Can we save the world via Just Proof?

[kristalris]

Is there a world to save then? Many scientists as do I think there is. We humans are systematically over-stressing the system and inevitably going for a catastrophic failure. We are overpopulating, overproducing, over selling, over expecting and "over everything" in an extremely irresponsible and mounting way. We in the past already have had two bangs one in 1914 which has eerie similarity to the situation in Europe at the moment and the situation in Asia / China resembles that of Japan before WWII. Not to mention mounting environmental problems. And the mounting political instability where by tea party Republicans are on a war footing with Democrats and vice versa. Same in Europe with rising nationalism. Not to mention the mounting instability in the Muslim world. In effect the history is repeating itself.

 

The solution is IMO very simple yet taboo and thus extremely complex to achieve:

 

Just Proof:

 

Have 10% of all open minded judges (= the ones with the most original humour) in any legal system in a new R&D court branch in order to give temporary integral advice in all cases to the judge / jury. Let these if they don't agree or have doubt send 1% to 5% of the cases back for new advice in order to reach consensus. And have appeal for when this consensus has not been reached. When things go wrong or maybe are going wrong and that is also when less than 1% or more than 5% or silly stuff gets sent back then you must have an "air crash investigation" even of the supreme courts.

 

Why this works is simple. It is in effect already tried and tested and conforms to logic and what our theory of human behavior depicts. Put your team in order according to current psychology on the R&D, production and sales. All three are critical. In effect you then have a safe environment in which educated honest guess work is sold instead of near perfection in order to keep a Just order. In the latter more and more everybody will not only start to behave but also the same system will via natural necessity be copied: thus R&D, production and sales which leads to wisdom because the correct teaming has been effected.

 

If we all start to work wisely on any stated reachable goal this goal will sooner or later be reached, because we humans - as a correctly teamed up collective - otherwise wouldn't of been here. We did this via testing creatively intelligent ideas and subsequently when proven correct producing and selling it.

 

The wise judge doesn't know of loopholes in the law on important issues. The legal system should be seen as an emergency brake and not a normal brake. Wanting to throw this brake out because it is used to much is an error in reasoning. A Just Proof method immediately deregulates yet by leaving all rules formally intact. It only slowly divides all the rules in important, less important and not important. The latter for the trainees, the uninterested and the mentally challenged. The cost savings are enormous.

 

Because in a Just state all conflicts are ultimately decided in courts of law if all else fails ultimately here do you get your winners and loosers, If the system is indeed just then above par the justified winners indeed win and the justified loosers indeed loose. What is justified? For that a sated goal is needed: let's say a long and happy (as in what ever makes you tick even if it is the opposite of what make others tick.) the least as possible infringing on that goal of others. => forced to give and take in order to cooperate as enforceable Just law.

 

The legal system will thus be needed less and less yet must remain as the emergency handle providing maximum freedom to all. To make more or less acceptable mistakes (remember we humans are DNA mistakes on the ape-norm!)

 

But how then to change the perverted way in which the legal and other systems are financed? Simple ask for advice on the R&D branches that will have sprung up all over the place of which you know that they will provide above average good testable guesses.

 

In short why this will work.

 

IMO this is much more DNA ant-heap of distinguishable different DNA working in on each other than is politically correct to state, but even if you take the current psychology nurture stance the analyses and cure is in effect the same. We must take into account our reptile brain, our small social mammal brain, our ape (> 90% the same) brain and our human brain and organize accordingly.

 

This leads me to the belief that the parliamentary democracy is the least bad form of governance as Churchill also put it. Logic true is what 50% + 1 think. To balance this against the whim of the day most systems have a senate / house of lords type shock absorber built in.

 

In the Trias Politica we also have the legal system to balance it all.

 

The trait of having an open mind measurable via original goal orientated humour shows the creative nerd who is capable of making a fully adult goal orientated above par Yin and yang guess. That still leaves the possibility of being a nerd that is a emotionally intelligent six year old for taking everything literally. Showing feeling for irony as well shows the open mind on the relationship as well. The socially competent nerd.

 

On You Tube I go into this further in my playlist on the Just Proof appeal that is still work in progress. To add to this and yet to be changed in the films: DSM 6 is identical to DSMV and only differs in that everybody is deemed mad and retarded and genius with less than 1% exceptions. Depicted in a humoristic way. DSM7 is the Boring Bayesian inversion of DSM 6 for use in the courts: everybody is normal with less than 1% exceptions.

 

Bare in mind that say anorexia nervosa is thus to be seen as something to be tested as not a mental disorder but a normal reaction to a sick society. Change society and I predict that mental disorders as DSM V has many more will simply subside and vanish unless irreparable damage has been done with certain instruments between the ears.

