLIGHT between their positions. He assures us the head will not be removed from office. When did you ever encounter the "leader" of an investigative body colluding with the investigatee to make sure they got their ducks all in a row and told the exact identical story from the exact same script? Never right? I thank you for your thoughtful and informative analysis and wish you a Happy Saturday. Until we rid ourselves of that head we are dead in the water vis a vis law and order and respect for the Constitution. How far away is that day? I've no idea. :(
      December 14, 2019 7:02 AM MST
    0

  • 1152
    I agree with you that most of what the current Presidential administration does is a mixture of bad policy and corrupt practices. But much of that behavior still falls within the letter of the law.

    For example, I am aware of no explicit law which forbids Moscow Mitch McConnell from coordinating with the President's lawyers to make the impeachment proceeding as President-friendly as possible. What makes that behavior reprehensible is the broader social convention that such obvious conflicts of interest should be avoided.

    Unfortunately, the enforcement of that social convention is a matter of political will, not legal enforcement. And in our current hyper-polarized political environment, the political will to take political disadvantage in order to uphold broader social conventions does not exist.
      December 14, 2019 7:17 AM MST
    1

  • 113301
    Huh. Really SP? So all along I thought the obvious WRONG would be illegal and you say not so. It is just a social convention? Something with which our higher selves agree but in reality is toothless? That is not happy news for me. So how much of how we operate is just that? Agreeing to rather than being bound by law to? Thank you for an upsetting (not your fault m'dear) bit of info. Sheesh. This post was edited by RosieG at December 14, 2019 7:20 AM MST
      December 14, 2019 7:20 AM MST
    0