OR
humans are inherently wrong

By humans I mean the animal humans naturally are.
Law demands these animals do not behave in the way evolution sculpted them to behave.

Would you side with the law on this? Do you feel evolution made a mistake, that humans are inherently an incorrect animal?
What do you base this on?

First and foremost, evolution programmed humans to survive. That’s largely what laws are about; we all recognize that we stand a much better chance of surviving if we live in a society of law, rather than in total anarchy. All of the impulses that laws require us to suppress were initially developed in order to help keep us alive. Now we’re suppressing those same impulses in the pursuit of our higher goal of survival. So in a way, yes, you could say that nature got it wrong (at least from a survival standpoint) since we’re all more likely to survive if we live together in a lawful society rather than the way in which our more primitive instincts might dictate.

That being said, it’s a little absurd to talk about evolution being right or wrong. There is no fundamental ‘correctness’ about anything in evolution or nature. Organisms simply are what they are, and they succeed in passing on their genes or they don’t. There isn’t really any rightness or wrongness about any of it.

I'm currently having a hangup with the inherent wrongness of law over the fact that we don't reproduce asexually. In any remotely cooperative endeavor, "rules" have a way of forming. They seem inherent to cooperation, sort of like something must exist before we can talk about what it is.

I mean, even if the rule is "put it in the right hole and don't ejaculate on the ground," there are still some basic rules to the cooperative endeavor.

Nasor put it right :)
and also let's not forget that lawyers need to eat also ;)

Oh I would agree laws are vital for civilisation's success. But thats beside the point. If the only problem people had with people breaking the law was that they were not helping society I think their anger would be akin to someone who's angry with someone over not following cooking instructions.
Law is considered to be an ethical issue, largely. It is unethical to break the law, you are wrong for breaking the law and should be blamed because you are a bad human being, not just counterproductive. I'd agree that its counterproductive to break the law. It is actually like not following instructions.
But 'wrong' ? That seems like a big call.

Maybe evolution isn't right or wrong nasor, but by calling the actions of a human being wrong, you are calling evolution wrong whether you like it or not.
You seem to be trying to seperate evolution from the real world, like it is just something in your biology text book.
I think evolution is right, I think its earned that title at least, how animals behave is correct. Everything is either correct or incorrect.
The world functioning is right, I see that as a given. Most seem to see society functioning as a given 'right'. Things are wrong because 'duh they are counter productive to society'.
Well from my perspective, suppressing instincts is wrong, because its counter productive to the planet. Civilisation was based on natural sin. Laws encourage immoral behaviour.
etc and so forth.

It really is 2 sides that are at odds with one another. What never ceases to amaze me is how many athiests side with the bible's civilisation. Basically everyone follows jesus's rules and is ashamed when they don't. I don't see why athiests everywhere aren't embracing their animal selves. We now know what we want is not wrong, our urges aren't incorrect. If you're an athiest it should follow that you don't believe in written laws and religious morals. You know you are an animal, and the only thing you need to obey is instinct.
Sadly this isn't the affect atheism has had on people. If anything athiests seem to follow the 'what would jesus do?' motto more rigidly than christians do.
I would understand that atheists don't want to go to jail and so on, but they should still feel like law is wrong. That should be a big movement, you know what I mean? 'Atheists against the punishment of instincts' but no.
They just haven't gone that far in their thinking yet I guess. Because it does naturally follow that if there is no god, religious morality is artificial and the laws that were based on it to build civilisation are also artificial and we are in fact just animals and obeying our instinct is the correct way for animals to behave.
NEVER heard of an atheist other than myself that feels that way, and it boggles my mind.

Strictly speaking, wouldn't this mean that the species must make all decisions independent from their awareness of evolution? It seems you are making your judgement based upon your knowledge of evolution, and this could be alright given the a sufficiently complex organism would become aware of how it was created. It only becomes problem, I think, when humans alter their DNA. This is no problem for me, however. I don't attach a higher power directly to evolution, even though I believe God indirectly used the process to create us.

Strictly speaking, wouldn't this mean that the species must make all decisions independent from their awareness of evolution?
"Must"? I'd say they have been, and I think its time we took evolution into account. They 'must' if they would like christian society to continue flourishing, but the question is, why do they? If they don't believe in christianity? :confused:

It only becomes problem, I think, when humans alter their DNA
Why at that point does it become a problem?
There is more to evolution than what can be seen through a microscope, it encompasses everything to do with living things, and more.
Altering behaviour is just as significant as altering dna.
Religion altered our behaviour and spawned laws which continue to alter our behaviour. Non-religious people, I would think, should not agree with this and should want to behave as we are supposed to naturally behave. But they are generally just as enthusiastic about obeying religion as the religious. I find that odd.

