Ah well, I simply cannot resist the urge to feed an inquisitive mind.
Violence is a rather hard thing to measure, statistically. But if you look at human history, there was *never* such a thing as a society without laws and I don't see the possibility of one forming in the future. Any place where there are people, there are rules (whether written down or not). Those rules might be decided by a gang leader or by an elected democratic council, but they are always there. I would say that good laws help limit violence, and bad laws promote it.
2007-08-05 21:18:57
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
No the only way there would be no violence under anarchy is if there was no competition for resources. Scarcity of resources and a large population ensures competition, and in my view, without a political system to regulate and control this competition, violence would be inevitable as people clashed over the best food, property and other material possesions.
Unless of course in removing all laws you also removed the concept of private property rights. If noone could 'own' anything, there might be no reason to fight. However, at some point everything has to be consumed by someone, even if it is just them camping in a good spot for the night, and there would be competition for the best spots.
2007-08-05 23:59:44
·
answer #2
·
answered by laurie_plan 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
There were no laws on the books when Cain killed his brother. There has been violence since the beginning of time with or without laws, and there will be violent acts until we no longer exist as a species.
2007-08-06 16:13:53
·
answer #3
·
answered by Brian C 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Is this a serious question? A society with no laws would be anarchy.
No driving rules would be insane, as there would be no rhyme or reason to people on the streets, and the number of traffic fatalities would skyrocket.
The concepts of ownership would mean nothing, as would personal freedoms and rights.
The amount of violence would increase drastically, as there would be no punishment for any immoral deeds.
2007-08-06 00:58:40
·
answer #4
·
answered by Vindicaire 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
No. But I'm not convinced there would be much more either.
People behave in pro-social ways not just because laws exist, but because it's easy to understand what type of behavior is pro-social vs. anti-social in nature, and why pro-social behavior is better (forms friendships/allies and contributes to one's success and chances of survival).
The people who CAN'T make this distinction and therefore break laws are behaving that way regardless of the existence of the law. There is no deterrent for them. The impulse to offend overrides the reminder that it's wrong.
In reality, laws don't exist to create punishments or deter criminals. They exist to give people the illusion that their homeland is just.
2007-08-05 23:55:57
·
answer #5
·
answered by Buying is Voting 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Violence starts with LAW only .
Our law makers are also the law breakers .
And it is the start point of violence .
2007-08-06 00:47:51
·
answer #6
·
answered by Jacky.- the "INDIAN". 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
In the case of drugs absolutely! Laws prohibiting drugs *create* drug crime. Remember Al Capone? He built an empire of crime due to government drug laws.
Laws do not keep people moral. Your neighbors are not piloting to kill you if only.. darn it.. that pesky police car that drives by ever 12 hours wasn't there.
To the cop above. Laws are not moral, don't make me laugh.
2007-08-06 01:08:44
·
answer #7
·
answered by k X 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
Well.....some laws actually cause the violence.
If there were no drugs laws, and they sold and taxed it. We wouldn't have drug dealers or the entire criminal element that is currently involved in dealing drugs.
So, in that aspect...yes.
2007-08-05 23:59:29
·
answer #8
·
answered by Ouck Fbama 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
no most likely more if theres no law to be broken no one would be brought to justice for wrong doing
2007-08-06 00:00:10
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
no, some poeple are violent for no reason at all, regardless of laws
2007-08-06 00:07:38
·
answer #10
·
answered by DONNAGAN 6
·
1⤊
0⤋