I am sure that he meant something along the lines of 'Don't misbehave or I am going to scold you.', but it reminded of the reading I did during the vacation.
It is a short article written by Bakunin, one titled the 'ethics of the state'. Well, overall it was on the total moral decadence of state itself and how it is something that should be reproached, but the part that today's conversation sparked was the part in which Bakunin explains the wholeness of liberty.
Liberty cannot exist as a part. You can't give person a partial liberty, because in parts, it is not a liberty. Say, that I give a person the liberty to do anything except to eat pizza. Now that is, in some people's view, liberty. I have set restrictions, but that person has the liberty to choose anything else to do. However, thinking conversely, I directed, no ordered, that person to eat something else than pizza.
Now, suppose I extended this restriction on food to every food except pizza. The person with 'partial freedom' to choose what he or she wants has no choice but to choose pizza, regardless of their taste. Does it really make a difference if I set the restriction on every food except pizza and hamburger, giving them the option of choosing between the two? I believe not, as the fundamental action of limiting the choice is taking place already. It does not really matter that the person has the choice of pizza or hamburger because they are living within the walls that I have set for them. It isn't fair that the walls having been set in the first place, not the room within those walls.
Am I an anarchist like Bakunin? Well, frankly, I love the idea of destroying the conventional things and bureaucracies, but I am not entirely for anarchism.
All I want is that the walls be set by the people who will be living inside the walls. Now when you think about the law, you might likely believe that you are a part of it, and that you agree to the reasons behind that law. You might be prone to believing that there is someone smarter, or more knowledgeable than yourself that set those laws for your sake. But that doesn't seem to be the case.
What is illegal?
A simple answer could be that it is something people find to be undesirable so that they have agreed not to do it. But that does not swearing illegal. It does not make lying illegal, except for certain cases. There are all kinds of behaviors that are considered undesirable by society yet not restricted. How can we compare the undesirable things and define what is worse? Can we honestly compare, say, not wearing seatbelt and lying? Which is worse? Why is one considered illegal and the other not?
Simply, the definition of illegal is entirely up for the minority group of the society. Plus, they do not define illegal based on objective basis, as there can be non. Their compare and contrast is entirely subjective, and it shows from the fact that laws in each state vary. How come, if gay-marriage is a commonly undesirable thing, is it that some states ban it yet some states don't? It just shows how there is no objective standard as to something being worse enough to be banned. Take marijuana and tobacco for instance. Numerous medical studies have shown that tobacco is not a single bit better than marijuana, and even more are finding it even worse than marijuana. Yet one is banned and considered as a drug, and the other people can do in public places like it is something cool. What in the world was the objective standard when the lawmakers decided that marijuana was dangerous enough to be banned but even more hazardous tobacco should be allowed?
Even suppose that all mankind agrees upon something to ban. Then comes the question, how are we going to punish someone who does not honor that agreement? This question once again shows the lack of objective standard for an action's badness. Murder trials in Texas is likely to end in death penalties. In Massachusetts, there is no death penalty but 25 to life sentences. Can we really say that killing people in Texas is worthy of being punished by death, whereas doing the same thing in Massachusetts makes it less punishable? It just doesn't make any sense to punish differently for a same indictment.
Law as it is now makes really no sense. It is determined by the wills of only few although it is applied to all. It gives different punishments to same crimes. It just makes no sense.
What is illegal?
A simple answer could be that it is something people find to be undesirable so that they have agreed not to do it. But that does not swearing illegal. It does not make lying illegal, except for certain cases. There are all kinds of behaviors that are considered undesirable by society yet not restricted. How can we compare the undesirable things and define what is worse? Can we honestly compare, say, not wearing seatbelt and lying? Which is worse? Why is one considered illegal and the other not?
Simply, the definition of illegal is entirely up for the minority group of the society. Plus, they do not define illegal based on objective basis, as there can be non. Their compare and contrast is entirely subjective, and it shows from the fact that laws in each state vary. How come, if gay-marriage is a commonly undesirable thing, is it that some states ban it yet some states don't? It just shows how there is no objective standard as to something being worse enough to be banned. Take marijuana and tobacco for instance. Numerous medical studies have shown that tobacco is not a single bit better than marijuana, and even more are finding it even worse than marijuana. Yet one is banned and considered as a drug, and the other people can do in public places like it is something cool. What in the world was the objective standard when the lawmakers decided that marijuana was dangerous enough to be banned but even more hazardous tobacco should be allowed?
Even suppose that all mankind agrees upon something to ban. Then comes the question, how are we going to punish someone who does not honor that agreement? This question once again shows the lack of objective standard for an action's badness. Murder trials in Texas is likely to end in death penalties. In Massachusetts, there is no death penalty but 25 to life sentences. Can we really say that killing people in Texas is worthy of being punished by death, whereas doing the same thing in Massachusetts makes it less punishable? It just doesn't make any sense to punish differently for a same indictment.
Law as it is now makes really no sense. It is determined by the wills of only few although it is applied to all. It gives different punishments to same crimes. It just makes no sense.
