Re: more electoral defeats for the feudalists

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 16:30:05 GMT, Les Cargill <lcargill@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

royls@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 21:26:13 GMT, Les Cargill <lcargill@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

royls@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 23:53:50 GMT, Les Cargill <lcargill@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

royls@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 11:23:31 -0500, Bob Kolker <nowhere@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

sinister wrote:

I think this is part of the good old Bob Kolker descriptive
(positive)/normative two-step.

Dance, Bob, dance!

What is law without enFORCEment?

_WHY_ do societies choose certain of their rules to have the force of
law and not others?

Because they can.

?? Don't be obtuse. They "can" enforce any rule they choose. Why do
they _choose_ to enforce _certain_ rules?

Generally, leaders use the law to cultivate and preserve power for
themselves.

You're still not thinking. _Why_ does anybody else go along with such
self-aggrandizement? Stupidity?

I am saying we have some partial theories as to why,
but we do not really know.

These partial theories claim that people think they'll be
better off for the participation. Some mechanisms include
material improvement of lot, groupthink or just plain
herd mentality.

How about the fact that unlike certain morons, people of normal
intelligence can see very well that many people cooperating will
always beat the pants off an equal number of lone predators, and
people won't cooperate with someone who is constantly putting the
boots to them?

Stupidity is a good choice - it's a very available resource. But
at a deeper level, nobody can understand themselves very well,
much less anybody else. Roughly, people will behave a certain
way to avoid loss of identity.

Balderdash. People can just see which side their bread is buttered
on.

-- Roy L
.

Quantcast