Why at that point does it become a problem?

If mankind ultimately choose his own genes, then we have traded nature's tradition of millions of years of evolution for man's perception of the perfect genotype. This is flawed, of course, because mankind's existence is not decided by his own choice but by nature.


There is more to evolution than what can be seen through a microscope, it encompasses everything to do with living things, and more.
Altering behaviour is just as significant as altering dna.

What your speaking of is the alteration of rash behavior. Mankind has also evolved the use of a brain, and while the rational functions achieved from the brain are not always directly coordinated with evolution, we neverless evolved to be rational creatures.

Acoordingly, the stimuli we respond to using our higher level mental capabilities is the result of evolution. It is our natural instinct to use our mind at certain times, and the choice not to use our mind would be just as unnatural as any rational decision. On the other hand, this switch off between the instinct must occur if we are to have a choice whatsoever.


Religion altered our behaviour and spawned laws which continue to alter our behaviour. Non-religious people, I would think, should not agree with this and should want to behave as we are supposed to naturally behave. But they are generally just as enthusiastic about obeying religion as the religious. I find that odd.

Certainly religion has fullfilled some purpose for mankind? Why else would almost every tribe known have some sort of religious belief? Religion seems to be a naturual belief beginning with man's use of abstraction. In order to have the ability to perceive higher workings, order, and patterns in the world mankind must see what is not there. This seems perfectly natural, as observed in children.

The law is a means whereby the top dog can win (even if he first lost)

It is biased, and pushed by police who are nothing better than a nazi mob.
They lie in court and hold human grudges and emotions.
Ain't no justice there.

But it is better than any MAD muscle power... without a set of rules

I believe in sane anarchy.... which can only be practiced by people who have an untainted conscience, which comes from being NOT metal poi-soned.
The common direct conscience (laid down inately by LIFE) is the only criterion for law.
It is then the only law that has the foresight to lead LIFE to its ultimate destiny.

No human mind can do this. Only fools think they can map the path by walking, then changing the rules as they go.

This is why there is only 96 months left.

Good is profitable in the long term. Evil is profitable in the short term. A lot of love and understanding, mixed with a little treachery will take you farther than any of these alone. Laws are to regulate what is acceptable revenge

Good is profitable in the long term. Evil is profitable in the short term
I would without question argue the truth is the exact opposite of that statement.
'Good' is overpopulating the planet and depleting resources. You haven't even seen the long term effects of 'good' yet.

Over populating is bad. Wasting resources is bad. Both are profitable in the short term.

Overpopulating is caused by what you would call 'good' as is depletion of resources. Overpopulating isn't an action, its a result, a result of human rights and the like. Now I'd wager that you would think human rights are good. "Good" is profitable in the short term. Evil (I feel stupid calling nature evil) is profitable in the long term.

The countries that have a high regard for human right are the countries with the slowest rate of growth if you take away immigration. Overpopulation is caused by a lack of opportunities and education.

Laws are what allow humans to work in large packs called cities which allow us to specialize and reach our full potential. They allow us options that are not present in smaller communities. In the past two hundred years we have gone from horses to space shuttles. I am optimistic in the limitless potential of humanity for both good and evil. I think most people are capable of choosing to take the long view and do “good”. Betrayal is one example of evil being profitable in the short term but as a practice it breeds suspicion and fear. Hate is a powerful motivational tool but clouds your perception and restricts the number of acceptable options for your decisions.

About a reference to why do atheists believe in religious morality, is because the atheist morality comes close to the religious one. Any basic philosophy of morality can be accomplished without a need of religion. I can go through some arguments to point this out but it can be shown fairly simple that from a few axioms you pick, you can come up with a few rules that will generally expand to be the atheist morality. On the other hand, you can pick a religious axiom, and arrive at a morality that is remarkably the same. I don't find it odd that atheists believe in religious morality, because there isn't much difference between the two.