 

Also bare in mind that certain traits are simply normal such as ADHD (= Newton) and ADD etc (= Einstein). These are your thinkers and doers of the thinkers. The high Voltage Volt meters that can take high stress levels by guessing out of the box above average. Low Voltage Voltmeters deem this high voltage dangerously mad. Only when in a safe environment is created by the authority is the voltage turned down. Or when the high voltage thinker minority provide all the necessary book wiring conforming to current paradigm in order to show a necessary change is in a timely order if you don't want to close the barn door after the horse has bolted like a baboon clinging on to a paradigm banana. We humans act like baboons in this respect because as with the baboon it is a survival trait.

 

Further more bare in mind that I have yet also to show that fighters are naturally politically right wing, freezers are religious at heart and flirters are left wing at heart. because we more or less combine all traits the way in which you have the mix depicts your natural tendency. A sociable nerd put under stress is still at heart a fighter yet can at a high if not to high stress-level still be sociable. ceteris paribus for speed of brain, knowledge and experience however never as good sociably as a born flirter. All types are further more both to be seen in the male as female variants.

 

That's why via organizing this we save the world. Taboo because the authority - incorrectly! - believes that it is in their short term (sales) and medium term (= production) interests to keep the status quo being either left, right, or religious. You - always - thus will have an unstable system in the long run.

 

Just proof will force all traits to work together on the common goal: ultimately in court of law. We all win.

 

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLel4K7I4PMZkOl6qQZ4h3RqN9BLvS0dQj

Edited June 22, 2014 by kristalris

[dimreepr]

Is there a world to save then? Many scientists as do I think there is. We humans are systematically over-stressing the system and inevitably going for a catastrophic failure. We are overpopulating, overproducing, over selling, over expecting and "over everything" in an extremely irresponsible and mounting way. We in the past already have had two bangs one in 1914 which has eerie similarity to the situation in Europe at the moment and the situation in Asia / China resembles that of Japan before WWII. Not to mention mounting environmental problems. And the mounting political instability where by tea party Republicans are on a war footing with Democrats and vice versa. Same in Europe with rising nationalism. Not to mention the mounting instability in the Muslim world. In effect the history is repeating itself.

 

The solution is IMO very simple yet taboo and thus extremely complex to achieve:

 

Just Proof:

 

Have 10% of all open minded judges (= the ones with the most original humour) in any legal system in a new R&D court branch in order to give temporary integral advice in all cases to the judge / jury. Let these if they don't agree or have doubt send 1% to 5% of the cases back for new advice in order to reach consensus. And have appeal for when this consensus has not been reached. When things go wrong or maybe are going wrong and that is also when less than 1% or more than 5% or silly stuff gets sent back then you must have an "air crash investigation" even of the supreme courts.

 

Why this works is simple. It is in effect already tried and tested and conforms to logic and what our theory of human behavior depicts. Put your team in order according to current psychology on the R&D, production and sales. All three are critical. In effect you then have a safe environment in which educated honest guess work is sold instead of near perfection in order to keep a Just order. In the latter more and more everybody will not only start to behave but also the same system will via natural necessity be copied: thus R&D, production and sales which leads to wisdom because the correct teaming has been effected.

 

If we all start to work wisely on any stated reachable goal will sooner or later be reached, because we humans - as a correctly teamed up collective - otherwise wouldn't of been here. We did this via testing creatively intelligent ideas and subsequently when proven correct produced and sold it.

 

The wise judge doesn't know of loopholes in the law on important issues. The legal system should be seen as an emergency brake and not a normal brake. Wanting to throw this brake out because it is used to much. A Just Proof method immediately deregulates yet by leaving all rules formally intact. It only slowly divides all the rules in important, less important and not important. The latter for the trainees, the uninterested and the mentally challenged. The cost savings are enormous.

 

Because in a Just state all conflicts are ultimately decided in courts of law if all else fails ultimately here do you get your winners and loosers, If the system is indeed just then above par the justified winners indeed win and the justified loosers indeed loose. What is justified? For that a sated goal is needed: let's say a long and happy (as in what ever makes you tick even if it is the opposite of what make others tick.) the least as possible infringing on that goal of others. => forced to give and take in order to cooperate as enforceable Just law.

 

The legal system will thus be needed less and less yet must remain as the emergency handle providing maximum freedom to all. To make more or less acceptable mistakes (remember we humans are DNA mistakes on the ape-norm!)

 

But how then to change the perverted way in which the legal and other systems are financed? Simple ask for advice on the R&D branches that will have sprung up all over the place of which you know that they will provide above average good testable guesses.

 

In short why this will work.

 

IMO this is much more DNA ant-heap of distinguishable different DNA working in on each other than is politically correct to state, but even if you take the current psychology nurture stance the analyses and cure is in effect the same. We must take into account our reptile brain, our small social mammal brain, our ape (> 90% the same) brain and our human brain and organize accordingly.

 

This leads me to the belief that the parliamentary democracy is the least bad form of governance as Churchill also put it. Logic true is what 50% + 1 think. To balance this against the whim of the day most systems have a senate / house of lords type shock absorber built in.

 

In the Trias Politica we also have the legal system to balance it all.

 

The trait of having an open mind measurable via original goal orientated humour shows the creative nerd who is capable of making a fully adult goal orientated above par Yin and yang guess. That still leaves the possibility of being a nerd that is a emotionally intelligent six year old for taking everything literally. Showing feeling for irony as well shows the open mind on the relationship as well. The socially competent nerd.

 

On You Tube I go into this further in my playlist on the Just Proof appeal that is still work in progress. To add to this and yet to be changed in the films: DSM 6 is identical to DSMV and only differs in that everybody is deemed mad and retarded and genius with less than 1% exceptions. Depicted in a humoristic way. DSM7 is the Boring Bayesian inversion of DSM 6 for use in the courts: everybody is normal with less than 1% exceptions.

 

Bare in mind that say anorexia nervosa is thus to be seen as something to be tested as not a mental disorder but a normal reaction to a sick society. Change society and I predict that mental disorders as DSM V has many more will simply subside and vanish unless irreparable damage has been done with certain instruments between the ears.

 

Also bare in mind that certain traits are simply normal such as ADHD (= Newton) and ADD etc (= Einstein). These are your thinkers and doers of the thinkers. The high Voltage Volt meters that can take high stress levels by guessing out of the box above average. Low Voltage Voltmeters deem this high voltage dangerously mad. Only when in a safe environment is created by the authority is the voltage turned down. Or when the high voltage thinker minority provide all the necessary book wiring conforming to current paradigm in order to show a necessary change is in a timely order if you don't want to close the barn door after the horse has bolted like a baboon clinging on to a paradigm banana. We humans act like baboons in this respect because as with the baboon it is a survival trait.

 

Further more bare in mind that I have yet also to show that fighters are naturally politically right wing, freezers are religious at heart and flirters are left wing at heart. because we more or less combine all traits the way in which you have the mix depicts your natural tendency. A sociable nerd put under stress is still at heart a fighter yet can at a high if not to high stress-level still be sociable. ceteris paribus for speed of brain, knowledge and experience however never as good sociably as a born flirter. All types are further more both to be seen in the male as female variants.

 

Thats why organise this you save the world. Taboo because the authority - incorrectly! - believes that it is in their short term (sales) and medium term (= production) interests to keep the status quo being either left, right, or religious. You - always - thus will have an unstable system in the long run.

 

Just proof will force all traits to work together on the common goal: ultimately in court of law.

 

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLel4K7I4PMZkOl6qQZ4h3RqN9BLvS0dQj

 

 

You’re forgetting, humans will be humans, and the consequence of total reliance on the law is explained in Dickens ‘Bleak house’ via the storyline ‘Jarndyce v jarndyce’ which is, apparently, based on reality.

Edited June 22, 2014 by dimreepr

[kristalris]

 

 

You’re forgetting, humans will be humans, and the consequence of total reliance on the law is explained in Dickens ‘Bleak house’ via the storyline ‘Jarndyce v jarndyce’ which is, apparently, based on reality.

 

Thanks for your reaction.

 

Humans are indeed humans:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_homini_lupus yet this means two things: good and bad. It needs balance. And that can indeed IMO be organized as history also shows BTW. Yet the idea of Just Proof is to organize the absolute minimum and have the system repair its self.

 

Your example doesn't depict Just Proof. Just Proof has humans in all their strong and weak points central as do BTW most legal systems in theory. The difference between civil and penal law is just the understanding that all civil infringements could in a rigid system also be dealt with as a criminal offence. You shouldn't for we must learn to accept the honest mistake. Like again our DNA is a on the ape norm a faulty copy of an ape.

 

There most certainly is no total reliance on the law. If the law fails it's war. It is the last station before war, so the law should within Just Proof only be used as an emergency brake. You should never have total reliance on only the emergency brake. That is exactly my point.

 

I.e. make shore that you organize it such that you don't like now can win in a perverted way in court. More and more if you conscientiously fool the other you win whereas you should loose. Only by stopping this as you do in Just Proof do you fundamentally stabilize the system.

Edited June 22, 2014 by kristalris

[dimreepr]

Proof only really makes sense in maths; in a court of law it makes no sense at all.

[kristalris]

Proof only really makes sense in maths; in a court of law it makes no sense at all.

Oh dear oh dear. That is a very narrow definition. And granted Mathematical proof is close to absolute proof. Yet what word would you use to speak about a proven murderer? A probable murderer? But isn't it then proven to be a probable murderer? Just Proof "proof" means that the posterior odds are past the given norm. And unless this in fact mathematical way of looking at it doesn't make sense to you then please take into consideration that no-one in science questions the correctness of that. They might prefer other ways of expressing it via in effect stipulative definitions. Make sense to you?

In my Just Proof alternative I've stressed what is going wrong and indeed might not be averted because we are already to late. Yet on the other hand we might not be so on the up side we humans also already have a whole lot of technology at hand that should be able to solve the problem relatively quickly if only we get our DNA types balanced so to speak.

 

Otherwise say a new high yielding crop technology will only aggravate the problem for causing a faster overpopulation.

 

Only when people are in balance and content with a felt to be secure future will you have the possibility of naturally stemming overpopulation (etc. etc.).

 

We need to look at the problem both locally and globally at the same time.

 

Yet what ever idea you have you need first to balance the use of the emergency brake: the last braking device before a fighting conflict like a war breaks out. For what is perceived to happen as a result of pulling that break will - naturally !- be copied in the whole of society.

 

Our society is at the moment changing faster than our social structures can cope with. Especially internet can bring great good but also great instability if not dealt with in courts of law. The conflicts in the Arab world are induced as a conditio sine qua non by internet, I'm quite shore. If they would of had a Just society you wouldn't of had the conflict.

 

Further more all conflicts in the world have the nasty ability to be the fuse and the spark of a greater event with weapons of mass destruction when it spirals out of control. As has happened often in the past. We need a global Just system in effect asap. Start with our selves. it will be copied.

 

Also I think it good to point out the error in reasoning by those who think: "well let it go wrong because good will come from that". Indeed good came from WWI and WWII and even I guess from Pol Pot. Yet I'd prefer not to go that route. The price is (& was) to high (and because of weapons of mass destruction even higher still.)

 

Our Western system is unjust at the moment and starting to come apart at the seems. This can relatively easily be remedied all the scientific / historic (Roman etc.) insights are already there to be implemented.

 

And again: Just Proof is about less rules, laws, lawyers and court cases. Preferably no court cases as the unreachable ideal. Yet then of course you keep the legal system. Like you keep an army even when there is no war.

 

In the above Just Proof idea I do take into account the assumption that in most if not all western societies the judges are chosen as being with few exceptions honest and conscientious and more or less above average intelligent and also emotionally so. Otherwise that also needs prior attention.

Edited June 23, 2014 by kristalris

[Ophiolite]

The Law is an ass.

 

Charles Dickens

[kristalris]

The Law is an ass.

 

Charles Dickens

Indeed if done incorrectly, as now which is why things have gotten out of hand, yet not so when done correctly which is what Just Proof entails.

Edited June 23, 2014 by kristalris

[Ophiolite]

Indeed if done incorrectly, as now which is why things have gotten out of hand, yet not so when done correctly which is what Just Proof entails.

I found your exposition difficult to follow (some sentences were difficult to parse). Did you demonstrate clearly how this would be done correctly. My impression is that your argument was along the lines of we will do A and B will naturally happen and so we shall reach C. That is both illogical and unconvincing.

[kristalris]

I found your exposition difficult to follow (some sentences were difficult to parse). Did you demonstrate clearly how this would be done correctly. My impression is that your argument was along the lines of we will do A and B will naturally happen and so we shall reach C. That is both illogical and unconvincing.

If you do A have a legal system in which the wise judge does educated guesses above par (your prior odds before someone goes to court) correctly and you don't thus have loopholes in the law on the stated goal of everybody having as long as possible happy lives the least possibly infringing on others, than indeed it won't pay off to misbehave on that goal. For logically you will loose.

 

History / psychology / logic shows that working together on a stated reachable goal will probably succeed. It even works with animals. take a dog at the farm house. He won't eat the chickens even when the farmer is not at the farm, as long as the dog is afraid to get caught. Only when the farmer stays away for very long will the dog turn "wolf" again and eat chickens especially if he isn't fed.

This has even been shown with Gorillas in captivity. If the alpha male makes shore that the weak apes are protected by him and grant them a good life there is much less fighting in the cage. When the alpha male is unjust then that results in more fighting.

 

Overpopulating rats leads to fighting in such cases. There is as far as I know very little discussion on the fact that unjust systems especially when put under stress will resort to instability and violence.

 

If you use rigid systems logic has it that they invariably have loopholes in which unjust winners logically generating unjust looser's will result.

 

Psychology and logic show that only open minded people can do above average guesses in situations of incomplete evidence. It is a proven survival trait for otherwise we humans should logically have gone extinct over the past 100000 years. We haven't. Why? Above average guesswork by the creative. Is every human creative? Yes. Is every human above par creative? No. We wouldn't of survived otherwise for it pays of more to go by the book in most cases. In a safe environment only 49% is above par creative on tasks with incomplete evidence yet forced to take a decision. In an unsafe situation it is only 9% and extremely unsafe only the fearless (incorrectly seen as psychopaths) can cope. Standard psychology BTW.

 

Just Proof as depicted creates the necessary safe environment for judges. This will immediately be acknowledged by intelligent searchers of loopholes. They are gone so it only logically pays off to behave. When society in a crises breaks down the law of the strongest comes into play as history and recent history clearly shows. (hardly anyone disputes that.)

 

All rigid systems logically have loopholes and thus logically lead to unjust law systems.

 

BTW the psychology is textbook stuff. Current widely accepted albeit soft science.

Edited June 23, 2014 by kristalris

[dimreepr]

Oh dear oh dear. That is a very narrow definition. And granted Mathematical proof is close to absolute proof. Yet what word would you use to speak about a proven murderer? A probable murderer? But isn't it then proven to be a probable murderer? Just Proof "proof" means that the posterior odds are past the given norm. And unless this in fact mathematical way of looking at it doesn't make sense to you then please take into consideration that no-one in science questions the correctness of that. They might prefer other ways of expressing it via in effect stipulative definitions. Make sense to you?

 

 

All a court of law can possibly do, is show the evidence provides a reasonable assumption of guilt.

 

So yes “A probable murderer” and no it isn’t proven.

 

If you had 10 witnesses to a crime, what you’d get, from the subsequent interrogation is 10 different statements; Because of the way we view the world, not only do we not see like a camera, but with a lot of added guesswork from the brain, but our view is terribly skewed by the mood we happen to be in at the time and that’s very dependent on a myriad of various chemicals and hormones.

 

So how, from these divergent accounts do we create an absolute, like proof?

 

Make sense?

The problem is we haven’t yet evolved enough to cope with the size of the social structures our modern culture has created, but give it time, we will. This can only really be addressed at an emotional level not intellectually; you can’t feel right just because you think you should.

[kristalris]

 

 

All a court of law can possibly do, is show the evidence provides a reasonable assumption of guilt.

 

So yes “A probable murderer” and no it isn’t proven.

 

If you had 10 witnesses to a crime, what you’d get, from the subsequent interrogation is 10 different statements; Because of the way we view the world, not only do we not see like a camera, but with a lot of added guesswork from the brain, but our view is terribly skewed by the mood we happen to be in at the time and that’s very dependent on a myriad of various chemicals and hormones.

 

So how, from these divergent accounts do we create an absolute, like proof?

 

Make sense?

The problem is we haven’t yet evolved enough to cope with the size of the social structures our modern culture has created, but give it time, we will. This can only really be addressed at an emotional level not intellectually; you can’t feel right just because you think you should.

Yes you are quite right. From a scientific viewpoint we apart from (taken absolute even excluding) pure mathematics can never get past a probable guilt as an absolute proof.

 

Yet you miss the stipulative definition of proof: probative value past a set norm. I.e. when the situation arises i.e. is proven that we will act as if it is so: i.e. proven. Always leaving open the possibility to disprove. So there are more norms than one. You seem to think only one norm can be used for proof. All dependent upon the amount of risk you want to take of being wrong.

 

So we in real life are left to make decisions as do judges to the best of our ability in order to reach our set goals. Because we are always inherently out of a lot of evidence as humans in general but also as a judge or even a say physicist scientist. For who knows all that science knows including what is incorrectly seen as science at the moment. We have to trust each other in order to work together.

 

The distinction between your feeling and rationality is in part a false dichotomy. The instrument between our ears has evolved in a great way. I.e. if you feel that something is wrong => the instrument is trying to tell you something! Yet it should be understood to be different instruments that don't all work the same way and thus need to be properly aligned in order to work properly. These are social instruments that hurt each other if incorrectly wired together. The Romans already figured out how to put the wiring via actually one of the few things they have originally (= creatively intelligent) come up with themselves: Roman law. Nearly all our western societies trace back to this. Study law and see it work correctly and incorrectly in practice and you will understand this is so. Tried and tested. It works if done properly.

 

Law done properly is honest goal orientated guesswork in attempting to keep a Just order within limitations set by the law in time money resources. In order for it to be Just, the truth function should be optimally dealt with for trying (and of course often failing) to stay within the laws of logic, nature and take into serious account broadly held insights derived from them. All within the appropriate boundaries in which these scientific laws of logic & nature apply.

 

Not keeping a Just order leads as history clearly shows to disorder in which the truth and thus justice is the first causality. In effect we thus have to work on strongly held rules of thumb by educated guesswork. Yet not doing that things go on tilt.

 

Certain instruments and more if you create a safe environment are better at the needed above par guesswork on the stated goal.

 

Other instruments between the ears are better at conscientiously following the book. Both is critical yet these two instruments are like matter and anti matter when not properly married. This is basic current widely held assessment psychology. Actually it is DNA in a DNA environment but that is taboo for reasons actually following stated psychological insights: a paradigm leads to an inherent confirmation bias.

 

Only if the leader peer starts seeing it different will it change, or when the peer changes who by changing the paradigm lower the voltage. Or when after a mounting hell of a lot of work the creative high voltage Volt meter provides all the necessary high voltage rewiring for the majority low voltage yet highly intelligent voltmeters. Otherwise all not paradigm is out of the box high voltage rejected idea's. This also leads to a split society: take DSM V that as an estimate has 47,5 % of the population as mad. If you observe this more and coincides with the losers and winners in society. Yet the losers are the choosers i.e. voters in a democracy => instability we readily observe more and more in politics.

 

DSM V stems not only from science but also out of dis-functioning courts. The courts can and should remedy this by prohibiting the use of DSM V and use my DSM 7 (in my DSM 6 everyone with few exceptions is mad.) in stead. Exactly the same only then less than 1% mad etc. Problems need a change in society. So then a psychiatrist must more often say: you aren't mad yet society is and I'll give you this drug to help you keep functional in this crazy society. This is only acceptable if the psychiatrist also at least tells society he's forced to drug sane people. better is when he points how to reorganize society.

 

That is in part how Just Proof works. It is BTW how it already more or less worked twenty years ago in practice yet then as well there was a fundamental flaw. Internet has worked as a catalyst speeding up a downward spiral. The system still works yet is under to much and mounting pressure. That it is buckling under the pressure is difficult to see if you don't know where to look, yet obvious if you do.

Edited June 24, 2014 by kristalris

[kristalris]

Rereading the thread, I guess that not everybody sees the impact that a legal system has on society, and even science. DSMV wouldn't exist if it wasn't that it works in courts.

 

If in a court of law it is deemed that you are allowed to hit you children than it will lead to many parents doing so. If it is forbidden than it will result in far less hitting of children. Ultimately it is the courts who decide who wins and who looses.

 

I've been trying to find the behavioral research that was done with apes (I think it where gorilla's) in a cage or the wild I can't remember. If the alpha male protected the weaker apes of the group then there was far less trouble in the group then when the alpha male didn't protect the weak. The legal system when it works correctly will perform the same function.

 

When everybody in the world is treated justly then you will see that the overpopulation will slowly reside. Also the chances of conflicts getting out of hand will reside. Without that the crisis that will ensue and are already ensuing as I write this will spin out of control in an ever greater way. Only a permanent just order can prevent that. It is extremely basic based on our survival traits. The system at the moment is going more and more banana's.

[Ophiolite]

If you do A have a legal system in which the wise judge does educated guesses above par (your prior odds before someone goes to court) correctly and you don't thus have loopholes in the law on the stated goal of everybody having as long as possible happy lives the least possibly infringing on others, than indeed it won't pay off to misbehave on that goal. For logically you will loose.

So, you predicate the system on having a single individual with near perfect judgement, not susceptible to weaknesses of logic, unmoved by personal biases, incorruptible, intelligent, perceptive and immensely knowledgeable of the law. And you expect to be able to find a sufficient number of such individuals to man the courts. I have a more practical dream - let us all just behave.

[Strange]

You seem to think there is some sort of absolute right and wrong on which these "just" decisions could be made. But these are subjective and, to some extent, culturally defined concepts.

 

 

When everybody in the world is treated justly then you will see that the overpopulation will slowly reside. Also the chances of conflicts getting out of hand will reside.

 

It is certainly true that countries with good governance and access to education have lower rates of population growth, better standards of living, better health and less conflict.

 

So trying to achieve something close to democracy (democracy itself is not a requirement as examples such as Singapore show) and good levels of education, especially for women, may achieve the goals you wish.

[kristalris]

Ophilolite: indeed that is just it. We should all just behave. Where we find these judges? Well in most western "civilized" countries they are already there. Certainly in the Netherlands. The personality traits needed otherwise for what you need for judge has already been selected: both conscientiousness and openness and a degree of ego and speed of brain and having behaved all their lives have been checked.

 

The only thing you then need is to select within this group on openness and create a safe environment with authority and you've got it. An above par good goal orientated guess as to the truth. If the law system as ultimum remedium above par hits the truth then it will pay off to behave and not pay off not to. The current perverted way it is quite the opposite. it pays off to play the rigid system via making conscientious use of the loopholes in the law. => you get unjust winners and losers. => ends predictably in becoming more and more unpredictable => catastrophic conflict or war.

 

If it pays of to behave and doesn't not to on average the system will stabilize itself. how exactly? Ask R&D for advice. Which R&D? Well the ones everybody in any organisation will be forced to put up. For otherwise you run the great risk of getting into a legal conflict you will lose. Ergo you enforce a Just applied science. Even to science BTW that is ill as well as DSMV proves.

 

Strange:

 

 

Well, it is a question of definition really. And dependent on the stated goal.

 

Just proof has as its goal: a long and fulfilling life the least as possible infringing on others in reaching that goal. The religion if you like of Just Proof is that its worshipers strongly feel that this goal can only be reached when on average above par you guess correctly how to act on that goal. They are also convinced that the goal can only be reached by abiding by the laws of logic, the laws of nature and what we think we further more or less know about nature all within the boundaries where the knowledge applies. In short trust in correctly applied science.

 

Just Proof is also a self correcting and learning by mistakes religion or non religion. Even on the stated goal. A mathematician objected to the goal of pursuit of happiness that I first used. Well good critique so I changed it into a fulfilling life.

 

Proof BTW that we as humans are above par good intuitive guessers: we are still here over the past 100000 years without current science the greater part of it.

 

Ergo thus not claiming science where there is none to be had. Then you have to guess. Behavioral science already shows that there are people who are good goal orientated above par guessers: the open minded types. measurable via having lateral thought (= taking everything literally) / perceived as humour as a survival trait and open-mindedness on the relation measurable as having irony. Ergo learn to take humour and irony serious. Yet don't use it in court other than in correctly teaming up.

 

Good is thus above par guess and bad a below par guess.

 

In the Just Proof philosophy or religion everybody should be treated with respect. yet you can respectfully get a shellacking if you misbehave on the norm. You thus have as complete as possible freedom. In stead of growing and growing the legal system will with Just Proof slowly shrink to a predetermined yet via R&D to be established optimum (=as small as possible) size.

 

The greatest problem is for Just proof that it is taboo in several ways. Why will it work? It already worked in the past. I'm just stealing idea's that have proven to work in practice. Thus it is far from as naive as you might think.

 

Again the legal system is an essential emergency brake NOT to be misused as a normal brake as is more and more the case. it is a proven to work system having people behave and allowing them to make mistakes. Remember on the ape norm we humans are DNA failed apes. Rigid law systems don't allow for mistakes. Just proof does. In effect the difference between civil and criminal law. In a more and more rigid system any civil infringement can also be penalized, yet then you have no more mistakes that prove to be advantageous in the long run as we failed apes prove.

 

Oh and on culture indeed. Yet it works there too. In any culture as long as it has a democracy and a legal system. Any other system will become more and more rigid and fail in the long run, for it then can not in the long run make the needed above par correct creative guess. As any aircraft factory also needs to do in deciding what new plane to build or go bust if they get it wrong. R&D is about above par creative (= indeed subjective) guesswork.

Edited July 11, 2014 by kristalris

[Strange]

It sounds like utilitarianism or, worse, Rousseau's social contract. What do you do when people disagree on what is "just" and what is an acceptable level of infringing on others in order to ensure your happiness, and ...

 

It would work in an ideal (non existent) world where everyone had the same opinion about everything. But it is impractical in the real world where different people want different (and conflicting) things. If it were possible, then surely thousands of years of wise rulers and intelligent judges would have delivered it by now. If it hasn't been possible in the past, why do you expect it to be possible in the future?

 

 

It already worked in the past.

 

Really? When?

[kristalris]

Strange:

 

You need to understand democracy: that is the system that provides the law as being what everybody deems necessary to be Just. That can and is culturally different. Since the second world war I'd say the Dutch democracy and legal system has worked far above par in providing a just and stable society. It worked (up to a degree) yet now is failing. You could see this starting to happen more than twenty years ago. I was then going to do a L.D. yet could't get sufficient funding or find time as a then lawyer. A few years ago I picked it up again with some exact science professors and legal professors. The greatest problem is how to get past the taboo.

 

Systems that are not in balance will become more and more rigid. In effect DNA incorrectly teamed up.

 

To keep a just order like with parents you need to act against misbehavior in a just way. Do that and you get a just order. Do that incorrectly and things go wrong. So you need to act with shockingly little evidence. Say on probative values of 90% or sometimes (=law) even less. Because if you don't you ultimately get lynch-mobs. => always educated guesswork.

 

Of BTW you only have to strive to try and stay within known science in the courts. As you should try in real life as well BTW if you want a long and fulfilling (= better because wider than happy) lives. If you fail in this you can/ must correct the mistake.

[Strange]

You are ignoring that fact that what you consider to be a "just" decision and what someone else considers to be a "just" decision may not be the same thing.

[kristalris]

You are ignoring that fact that what you consider to be a "just" decision and what someone else considers to be a "just" decision may not be the same thing.

Nope I'm not. In a democracy per definition "Just" is what the law states, and can thus be culturally different. I.e. when the law prohibits drugs than proving the use of drugs via Just Proof leads to the punishment as prescribed by law. Even when the prosecutor or judge would find the law unjust because wanting to legalize drugs.

