Talk:570 - The Fundamental Wrongness of 'Rights' (Law as Fiction)

-- William Gomes 23:04, 1 October 2011 (PDT)

As a far as I understand the beginning of the of the episode of 570 was very good. The facts I want to point out that the "Right Regime" was quiet goodly defined and narrated at first but later on it was directed to law and limitations.

I want to say the solutions was not defined in the episode. I think we need more continuous episode on this Right issues - and I also want to express that Ivan Illich his work Needs is a good source.

Thanks for the episode- I request you please do some continious episode of this issues - also I want to request you please include some works of Michael Parenti, specially his work Democracy For The Few. I would request to add the audio book on the said title.

Please give some more explanation of open police.

Thanks

I may flesh out the idea of 'OpenPolice' in the future. That is a kind of more active end of 'open law', where your friends could do the sort of work done by police, to try to investigate what had gone on in the case of crimes being purpertrated. The prospect of decentralised law is clearer, since it's a new but also an old one. Old in the sense that this is how law has always worked before hierachies and standardisation started (i.e. locally applied) But new in the sense that it could be electronically mediated, and involve judges who are peers of those involved (more like juries). Do we need a class of prefessional 'judges' to differentiate right from wrong? Who would you trust more to give you a fair hearing, your peers or your superiors? The normal assumptions of law are that most people are not trustworthy or competent, but that Latin speaking professionals are. Many people follow laws more out of fear than out of belief in the laws' importantance -- a poor motivation to do anything. A decentralised law system would likely be more cimplex, but could be more tailored to its users, and less subject to abuse, e.g. by hierarchies who can currently pay off a few judges/law makers to subvert the whole system. A system from the grassroots wouldn't be subject to that.