Additionally, a comment about laws. I venture to say that the reason why a lot of people are following them, regardless of your moral view of the situation, is because the rule of law is the new environment we find ourselves in. Just like our ancestors thousands of years ago had to survive in a forest, with wild animals and diseases and so on, we have to survive in a country, with laws and regulations and so on.

Lastly, to references of overpopulating the planet and having limitless potential of humanity. I have to bring in the view here that humans are a lot like a virus (and yes, I did see the Matrix). Some viruses are successful, and some aren't. And the definition of success for a virus is to populate a host, and not kill it before it spreads. Is that good? Is that evil? It's evolutionarily successful right? Some even claim that viruses are the pinnacle of evolutionary ladder. I think things just are. We can argue about right or wrong, but things just are. Go ahead and define right and define wrong, whatever the definitions are, those can be axioms and fundamentals of our arguments. But if you define them differently, then what? I know, spoken like a true moral relativist. I assure you my definitions of right and wrong are different than yours, and I can also tell you that they change based on the direction of my instincts, depending on what situation I find myself in.

Lou: ever read the Social Contract? I think Rousseau deals with a lot of what you're talking about...and deals well.

OR
humans are inherently wrong

By humans I mean the animal humans naturally are.
Law demands these animals do not behave in the way evolution sculpted them to behave.

Would you side with the law on this? Do you feel evolution made a mistake, that humans are inherently an incorrect animal?
What do you base this on?

This is called a False Dichotomy. The statement, "Either humans are wrong or law is wrong," is not mutually exclusive, and therefore does not follow.

A great majority of crimes are so-called "crimes of passion," wherein the perpetrator feels regret (usually immediately), and was acting in an enflamed state of mind at the time of commission. The bulk of the remainder are "crimes of opportunity," wherein the perpetrator foresees some gain from the crime whichoutweighs any potential harm he may be causeing. Finally, you have the rare group of whack jobs who are incapable of differentiating between right and wrong.

Wherein is "human badness" necesitated?

If you think human behaviour, whatever it may be, needs governance, restrictions, punishment etc you obviously think human behaviour is wrong. There isn't much of an argument.
Law is wrong, or the way humans naturally behave is. If humans were right they wouldn't need law. Dragonflies and sharks get by without being told what they can and can't do. As stock standard they are correct. They function on earth as they should and everything is right. What law automatically implies is that the animal that is man can not have such freedom, something is not right with him and he must be forced to behave a certain way, he can't follow his instincts, there is something wrong with them.

Talk2farley you obviously agree with this, you talk about crimes and whackjobs as though it is a given that they are incorrect. You think evolution makes mistakes I guess.

I'd like to know how you can deem a whack job as wrong, the whack job is a natural product of life on earth, obviously deemed ok by natural selection at this point, as he does in fact exist, so why now are you some all powerful judge that is needed to correct natures mistakes?

If you examine animal behavior at even the most basic level, basic morality is revealed. Interspecies killing is both rare, and frowned upon. A herd of lions, for example, will box to solve civil problems (say, territorial rights), but these duels are controlled conflicts that seldom result in death. You will not see a pair of lionas randomly kill oneanother without reason or cause. Not so far as human observation or studies of animal behavior have revealed.

Morality itself is nothing but an evolutionary necesity included to allow herd species to function productively. On his own, primitive man was incapable of survival. Sure, if he lived alone, hunted alone, etc. he would not have had to share the fruits of his labor with the rest of the tribe. However, he would not have survived.

So man did not operate as a solitary species; he accepted the requirement for cooperation with his fellow hominids. And in order for these tribes to function and work appropriately, certain basic precepts must be established, namely that murder and theft are unacceptable. This is not some higher undersanding of an individuals right to life; its basic herd survival instinct. If two members of the herd kill one another, the herd as a whole is weakened. Similarly, if the herd cannot rely on its members to fairly distribute the spoils of its labors, the herd cannot productively function. All law is a simple extrapolation from this basic foundation: protection from force and fraud. One might look at modern law as a great departure from core natural law, but if you examine the justifying logic behind it, the connection holds.

Psychology tells us that those incapable of differentiating between right and wrong, at the raw and most fundamental level, are not "natural" results, any more than any other deformity (mental or otherwise) can be considered natural. They are broken; the goal is finding out why, and how. Usually, this is dependent on some form of abuse or great stress, be it mental or physical, prior to and during childhood. If they were deemed "ok" by natural selection, human beings would not have an instinctual revulsion to such deformity.

