Maybe I am the only one who thinks this, but I do not think that our rules are made by other people just like us. I am not talking about parents, but like a judge. He gets to decide if you go to jail or not. I do not think he should have that power. He is just a human. I think that no human should be able to decide another humans life. I understand parenting, but like judges, the president, cops, and people like that. They are no better than me, so what if they went to college. That doesn’t mean they can DETERMINE ANOTHER PUPILS LIFE. I just want to know your opinions on this.
Not sure if there’s a general question here or not. I’ll assume you’re asking “What is the basis of authority for government officials?”
Judges, policemen and other officials don’t have special authority because they’re “better” than the rest of us. They have it because that authority is granted to them by the government so that they may ensure the general welfare of the population.
You might then be moved to ask what is the basis for the government’s authority: Why is it right for the government to tell people what to do? The answer depends on your political/cultural beliefs. Some possible answers:
- It doesn’t. (The anarachists’ perspective.)
- It has the power to do so.
- It represents the will of the people.
- It has the mandate of heaven.
- It is for the common good.
i say it has the mandate of society.
and yes, if he did go to college and law school and you are just a worthless piece of criminal-scum… the judge IS better than you 
[of course you are only alleged criminal scum until he decides otherwise]
Also, it is usually a jury consisting of 12 cretins of the street (12 people with drivers licenses) who do the actual convicting. The judge has very little power in terms of sentencing. There are federal and state sentencing guidlines. So, it is other worthless stupid sclubs who actually decide (sometimes they just flip a coin) if you are guilty or not, having tuned-out most of the evidence presented to them during the scope of the trial.
like the answer? hope so.
Did it occur to you then when the judge or police get involved in a person’s life, it is usually because that person tried to “decide another human’s life”? If you commit murder, robbery, assault, etc., you have just done what you claim no human has a right to do. How do you ensure that no one person can determine the fate of another? It would seem the only way to enforce it would be for one person to decide the fate of another…
I agree with you Hurley.
FortMarcy,what you say is true but is only 50% of the story.Think of all the people who have been wrongly convicted and/or wrongly suspected.Not just in the United States but all over the world where ‘just’ judicial systems exist.In some countries the judge does have equal or more power than the jury.I know,because I’m not from the U.S.Judges are like doctors.There are good ones,there are average ones and there are ones who goof up and wreck your life.Or sometimes they don’t goof up,they do it deliberately especially when it involves a person fighting a reall powerful organization.No,I am not being naive at all.It happens,it happened and will continue to happen.
Yet however,I admit that I can’t come up with an alternative way to provide justice.That’s one of the paradoxes of life.
I don’t dismiss the real problem of the falsely accused, falsely convicted, and falsely punished in our society. But the characterization of that as “the other half” is a bit starry eyed. More than half the people who go to trial for crimes in the United States are fairly accused, tried, and most of the convicted are guilty. There are laws I would change, and some present crimes I would prefer not to be crimes. But then there are legal acts that I feel should be crimes, as well.
I wish I lived in a world where there was no need for cops, judges, and jails; or that I lived in a world where all the cops and judges were decent, and honest. Neither of these describes the world I live in. That doesn’t mean I want to try it without laws for a while. TASA. There’s Always Some Asshole. So, you have to have laws. It doesn’t eliminate the Assholes, but it does give you a way of dealing with the egregious ones.
YOU HAVE TO STAY INVOLVED. You have to vote in every election, you have to keep track of what the people you voted for are doing afterwards, and you have to make sure your point of view is represented by at least some thoughtful, honest, reasonable people. If necessary, you have to be that person. (If everyone else on your side is a nitwit, you probably ought to have another look at your point of view.) Democracy is a participatory endeavor, not a spectator sport.
Tris
“” is not a recognized response. ~ unknown ~
Max Weber: “Government is simply a monopoly on violence.”
— G. Raven
HurleyParks - If a properly trained judge who is educated in the law shouldn’t determine a sentence, who should? That would be great if there was some infallable being who could determine guilt or innocence and assign an appropriate sentence, but there isn’t. So until God himself decides to take a more active role in our judicial system, I’m afraid your stuck with mere humans.
This has the faint odor of a summer school rhetoric assignment.
As to your question, in simplest terms, regardless of your desires, socially mediated sanctions must be applied in some form or fashion to discourage people who would break the law and some system of authority must be set up to administer these sanctions.
What system of administering social sanctions do you propose that would be more efficient and equitable?
I also am looking for the General Question here.
The OPoster said “I just want to know your opinions on this”
Let er rip, Manny.
I would, but to where? Wherever I toss it, the moderators of that forum will come to my house and beat me up for sending it their way.
Of course, with TVeblen, that might not be such a bad thing.
So off to IMHO.