comment: >
  
  I accept that I could be either, I never said I would be top of the food chain. What I would want is for there to be no top at all,  but I'm not praying for the apocalypse, and I think you would also have to also accept that the apocalypse is far from guaranteed in this scenario. It read more as catastrophizing than anything
context: /u/ineedhelpfromgod (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  Unlike revenge, justice is institutionalized (or, at least, more institutionalized; justice does not necessarily correlate with legality). Also, revenge is usually applied by people who were wronged, or who were related to those who were. Justice is applied by people with no stake in the manner.
  This means it has a deterrent factor. If you do something bad, the individual you did it to may or may not be able to get revenge on you, but justice is more internally consistent than "what someone thinks you should be punished for", because it's usually applied by large groups of people.
  
  But if the point of justice is the punish the deserving than I hardly see the difference unless there's a natural order in the world like God or something similar handing down what does and doesn't warrant action.
  
  If you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution
  Humans decide what the rules are. Just because some higher power doesn't does not make those rules illegitimate.
  
  If people are inherently moral, than the most moral of rules will be enforced by the most passionate of people uninhibited by a militarized police force.
  
  But people are not inherently moral. They can't be, because morality, however useful and necessary for a functioning society, is subjective. Most people tend to follow what they think is morally right, but that's very different from "most people are moral".
  What happens, for instance, when someone else's morals conflict with yours, and they're not willing to live or let live, or negotiate? Are they moral, or immoral? The Nazis thought mass murder was quite moral indeed, but I doubt you share that perspective.
  What happens when you have someone with brain damage that makes them think morality is a restraint? They sure as hell aren't going to engage with you in good faith. How are you going to stop them?
  And how do these "most passionate of people" enforce their will, other than by violence?
  
  People can still form a militia in that case, but I feel that it would only take one rich freedom loving egalitarian with a nuke or some other suppression capability to keep it mostly level after that.
  
  Their definition of freedom might very much differ from yours. Also, one person is much easier to subvert than an entire command chain of military officers. Also, the world isn't a closed system. What happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?
  
  Basically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important because the justice system isn't just and doesn't represent everyone.
  
  Depending on the country you live in, that's likely what the current system is. It's just that modern societies usually delegate it to certain trained specialists. >
  
  If you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution
  If laws are threats of retribution, and those only exist to deter people who havent the compass to decide on their own than how will justice ever make the world better, if that's it's goal, if those people can't by definition be rehabilitated. If that's the case wouldnt it actually just be better to, of that group of unscrupulous people  and furthermore of the undeterred of that group, just kill them and be done with it? Like everything the society deems unacceptable from rape to forgery to jaywalking.  Just kill them and be rid of them if they can't resist the urge under that threat of death or let them live if they want to but can tamp it down. That and basically just get rid of all the conspiracy laws and other shit that's basically minority report just to simplify it even more
  What happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?
  Whatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them >
  
  
  Whatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them
  
  Everything else aside: I sense a flaw in your idea. >
  
  Without the rule of law society would break down. Laws are what govern a civilized society. Whenever someone asks a question like this I always turn to a passage from Crito in which Crito and Socrates are discussing this exact thing:
  "Consider, Socrates, if this is true, that in your present attempt you are going to do us wrong. For, after having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in every good that we had to give, we further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the state, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him. And he who disobeys us is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents; secondly, because we are the authors of his education; thirdly, because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or convincing us; that is what we offer"
  Justice is being held accountable for your actions. You cannot just go around and do as you will. If you disobey the laws you have agreed to live in then you deserve the consequences which are also laid out for you. Both law and consequences you have knowledge of and agree to live within. >
  
  I don't believe that opting out and living in isolation is really an option though, is the problem. We are born into a system, that's not a choice. I'm familiar with Socrates and the rule of law, and what you said is very true and relevant, however your outlay isnt counter to my point;it is the point. I WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation. >
  
  
  I WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.
  
  So move to Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, or Somalia. Let us know how it turns out. >
  
  !delta
  I guess I don't have to convince anyone if what I want already exists elsewhere and I can just go there. See ya >
  
  Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/RelaxedApathy (20∆).
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  
  Basically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important
  
  Those rules would be laws. That is no different than the current system. You would replace the current justice system with a new justice system, and so laws and justice would remain, only redefined.
  Also, is your argument limited to criminal law only? It sounds you are only talking about criminal law. Property law or maritime law for example have really little to do with revenge. If I write a will, what revenge am I invoking? >
  
  Yeah I guess just criminal law. 
  Well when does a rule become a law? >
  
  When it is written down and enforced by someone in power. >
  
  Technically, it does not even need to be written down. Common law is often unwritten. >
  
  True true! >
  
  I'm worried about misinterpreting your positions.  To help me avoid that, can you provide clarity by answering a true or false question?
  True or False:  You're one of the people who thinks there shouldn't be age of consent laws.
  (in your reply, please answer with either "True" or "False") >
  
  False , but it really is a little more complicated than that even though I do t think that's what you wanted in a response. What I mean by that is I would only be able to answer for myself in the world I'm describing where all people govern themselves so if I'm enforcing my law I would say as an asexual person there would be no consent at all because I wouldn't be having sex or giving permission for anyone else to have sex with me. But also in that world there could be other people who don't want consent minimums and if they personally dont believe that there would be nothing stopping them legally because there would be no laws.
  But if your asking me in the present system that we have right now if there should be a minimum, I would say still false but only assuming that there had to be laws. >
  
  
  False
  
  Award a delta if you've acknowledged a change in your view.
  Original view:
  
  cmv: all justice is revenge and we shouldn't have laws
  
  New view:
  
  cmv: all justice is revenge but we should have age of consent laws >
  
  Leviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil, Thomas Hobbes, 1651.
  Maybe you don’t have time to read the entire book, but even its Wikipedia page should offer you some good points. >
  
  Counterpoint: a "might makes right" system of governance is incredibly stupid and inefficient, and lead to the almost immediate collapse of whatever civilization is idiotic enough to attempt it. The survivors would then form new governments and pass laws to ensure the operation and stability of said government, because civilization cannot work without some degree of restricting the actions of people 
  There is a good reason why the only anarchists are children and people who dont understand the human mind: anarchy doesn't work. >
  
  
  There is a good reason why the only anarchists are children and people who dont understand the human mind: anarchy doesn't work.
  
  Looks pretty old for a child >
  
  Then I guess he falls into the second category. >
  
  Cool, no laws. I'll just kill you take your stuff and kidnap/rape any hot chicks in your immediately vicinity. 
  The reason I don't do that stuff is because a significant number of people with bigger guns than I have would come and capture/kill me and they'd strike when I'm most vulnerable on top of that. 
  Most people are more that than will admit. >
  
  Then you just have to be more powerfulthan the bigger gun guy. Then it becomes rule of power vs rule of law. Things is right now it's really rule of power via rule of law because currently that is how it works, but the guys with the biggest guns are the lawmakers and the law enforcers >
  
  So what's the difference between what we have now and what you are proposing? >
  
  Boy, if you think our current system is bad, you're gonna hate what happens when Bezos and Musk and Gates and the like get to decide what is and is not moral. >
  
  I would enjoy pillaging and burning the cities on the way down, so that seems like a win to me >
  
  Or, more likely, you'll get shot by one of their hired security goons.
  Everyone thinks they're gonna be the raiders in post apocalypse and not the people those raiders prey on.