Law and order

The "law" is mainly a commercial thing there to protect wealth, and one or two to stop us attacking each other. If we could get rid of the need for money, and tell people that they can own some land and have a car, phone, laptop, food, ect all for free, do we really need any laws other than the ones that apply to us all, i.e human rights?

Otherwise are there any laws that you would like to see?

I know too many i would love to see go, for example nothing that comes from nature can be illegal because it is nature. you should be able to grow your own food and collect water from anywhere you like, unrestricted.

Human rights- pregnancy and abortion- animal and non-human species rights- natural objects- bacteria and viruses

I honestly hope that human rights are the only laws we will need, that the Earth's resources are to be free for all, but not to be exploited to the point where replenishment becomes difficult. Adults (to be defined at a later point) should be allowed to do as they please with their body (whether drugs, risky sex, extreme sports, suicide, being a firefighter, jumping from the edge of space). In cases where a person is behaving destructively, an intervention and gentle words may be desirable, but in no case should force be used, the only exception being the defense of others. People do not always reason the same as you or me (PTSD, post-natal depression, addictions and dependencies) they are to be supported, not controlled.

Women and Pregnancy- should there be laws that safeguard a potential human being?
In the case of a woman, she controls her body and remains sovereign at all times throughout her life. However, where pregnancy is desired, the health of the (future) child should be considered BY THE MOTHER (it is not up to you if a pregnant woman smokes tobacco, she and her child should be offered any and all support whether she gives up or not). Where pregnancy occurs but is NOT desired there should not be any constraints on a woman's behaviour. We can only hope in our world that pregnant mothers wont smoke crack whether or not they want a child, there can be no justification to coerce her based on the fact that she has a potential human life inside of her body. Intervention and persuasion may be advised, expert advice sought and given but never admittance to rehab, mental health institutions or any other such 'institution' which may see fit to put limits on her behavior. Abortion should be 'legal' but an option that is taken as a last resort, there would be a reduced need with increased material/financial security. In other words abortion would ideally occur only where the woman actively does not want a child, and not for practical/social reasons (i.e.lack of time/ space/ money to support the child, to keep a career, to finish higher education, social stigma of being younger than average/ single). These current problems for women would not exist in a fair world so naturally the abortion rate would be lower.

Non- human species and rights, natural object rights
What does everyone else think? How do we go about affording rights/ laws which govern potential human lives and other species? Should we all be vegan or is factory farming perfectly acceptable? Should we explore the sea-beds using equipment that may damage marine life? Should we preserve the planet for the people by sacrificing other forms of life? Should anti-bacterial sprays be illegal? Can we hunt pandas for sport? Do we draw the line at 'sentient being' and how could this be measured? Can we eat pro-biotic yogurt? Can we genetically engineer mosquitos to reduce malaria incidence in humans?

I think: nothing should be sacrificed for humans, neither the other way around, veganism is the ideal, ethical farming (which affords animals the same rights as humans) is a must, the only natural things for human enjoyment are those which cannot be damaged by our use of them (cuddling a puppy= great. walking up a hill= great. cooking a puppy for fun= no. quarrying = no filming whales= yes. searching their habitat with sonar strong enough to upset the habitat and creatures in it= no) Bacteria and viruses are fair game, mosquitos arent really fair game, i guess thats where my 'sentient being' line is.

OK, so I just put a lot out there, we cant all agree on everything I'm just trying to get a level and see where we are at. What is absolutely so unacceptable that we need a law for it? And do we afford applicable human rights to other species, and inanimate natural objects?

We seem to agree Balearicdreams on most things. I would say that a mosquito is annoying and dangerous, so is a spider... but so are we.

Even Bacteria is alive, conscious is a relative term, i can see the ant gets scared, i can see the bacteria moves away from things that cause it harm, there is a definite level of knowing here.

I think we need to eat without getting sick, and to not get bitten with disease bearing bugs, but a bug is alive... I'm still going to whack that mosquito or those reallllly annoying flies out in the bush though... does that make me bad? As far as i'm concerned try not to harm anything, then you are doing the right thing, but don't be harmed in the process. I think just to see people taking care of the planet and the 'higher' life forms (bigger anyway) would be a freking amazing place to start though.

So lets assume for this scenario that we agree on 1. a basic set of rights for living things, (although principles of inter-species interaction would not be set in stone) 2. if material scarcity was non-existent, laws to protect property would be redundant.

So what laws do we really need to protect one another from one another? Do we all agree that human rights are a necessary law? And are there any other rights that you feel should be protected as law? (such as right to gather water as mentioned in the OP)

Getting people to agree without force is the key, and the way i see it we don't need laws in the new world, and the only reason i mentioned rights (human or otherwise) is that everyone can see that they benifit from them as much as the next person. You have these X rights, but in return for them you should respect the rights of others. Simple, easy and efficient, no confusion.

If we think about a world that runs effecietly and openly and where property is a obsolete idea and information is truly free the only thing we have to be concerned about is over use of materials, and how things are produced.

Between human rights, sentient* life rights and earth rights I think we can cover all the bases for humanity and the world to co-exist in peace and harmony. The attitude of sharing and caring, peace and love should take care of the rest, especially when you consider that the tell a lie vision will be re-programmed for purer means.

* Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or to experience subjectivity. Eighteenth century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think (reason) from the ability to feel (sentience). In modern western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations (known in philosophy of mind as "qualia"). For Eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that requires respect and care. The concept is central to the philosophy of animal rights, because sentience is necessary for the ability to suffer, which is held to entail certain rights.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]