My point above was to demonstrate that when human beings commit crimes, they do not necesarrily do so because they are "evil" at some basic level, but because they were under the impression that:

A, the benefit of their crimes outweighed the cost.
B, they did not fully consider the ramifications of their actions.
or, rarely, C, they were incapable of appreciating the basic social morality that holds society, defined as cooperating men, together.

Therefore, humans must have the means of preventing the above three scenarios from occuring, since this is counterproductive to the concept of social survival.

If you examine animal behavior at even the most basic level, basic morality is revealed. Interspecies killing is both rare, and frowned upon.


I think that this statement is incorrect. A member of the same species is a bigger rival in the struggle of life than a member of another species.

Lions will most of the time kill the pups when they take over the leadership of a group. This is not frowned upon. Lionesses will mate without qualm with the new leader.

Chimpansees are known for killing their own.

There is this classic example of a group of chimps splitting in two. One group was bigger than the other. Members of this group would stalk the periphery of their territory with the smaller group and kill a member that they find alone and vulnerable. After a while all the members of the smaller group had been killed or had rejoined the old group.

Human values are not natural very few animals demonstrate the capability to conceive of the future much less plan for it. When you look at some of the basic human values there is usually some advantage in each one. Don’t kill= everyone has to sleep some time. Treat others as you would like to be treated = there is always someone bigger than you. If you name a basic human law I can show you how it supports human survival. We allow for specialization without predator control and that is a problem that we will deal with in time.

Oh I would agree laws are vital for civilisation's success. But thats beside the point. If the only problem people had with people breaking the law was that they were not helping society I think their anger would be akin to someone who's angry with someone over not following cooking instructions.
Law is considered to be an ethical issue, largely. It is unethical to break the law, you are wrong for breaking the law and should be blamed because you are a bad human being, not just counterproductive. I'd agree that its counterproductive to break the law. It is actually like not following instructions.
But 'wrong' ? That seems like a big call. I disagree. Many people follow the law as a matter of pragmatism. Maybe you're just spending all your time with self-righteous zealots? I would strongly suggest reading 'The Social Contract' by Rousseau. It's considered one of the preeminent pieces of writing on the origin of laws and society. Rousseau argues pretty convincingly that people originally started living in lawful societies because it increased their chances of survival, and that this is the foundation upon which all society and law is based. Or should be based, anyway. Maybe evolution isn't right or wrong nasor, but by calling the actions of a human being wrong, you are calling evolution wrong whether you like it or not.
You seem to be trying to seperate evolution from the real world, like it is just something in your biology text book.
I think evolution is right, I think its earned that title at least, how animals behave is correct. Everything is either correct or incorrect. You're missing my point. I'm saying that people working together in a society of law is the next step in human evolution. Humans who are able to control their impulses and work together productively are much more likely to be evolutionarily successful than humans who can't. You seem to view lawful society and the suppression of impulses as us straying from evolution, but that isn't the case. Living cooperatively in a society is just as valid a strategy for species survival as any other strategy found in nature. Instinctual impulses are just one of the many tools that animals can use to be evolutionarily successful, but you seem to have some sort of fixation with them.Sadly this isn't the affect atheism has had on people. If anything athiests seem to follow the 'what would jesus do?' motto more rigidly than christians do.
I would understand that atheists don't want to go to jail and so on, but they should still feel like law is wrong. That should be a big movement, you know what I mean? 'Atheists against the punishment of instincts' but no.
They just haven't gone that far in their thinking yet I guess.I would say it is you who haven't gotten far enough along in your thinking. You reject religious moral values as arbitrary and artificial, but by trying to use nature as a model for correct moral behavior you're just replacing religion with another, equally arbitrary value system. If you truly believe that morals are artificial human inventions, then you should realize that your nature-based moral system is just are artificial as any religious system. Yes, your moral values are based on something that exists in the real world, but you're failing to realize that there isn't really any reason to consider 'natural' behavior to be superior to 'unnatural' behavior. So other animals do it – so what? Worse, your value system isn't even very useful. At least the religious value systems usually have some utilitarian value, but it isn't clear that your 'natural' system would be of any benefit to anyone. By following your value system and giving in to all my natural impulses I would be drastically reducing my chances for a happy, healthy life.

You're falling into the trap of believing that there's something fundamentally correct about the way things are in nature. This is sometimes referred to as the 'naturalistic fallacy'. There's nothing inherently good, right, or moral about nature. It simply is. What logical basis do you have for believing that following out instincts is the morally correct way to behave?

