Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="churd" data-source="post: 2619751" data-attributes="member: 30595">My point was merely that we got on as a rule of law nation quite well for over 200 years (and still do in about half the states) with a system where a judge had huge amount of leaway in imposing sentences, and neither the prosecution or defendant had much recourse to complain that the sentence was out of line with what other judges were giving out, or even with what the same judge gave out in similar cases.  Most higher courts felt that the trial judge was the one who got to hear the parties speak, look them in the eyes, and judge the subtle nuances of the case better than a review board going only on the dry facts of the case.  There was little sign that the public at large was "frustrated" with this system, as you implied.When we did start to move away from this in the 90's it was driven by the "tough on crime" movement that was much more concerned with harsher sentences across the board than inconsistent (chaotic) sentences.Even in the federal system and the states which have some form of sentencing guidelines there are huge statistical disparities within those guidelines.  In urban courts where criminal infractions are common and the courts are jaded, sentences are highly skwed toward the low end.  In rural courts where criminal proceedings are much less common sentences tend toward the high end.  Yet no one seems "frustrated" by this except for a few academics in the law schools and the people who are sentenced in rural courts.  Chaotic only implies few laws, not no laws.  To put a new twist on an old saying: chaotic good does not mean chaotic stupid.  Even in a pure chaotic good society there would be some version of "thou shalt not kill" and a few other biggies.Nor do I think a Chaotic good theocrat would see the US Constitution as a "fetishization of law."  Just the opposite would be the case in my view.First, the document that has been the basis for one of the most stable and powerful nations on the planet is what, about 20 pages typed out?  That is unbeliveable!  The traffic code of most small towns runs a couple of hundred pages at least.  And this is exactly what a chaotic good theocrat would want for their society - a document with a few general guiding principles, not a comprehensive text ment to addess every last contingency that might arise in excruciating detail.  Second, in those few pages, look what the framers sought fit to put in: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, protection of an individual's home and possessions from intrusion by the state.  These are all values that a chaotic good person would espouse - although a chaotic individual is generally against unnecessary laws, these are ones that I think they would agree with.  Last, American's knowledge of the Constitution is more accuratly seen, not as a love of the law, but rather a love of the rights that protect their individual liberty.  How many people really know the constitutional procedures for appointing an ambassador or what the original jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court is?  But every American knows that the government can't come in and search HIS house without a warrant.  Your example of the Miranda warning is one where the rights of the individual (even a guilty criminal) are given precidence over the greater good of society as a whole (criminal goes free to comit more crimes.)I agree completely.  No nation, especially one as vast and complex as the US, can be easily pigeonholed into one of nine neat boxes.  However, I believe that if you look at what the different systems espoused as their core values - freedom, liberty, the prusuit of happiness v. redistribution of resources based what is best for the largest numger of people - one resonates more closley with the concept of "law" and the other more closley with "chaos."  Obviously, that is an oversimplication, but this is a message board, not a poly sci thesis.  My point was that a society being "chaotic" does not nescessarily imply an environment that is detrimental to the economy or defense.  In many ways the last half of the 20th century was the greatest econ experiment ever - and guess what?  The system that was driven by individual greed blew the doors off the system that was designed for the greatest good for the most people (again, oversimplification, but reasonably accurate.)  Adam Smith said it first, but Gordon Gecko said it best: "greed is good."</blockquote>

Verification