Rule of Law or Rule of the person-which is more important?

[Chris]

Originally Posted by cobraboy

I always figured "laws" were the rules for how reasonable men and unreasonable men were to interact.

If all men were reasonable, we wouldn't need them, would we?

I don't think so. Even reasonable 'men' (aaargh!) may create a set of rules for societies to live by. This is what the law is supposed to be, a reasonable set of rules for people/mankind/men and women to live by.

(Disclaimer, the bolding is not because I am politically correct. It is because I am not men, I am women and by definition, the poster excluded me and my type from his discussion. That is kinda rude. I don't know if this is deliberate or whether he is simply quoting from a set of literature that was written in the style but I thought to let the poster know that that is rude and not something that we want to encourage here.)

Laws, or at least rules for people to live together are as old as mankind - this includes the ability to enforce the rules. I have a sister who holds a Doctorate in African Tribal law, specializing in the the unwritten, the societal rules that are spoken, but not written and have been passed down from generation to generation. Those rules have been codified and used by societies as much as our written systems today is used.

There is this little story to illustrate the point that laws are meant to be sets of rules for societies to live together, and not sets of rules to 'govern' people. There is this old Roman Dutch law that if you lived higher than street level, it is prohibited to toss out of the window, the contents of your nightly-pot-that-is-stored-under-the bed. Apparently people did that kind of thing regularly. In African tribal law, the unwritten stuff that is passed down from generations, the focus is on how to trade animals. What is considered fair and what not. War between tribes is also very stylishly codified.

Laws are not meant to control people. Laws are meant to be a codification of customs and agreed to rules, to assist people to live together.

[sollie]

Originally Posted by Chris

...laws are meant to be sets of rules for societies to live together, and not sets of rules to 'govern' people.

Laws are not meant to control people. Laws are meant to be a codification of customs and agreed to rules, to assist people to live together.

Actually Chris, I think you and CB may be in agreement on this?

Sollie

[bob saunders]

Originally Posted by Chris

I don't think so. Even reasonable 'men' (aaargh!) may create a set of rules for societies to live by. This is what the law is supposed to be, a reasonable set of rules for people/mankind/men and women to live by.

(Disclaimer, the bolding is not because I am politically correct. It is because I am not men, I am women and by definition, the poster excluded me and my type from his discussion. That is kinda rude. I don't know if this is deliberate or whether he is simply quoting from a set of literature that was written in the style but I thought to let the poster know that that is rude and not something that we want to encourage here..

Little hyper sensitive are we. Normally when a person says mankind they are referring to the whole human race not just the male species. Do you need to have political correct language in every conversation not to offend people such as yourself. I'm sure sure have the ability to read based on previous statement from CB that he wasn't just referring the one gender. This this case when he says men I could be wrong, but I doubt he meant just males. Rules of law are made to protect the weak from the predator type.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by bob saunders

Little hyper sensitive are we.

Not at all. Just perhaps making sure that you understand what is acceptable language in this instance. The word man is the word man. The word mankind is mankind. The poster used the word man or men. I am neither a man, not am I of the group of men. And I'm not the only woman on this board who is really unhappy about this language you know. If a moderator starts complaining about usage of words, it does mean that there are a few pm's in the box already. So, I ask you and all of man-kind, to stick to acceptable language. The alternative is that you're going to have the women after your blood - which may just be not too cool.

sollie yes, I do think there is good conceptual agreement. Where Cobraboy and I differ, is in the nuances and interpretations and implementations, not usually in the concept.

[cobraboy]

Originally Posted by Chris

Not at all. Just perhaps making sure that you understand what is acceptable language in this instance. The word man is the word man. The word mankind is mankind. The poster used the word man or men. I am neither a man, not am I of the group of men. And I'm not the only woman on this board who is really unhappy about this language you know. If a moderator starts complaining about usage of words, it does mean that there are a few pm's in the box already. So, I ask you and all of man-kind, to stick to acceptable language. The alternative is that you're going to have the women after your blood - which may just be not too cool.

Oh, puh-leeeeeze, Chris.

"Man" was the freakin' generic human sense. To get one's panties wadded over that use is just a ~tad~ PC extreme. The generic use in "not acceptable"? I dug through the DR1 rules, and couldn't come up with that one. Maybe one of the double-secret hidden rules I don't know about? Please, pray tell, a link to that rule...

Seems to me, within the context of reasonable-ness, some "persons" are clearly not.

Perhaps men/women/gays/lesbian.hermaphrodite/transgendered/asexual people being unreasonable is the reason men/women/gays/lesbian.hermaphrodite/transgendered/asexual people need so many frickin' LAWS...

Sheesh...

BTW-am I to believe that women on this board took such a degree of offense to my generic use of "man/men" that they PM'd you, and not me. Boy, that's really telling me...

[cobraboy]

Originally Posted by johne

I guess with that kind of thinking there would be no sub-prime mortgage crisis and no "forced" fore-closures. Everybody would have a seat when the music stopped.

[johne]

Originally Posted by cobraboy

Simply--laws to enforce the payment of a debt. No force-No pay.

john

[Chris]

Originally Posted by cobraboy

BTW-am I to believe that women on this board took such a degree of offense to my generic use of "man/men" that they PM'd you, and not me. Boy, that's really telling me...

Yes! You may believe that. And she is no shrinking violet either.

[bob saunders]

Originally Posted by Chris

Not at all. Just perhaps making sure that you understand what is acceptable language in this instance.

.

Are you, Chris referring to the generic " you""as in mankind or just the males on this board. You need to make yourself clearer as now you have offended me by possibly singling me out. But, as I can figure out what you meant, as opposed to what you said I'm sure you, Chris, didn't mean to offend me. I'll accept your apology in advance because I am a reasonable man.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by bob saunders

Are you, Chris referring to the generic " you""as in mankind or just the males on this board. You need to make yourself clearer as now you have offended me by possibly singling me out. But, as I can figure out what you meant, as opposed to what you said I'm sure you, Chris, didn't mean to offend me. I'll accept your apology in advance because I am a reasonable man.

No, this was meant to you specifically. The following is more general.

I'm going to say again .. if someone uses 'man' or 'men', it is very difficult to figure out that I (and other women) should read 'mankind'. It really is impossible. I've had a number of .. uhm .. enquiries from women about this for some months now. They read something like this: "When is someone going to tell that XXX XXXX that the word 'man' signifies a human being with two b@lls and a d!ck" and 'men' means more than one of those." So, hence I addressed this unpopular issue. Believe me, it is better this way LOL.

Perhaps you fellows will now understand that 'mankind' is perhaps a better way to go about this thing and the topic can continue.