How much law could you stand?

[Edward J. Bartek]

Every law is a denial of a freedom in the individual, family, group, city, or nation. Too much law is tyranny with too little freedoms. Too little law is too many freedoms with anarchy. The individual in a family must deny some freedoms to obey family laws for mutual harmony. As the individual joins a group, he loses more freedom by conforming to group rules. As he joins a city, he loses more freedoms. The same applies to the nation and to a one-world rule, where freedoms of the nation, city, group, family, and individual are lost. Where would you want the limit of laws on this hierarchy of rulers and ruled? FDollowing Aristotle's principles of the "Golden Mean", where is your area of moderation between Tyranny-anarchy, between too much and too little freedoms?

[Scott]

I think we can keep working to increase the amount of freedom, and I believe doing so will allow for more prosperity. Even though you assume it is undesirable, peaceful anarchy is my ideal.
_________________
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

[Polis]

And how much law can You know?

It is more fundamental question.
As I know, the volume of public law
equals to milions of pages to read,
to remember and to obey by everyone.
And it still increases.

[nameless]

'Security' vs 'freedom', an inverse ratio.
The more of one, the less of the other.
A personal (and group) matter of priorities...

[Belinda]

Well said Edward Bartek! I suppose each of us finds her own position relative to what she thinks a moderate position is. I support a lot of central control if it's accompanied by democracy, free speech, liberal education for all, and liberty of association.

These provisos are all interdependent, for instance democracy does not work unless it's accompanied by liberal eduation for all.Liberal education is probably the key to all the other provisos.

[whitetrshsoldier]

I'm of the Libertarian/Objectivist persuasion when it comes to my philosophy of law. My belief is that government exists only to protect the individual from another person's attempts to infringe upon their right to Life, Liberty, or Property.

I understand that this is an extremely vague statement, and can provide more detail if anybody's actually interested ...

[Vlad]

[whitetrshsoldier]

I'm of the Libertarian/Objectivist persuasion when it comes to my philosophy of law. My belief is that government exists only to protect the individual from another person's attempts to infringe upon their right to Life, Liberty, or Property.

I understand that this is an extremely vague statement, and can provide more detail if anybody's actually interested ...

1. No laws, Federal or otherwise, inhibiting the individual's right to do anything that does not infringe upon anothers life, health, or freedom.

2. No laws, Federal or otherwise, permitting the seizure or search of private property for any reason OTHER THAN the protection of another individual's basic rights (see our current fourth ammendment, minus the current preversions of the supreme court).

3. Federal tax is flat, but may be adjusted depending on military actions; it will be collected for purposes of providing for military and federal court systems.

4. There would be no federal laws enacted. All Federal military actions would be decided by a majority vote of the states.

5. The states will determine their own laws, and the Federal government will not intervene, unless individual rights are being violated. In this event, there will be a military response. States may intervene in emergency situations.


..... There's a start. I'll think of more later. What do you think?