OR
humans are inherently wrong

By humans I mean the animal humans naturally are.
Law demands these animals do not behave in the way evolution sculpted them to behave.

Would you side with the law on this? Do you feel evolution made a mistake, that humans are inherently an incorrect animal?
What do you base this on?

Man-made law is part of nature because man is part of nature - end of story.

Yes wes... and its natural that I'm starting to realise what a load of shit it is. And it will be natural when I cause an uprising of biblical proportions and change the face of the world as we know it. At least it would be if I did that, might as well give it a shot to see if its natural right?

Nasor,
What logical basis do you have for believing that following out instincts is the morally correct way to behave?

They weren't man made, thats pretty much it. Instincts are something we can't feel guilty about satisfying. The law disagrees, but we can look up at the stars and nod knowing we are correct, they are what we truely are, not something that has been imposed on us. We're like dogs trying to take a piss on telephone polls but being yanked away by our owners, fuck our owners, we gotta mark us some territory, nature instilled that into us for a reason.

If its possible to be wrong, like actually wrong in a way we should feel guilty about, it isn't by disobeying the law, but by disobeying our instincts.
You say I'm replacing religion with another just as arbitrary... how can you say there is anything arbitrary about the natural universe? Is there anything that isn't arbitrary to you? If nature is I can't imagine what you could justify as being significant.
Its another case of IF, if something is significant, its the natural world, you can committ to your proposal of everything being arbitrary, but this requires wandering around aimlessly and not behaving in any way, you can side with modern society but when you look back and see what its based on there are alot of things you have to trust which you really shouldn't.
Its just like religion, people don't have a problem with throwing away the belief in god but they don't extend that into throwing away the society that was based on the assumption of his existence.
The knowledge that increased suspicion over god's existence was that of the natural world. This knowledge is incredibly significant in my honest opinion. This is what we actually are, where we actually are, how we are here etc etc. This knowledge shouldn't stop with saying 'god probably doesn't exist', it should have a huge impact on everything. We should go back to the drawing board and really think about what we are doing. In doing so the sudden realisation is likely to come forthwith; We are supposed to do what we want to do. There is nothing left to obey but our animal selves, which by extension would be obeying the natural world and universe. The things which we owe our existence to.

Yes it is replacing one religion with another, except I'm proposing to replace it with one based on reality as opposed to one based on what we know is utter bullshit. You are all defending christianity, why? Don't you understand that you are? Law does traditionally rely on the assumption god exists, thats the whole reason it was ever accepted in the first place, now you try to justify god's law by saying its helpfull to society? That seems so ironic to me, because the society it is helping is based on it, of course it helps it, thats beside the point, if you don't believe in god you shouldn't want to help it. We're so conditioned for it that its the first thing we assume is correct, natural history tells us otherwise.
Athiests are supposed to believe in natural history, not god.

Law does traditionally rely on the assumption god exists, thats the whole reason it was ever accepted in the first place, now you try to justify god's law by saying its helpfull to society? No! Again, I suggest you read 'The Social Contract' by Rousseau.

You seem to be equating 'instinct' with 'natural'. Instincts are just one of the many tools that animals use to survive. There are plenty of others, including intelligence, which is the main tool of humans. We allow our intelligence and rationality to dominate over our instincts because it increases our chances of surviving, living a happy life, and just generally being evolutionarily successful. Evolution programmed you to survive. You must realize that you're more likely to survive if everyone works together in a lawful society than if everyone acts solely on their instincts. Our reliance on intellect rather than instinct is in no way unnatural. Evolution and natural selection gave us our brains precisely so that we could rationally evaluate our actions rather than simply being slaves to our instincts. You propose that we should follow our instincts because you think it would be more natural, but actually it is your 'morality of instincts' that is unnatural, because to follow it we would have to stop using the primary tool that nature has provided for us: our intelligence. It's no more 'natural' for us to run around acting on whatever instinct happens to pop into our head than it is for a dog to build a skyscraper.

You seem to be totally hung up on the idea that all law is because of religion, but that isn't true. The intelligence that nature has provided for me as my primary tool for survival tells me that I am more likely to survive if I live in a lawful society. End of story. I don't need to appeal to god, morality, or anything else. If there are laws, I am more likely to survive, and survival is what nature is all about.

nasor all intelligence is lost when our live's are threatened so it is instinct first and foremost
one man's law is another's indifference,when in rome do as the roman's do etc.

