View Full Version : Laws vs. Rules

06-27-2014, 10:07 PM
I would like a society without laws (or one law: don't hurt anyone else) but this does not mean I don't want rules.

For example we need rules to avoid hurting each other, like traffic rules for instance.

But we don't need laws (except the one law: don't hurt anyone else).

In this kind of utopia you can do, eat, think, say, take, earn, pay and like what the hell you want, as long as you follow the rules that are there to protect other people BUT no rule to protect you from yourself. People who do things that end up hurting themselves are either unlucky, stupid or acting on their own personal choices.

Do you see? An anarchic utopia is possible. Kill the law makers, empower the rule makers and leave the people alone.


06-28-2014, 05:32 AM
follow the rules that are there to protect other people

Kill the law makers, empower the rule makers and leave the people alone.

If the rules are meant to protect other people, aren't the law makers also protected? (i.e. from being killed)

I say, there should be a rule against making laws :)

So let them live (the law makers), but get a real job :)

06-28-2014, 08:15 AM
The wiki entry for law says...

Law is a term which does not have a universally accepted definition, but one definition is that law is a system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social institutions to govern behaviour.

So law is just a way to make sure the rules are obeyed; cant have one without the other.

I guess you need someone to watch over the rulemakers...it all runs too deep now...who can keep tabs on all the rules, there's too many. It is because of this that those who can learn the mess can use and abuse it.


06-28-2014, 08:33 AM
I see a fundamental difference at the foundations of those two concepts ("Law" and "Rule")

Law is IMO something that cannot be man-made - which doesn't prevent people/lawmakers from passing regulations masquerading as "Laws".

I only recognize as "Law" the Hermetic Laws/Principles/Foundations which are at the core of the reality design we are currently participating in.

In this regard, and only in this (Hermetic) regard, it is very beneficial to be a "law abiding citizen" :)

Anything else, I do not regard as "laws", no matter if they come from governments or religions. They're all man-made and as such, do not qualify :)

Everything else is man-made regulations.

As for "rules", I would prefer the term "agreements"...

06-28-2014, 09:19 AM
As for "rules", I would prefer the term "agreements"...

I like the term "Agreement" too, but an agreement also needs an element of trust. Trust can be formed between two or three individuals with a modicum of success, but when the numbers run into the millions or even billions then that trust is likely to be abused. This is where the law comes in; it is the means to enforce past agreements.

Different countries use different institutions to draw up these agreements, which then become law, so it is difficult to pin down who the lawmakers are. For instance, in the USA they have a base constitution within which the laws made must fit, whereas here in the UK we have no constitution and so parliament can write into law anything it likes.

Androgynus how would you make sure your agreements are binding within all parties concerned; taking into consideration that those parties could consist of millions of individuals?

Here's a wild idea... Bacause there are so many people to watch, perhaps we could elect some people to judge whether the agreements were being honored, and if they are not being honored perhaps we could hire some people to police those that are not honoring those agreements...;)

Edit...the problem is can we trust the judges and police :confused: