Laws favor the mighty few, do not help the disadvantaged?

[blazeofglory]

I do not believe that there is law. Laws are made by the rich for the benefits of the rich.

Darwin rightly said survival of the fittest or strongest. I do not think the weak has been given justice.

There are some exceptional cases in which the weak has been given justice. In most of cases the weak have been victimized.

The one and only way out is to be sly, cruel. Kindness, compassion are the instruments of the weak, something likened to slave morals as said by Nietzsche.

I know cases of rapes and the raped were accused or detained by the police and the culprits escape easily.

The mighty has lots of lands, has factories and their businesses flourish and the poor on the other hand perish.

We pretend there are laws and those laws save and secure us.

The weak ones are born to serve the powerful and are doomed to suffer.

All governments, systems, laws are pretensions. Lawyers or chief justices are liars.

One billion people dominate five millions people. The rich are lazy and do not work and live on the sweat of the poor.

I hope nobody takes this issue subjectively. This has nothing to do with a particular ideology and is confined to general discussion only.

[Madame X]

Nul n’est censé ignorer la loi. As the French maxim goes. :p

You might find Julius von Kirchmann’s lecture “Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft” (The Worthlessness of Jurisprudence as a Science) amusing as it, more or less, coincides with your own low esteem of the institution as it stands being a formal entreaty he delivered to the German Jurists Association which basically pleaded for the abolishment of his own discipline; a bit radical seeing as he was himself a judge of no small repute. The premise being that Academic law, in a democratic society, is, simply put, a harrowing absurdity in that it succeeds most of all in rather efficaciously alienating itself from those who have, supposedly, enacted it to begin with, i.e., the people. Interesting insight, to say the least.

[The Atheist]

I do not believe that there is law. Laws are made by the rich for the benefits of the rich.

....

The rich are lazy and do not work and live on the sweat of the poor.

I hope nobody takes this issue subjectively. This has nothing to do with a particular ideology and is confined to general discussion only.

In totalitarian states, you're mostly right, but in the western world, you're 100% wrong.

There are social security nets and justice systems which work.

Also, I don't know whether you're aware of it, but the two greatest philanthropists of all two are Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, two of the world's richest men at present. They are two of many very rich who give billions to the poor.

[Madame X]

Also, I don't know whether you're aware of it, but the two greatest philanthropists of all two are Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, two of the world's richest men at present. They are two of many very rich who give billions to the poor.

Two-ché. :D Don’t know either of them personally so may the good lord forgive me for slandering any potential saints here, but I suspect it’s significantly easier to harbor ‘philanthropic’ inclinations when you’ve got all the money in the world and, most importantly, the accompanying notoriety to boot. In such circumstances, obviously there’s pressure to give and preferably as ostentatiously as possible else risk suffering certain fiscal disadvantages proportionate to one’s plummeting popularity. Not that I could foresee miserliness, in itself, being the death of Microsoft, for example, (the general populace ain’t exactly the embodiment of righteousness either [nor do I think, as long as the money keeps rolling in, that anyone really cares if said donations are ultimately “from the heart” or not]) but for all intents and purposes benefaction certainly benefits the benefactor in more, and perhaps more importantly, than just the eh, spiritual sense. But you knew that. :nod:

Still, gotta hand it to totalitarian societies for at least being a certain degree more upfront about their own self-interest. :thumbs_up

[The Atheist]

Two-ché. :D Don’t know either of them personally so may the good lord forgive me for slandering any potential saints here, but I suspect it’s significantly easier to harbor ‘philanthropic’ inclinations when you’ve got all the money in the world and, most importantly, the accompanying notoriety to boot. In such circumstances, obviously there’s pressure to give and preferably as ostentatiously as possible else risk suffering certain fiscal disadvantages proportionate to one’s plummeting popularity. Not that I could foresee miserliness, in itself, being the death of Microsoft, for example, (the general populace ain’t exactly the embodiment of righteousness either [nor do I think, as long as the money keeps rolling in, that anyone really cares if said donations are ultimately “from the heart” or not]) but for all intents and purposes benefaction certainly benefits the benefactor in more, and perhaps more importantly, than just the eh, spiritual sense. But you knew that. :nod:

Still, gotta hand it to totalitarian societies for at least being a certain degree more upfront about their own self-interest. :thumbs_up

Yep, I agree that it's really easy to give away 50 billion if you have another few in the bank, and mega-rich philanthropists are nothing new. On the other hand, millions of even averagely-rich people are greedy bastards to whom giving away five bucks is a step too far. Hopefully, Gates & Buffett might shame a few into doing it.

In the end, as you say, who really cares what their individual motivations are, just do it!