End of story is silly statement as it's not is it

Heroism is just the ability to ignore your fear for five minutes. There are people who are able to act calmly when terrified and their lives are in danger. The ability to reason is what makes us human. Laws are a tool to increase the reliability of our reaction to each other this predictability is what allows us to live together as a society. The difference between laws and customs is that laws are enforced consistently by the state and customs or instincts are only enforced informally and the punishments for violations are not as consistent.

Well I'd hate to state the obvious, but aren't laws part of our evolution? Heh. So what's the problem? We don't know our place in the universe so we can't say what is right or wrong -- we can only feel and assume.

Sure, we can all go back to the basics and be little people in loincloths and spears, but who is to say that's how we're supposed to be? So we continue to advance and that's how laws come to be. If one wants to advance, one can't stay "in the basics". So whether law is wrong or not in the hinderances it may or may not give, that's part of the balance that is needed for us to advance and well, that's evolution so they're both one in the same thing.

There's so such thing as morals or right and wrong when we're not our creator to know what those rules are, if there's any period. And then if there are rules, why are our rules different from our creator's (if they are)? Morals are just rules that are agreed upon in the now. They change all the time like yesterday's underwear. What was once shunned upon is now common place. So there's no real rules set in stone otherwise we'd have the same laws as we did when we were in those loincloths chuckin spears.

So I wouldn't say laws or humans are wrong. The extremeties of each are wrong. Rely too much on those animal instincts and it's bad. Have too many laws and it's bad too. Just use those basic human instincts and you're fine and just use those basic laws and we're fine as well. Too much of either is when problems happen. Too many laws restrict us when it shouldn't be and too much animal instinct leads to chaos. Balance is what we need and it's why both still exist and are part of evolution.

- N

nasor all intelligence is lost when our live's are threatened so it is instinct first and foremost
one man's law is another's indifference,when in rome do as the roman's do etc.

End of story is silly statement as it's not is itSince it would be trivially easy to give all sorts of examples of life-threatening situations where people respond calmly and rationally – especially when the people in question have special training – I don't know why you would even bother trying to claim something so silly.

Of course most laws is unnatural, but not laws. There is such a thing as natural law, which transcends all beings and is a universal truth for all humanity. I don’t think in any culture there is any form of dogma that allows murder of completely innocent people. Natural law has many implications, and many problems but laws exist in nature as well as in mankind. In nature although the law is not written down they are implied. Positive law theory is what I presume this conversation is really about. Positive law deals with things that nature doesn’t have things like corporate management crimes, drunk drivers, cars for that matter. I personally don’t buy the concept that no laws would lead to anarchy, I think it would lead to a temporary period of anarchy. Animals live in a constant state of anarchy, yet are they dying in WWII-esqe wars? No, humanity started without “law” as well yet was able to survive. When systems collapse we as humanity have to bond together and reach the communistic/anarcho system of interdependence, like we did during the time of the cave man.

Dr. Lou you seem almost apologetic about being the supreme predator on this planet. Why? It's not your fault you were born superior to every other species on Earth. Stop apologizing for it and embrace it. You have it better and easier than any other thing that has to make a living everday on this ball of rock and water. You are the animal planet junkie, right? You should already know that.

If you really think you're ready for a state of nature experience it can be arranged anytime you're ready. Just do something and watch what happens. They are always making room for people like you who think you're smarter than nature. Leavenworth and Attica are full of flaming geniuses like yourself. I'm not sure if you will have internet access from the inside or not, but at least send me a few letters updating me on your progress as the powers inside give you a crash course on nature everynight, 10 or 12 teachers at a time. American History X in the shower? Remember that scene? That will be you. If you continue to be obstinate once inside you will die very quickly, much like the fate of most of the of the too-smart for the world fuckwits that get sentenced to prison every single day around the world. Maybe you could join Al-Qaeda and get yourself sent to GitMo? That is supposedly one of the best case studies in nature presently showing.

You probably should read up a bit more on this supposed state of nature that you think you would thrive in before you go spouting off about how law is based on christianity and whatnot. You sound very naive. That sort of thinking usually leads to someone bashing in your skull in a parking lot somewhere because you simply couldn't get the lesson. Good luck Dr. Lou. ;)