[Strange]

Nope I'm not. In a democracy per definition "Just" is what the law states

 

Then we already have that system in most advanced countries. It doesn't seem to work as well as you claim it should.

Edited July 11, 2014 by Strange

[swansont]

In a democracy per definition "Just" is what the law states

 

There are no unjust laws?

[Bignose]

There are no unjust laws?

Boom! the perfect question. I've got a list historically and currently on the books today. But I want to see how this is replied to.

[imatfaal]

Boom! the perfect question. I've got a list historically and currently on the books today. But I want to see how this is replied to.

 

For certain and important definitions of the words used then the question is not perfect, and could be seen as malformed; are there any positive numbers less than zero? With everyday definitions then surely there will be unjust laws - but if you define justice as what courts do and just as that which is legally valid and in accordance with the law; then there will be unfair laws, dangerously repressive laws, discriminatory laws etc, but they will all be just. Personally I prefer a wider and contextual view of justice which would not preclude an unjust law - but in a discussion on law one should be able to work on certain definition as long as they are clear.

 

And regarding your list of laws currently on the books - the concept of implied repeal in the common law will almost certainly mean that your entire list is actually empty. Minor courts might, on a bad day when the judge has partaken of a liquid lunch, let some pass but it is highly highly unlikely and would be immediately struck down by a higher court. They are an historical anomaly that can be safely ignored and are unlikely to be ever prosecuted let alone lead to a conviction.

Nope I'm not. In a democracy per definition "Just" is what the law states, ...

Although I would not agree this. The make up of the power structure of the polity has very little to do with the definition of law. Apartheid South Africa is normally the contradiction of a functioning justice system being palpably and deliberately "unjust" that many point to - although scholars who know far more than I say this is slanted and not correct. The prototypical example of an unbending law that defined and was the totality of justice would be Athens under Draco.

 

In direction contradiction to your claim, most actual functioning democracies have participants who will realise that the law(s) can and will be unjust and that an ever adapting law either through the common law or frequent revision of civil code is necessary to prevent society and law from diverging in conceptions of justice.

[swansont]

 

For certain and important definitions of the words used then the question is not perfect, and could be seen as malformed; are there any positive numbers less than zero? With everyday definitions then surely there will be unjust laws - but if you define justice as what courts do and just as that which is legally valid and in accordance with the law; then there will be unfair laws, dangerously repressive laws, discriminatory laws etc, but they will all be just.

 

I agree — the answer will tell us which definition of "just" is being used. Without which the discussion cannot proceed.

[Bignose]

For certain and important definitions of the words used then the question is not perfect, and could be seen as malformed; are there any positive numbers less than zero? With everyday definitions then surely there will be unjust laws - but if you define justice as what courts do and just as that which is legally valid and in accordance with the law; then there will be unfair laws, dangerously repressive laws, discriminatory laws etc, but they will all be just. Personally I prefer a wider and contextual view of justice which would not preclude an unjust law - but in a discussion on law one should be able to work on certain definition as long as they are clear.

 

And regarding your list of laws currently on the books - the concept of implied repeal in the common law will almost certainly mean that your entire list is actually empty. Minor courts might, on a bad day when the judge has partaken of a liquid lunch, let some pass but it is highly highly unlikely and would be immediately struck down by a higher court. They are an historical anomaly that can be safely ignored and are unlikely to be ever prosecuted let alone lead to a conviction.

None of this is implied in kristalris's system as he's laid out, though. He's explicitly stated that what is 'just' is what the law says. And in his perfect just system, there are no such things as extenuating circumstances, or unclear laws, etc. Just simply 'just' and 'unjust', and that some cadre of the exceptionally smart, wise, brilliant can figure it out.

 

Why I think swansont's question cuts right to the heart of the manner is that kristalris's system needs to account for the fact that defining terms like 'just' requires flexibility and that what was considered just in once circumstances can be easily unjust in another. And that two otherwise conscientious and intelligent individuals can disagree on what exactly is just.

 

If you want a current example, I personally think it is unjust that a corporation can decide not to follow the law if it decides that that law is against its religious values. But, there are plenty of people who think it is just. And that's fine. If kristalaris's super judges just decided that what was in the law was the only thing that was just, then it misses the whole point of actually debating this stuff.

 

Actually, I've got a really good example. Legal ethics is often at odds with most people's moral ethics. If you are a lawyer and your client tells you they committed the crime, I think most people would morally agree that the just thing to do there is to share that knowledge and ensure that the person is punished for their crime. But, it is also just that we have a legal system wherein everyone is provided a defense, so the lawyer has to do their best to defend their client. Your two results here are at odds with one single all-encompassing standard of justice. Grey areas and different points of view must be acknowledged.

Edited July 11, 2014 by Bignose