Well said. C4 anyone?

*checks pockets* I'm out of it

Yet women can vote, own property, and work, without a single bomb dropped or gun fired. After slavery was ended, while there was indeed violence, the actually effective methods to promote racial equality were emphatically nonviolent on the part of those who had no power.

That's an interesting thought in theory.. history has proven otherwise.

You cite some good examples. However in the case of the racial equality movement they had to deal with resisting a great deal of violence.

The women's rights movement didn't have to deal with actual legal regulations restricting them. Merely legal omissions being corrected. In their case the use of violence was not disproportionate as there was no need to hold them to the law.

In either case the legal framework actually preventing those goals was relatively minimal.

Ah, but there you have it. Resisting violence, not creating it. While there were several groups that were open to violent methods, (The Black Panthers, for example) the greatest changes came from people like and inspired by Martin Luther King. Simply a matter of being more stubborn than the people with the bigger guns worked quite well. Once people stopped fighting the change, they eventually accepted it, as is human nature.

With regards to womens' suffrage, I quite disagree. Much of those actions were actually codified in law. In fact, it wasn't that long ago when women were considered the legal property of their husbands. Those women who fought for the right to vote were persecuted and often jailed during the early twenties.

There's quite a lot of fascinating history behind both movements, and nonviolent methods in general. (Why do you think Ghandi was so famous?)

Changes brought about solely by violence can actually have a detrimental effect, and the backlash is much more severe. Kind of like a democracy forced onto a people by an unwelcome outside entity is one that is tenuous at best. Like in Iraq; I'd be amazed if anything we created there will hold up in the next twenty years. Violent dictators who attain power through force of arms rarely last more than a couple years.

I would instead posit that you actually have it backwards. It isn't creating change that involves the threat of violence, even in the most abstract sense, it's preventing change. Enforcing the status quo. I had more to back up this theory, but sadly, I believe my brains have leaked out my ears by this point due to the early hour.

You do have it right that violence is not the only tool of change. But it is an integral part of it. Whether it is directed at the foe or through resistance, it is inescapable.

Gandhi succeeded due to economic aggression. He helped effectively halt the economic viability of India for Britain.

So you are correct that effective change does not rely on the use of violence, but it does rely on the ability to overcome violence.

"Do what I say or I'll smack you!"
"No!"
*Smack*
"I'm still not gonna do what you say!"

He preached nonviolence and passive-aggressive methods. Being stubborn and obstructive, but never violent, yeah.

Oh, I agree, any major shift in a society will have a violent backlash, it's an inevitable result when those on the losing side refuse to adapt to changing conditions. Just part of our nature.

So yeah.

Unless that demonstrating is slowing production or something similar.

That method also relies on violence. If slowing production is seen as harmful to those that have the power they will not hesitate to use their violent capacity against the demonstrators. In which case the demonstrators need to be able to respond in kind or fail.

in American right now there are 80,000,000 firearms owners wielding 200,000,000 firearms

and yet The LAW is attempting to strip them of these firearms and the Constitutional RIGHT to own them

I would say that The Law is being used unequally, unfairly, and not by the strong but rather by the weak to FORCE the strong to be weak.

to give the minority the power over the majority.
just one example

It's a matter of perspective. The masses believe themselves bound by the law, when in fact they are capable of deciding what is law through the same methods as those that have previously imposed them.

you will never see a law denying the right to bare firearms because it would lead to an uprising.

The reason that you have the right to bare arms dates back to the founding of the country and it is part of an oath, forgotten, but its whispered echo is still present in the oath signed by those who protect this country. To defend the nation from all threats, foreign and domestic.

The law exists to remind the rulers that they serve the people as much as the people serve them. This does not mean that it is an open threat to rule by pole, people are too ignorant for that to be healthy. It is a warning spanning the generations, from the founding fathers to all whom follow them. This country is of the people, by the people, and for the people, act against their interests at your own peril.

there are already Hundreds of law restricting the right to keep and carry arms

I have yet to see an uprising.

and yet when 75,000 people match on washington, every news organization covers it...

but 2,000,000 people march on washington, only Fox News covers it.

yes, the two items are related. a minority is trying top usurp the majority... and the majority is stupid enough to allow it >.<

When Fox News is the only one to cover something, it's a pretty fair guess that the facts are going to be massively skewed. They did, after all, recently win a lawsuit fighting for their right to misrepresent and outright lie. They also have been caught using photos from larger gatherings in place of their often sparsely-populated protests.

The law, right now, isn't restricting gun ownership. In fact, in the last year and a half, I've seen a greater expansion of gun rights than in the previous eight.

But yeah, you're right. A minority is trying to usurp the majority. We'll just see how successful they'll be.

everything you just typed, with the exception of MAYBE the last line, is as partisan and F-ed up as I have ever read.

there is Bias in the mainstream media, and it's to the left. Fox is only "rightwing" compared to the rest of them.

That stuff he typed is true though.

The lawsuit in question I think took place in the mid 90's and was the result of a whistleblower exposing the false news stories.

Fox news was caught and exposed using footage from different rallies to depict the ones they were reporting on. It was so blatant that even the season was wrong.

The numbers they provided were also found to be very inaccurate based on aerial photo comparisons of similar gatherings.

really? Hm. first I'd heard of it. so I guess all those stories Dan Rather made up, and all the false accusations from the left about G.W. skipping the war can all be dismissed now that Fox has come clean?

or the horrible (and fake) things STILL being said about Governed Palin can all stop now that FAUX news has be outted?

Or how about how the Parks And Recreation Department estimated the Tea Party march at 1.5 to 2 MILLION, but CNN, ABC, SEE-BS, and PMsNBC all refused to cover it?

(basically, if using ONE incidence from over a decade ago is reason enough to discard an entire news corporation, don't you think they have ALL discredited themselves enough over the years?)

how does accusing other people of lying excuse someone else of lying?

doesn't. but dozens of examples could be pulled showing any news agency wasn't completely honest.

didn't fox news copp to it after the fact? admit their "mistake"
I have never heard Any other news org apologize for their attacks (which were all lies) on Bush, OR Palin.

I'll admit that I'm Biased, but anyone that knows me KNOWS that I am, so it's all good.
so, Most of the "news" organizations out there ARE biased, but they deny it. Fox, from what I have seen, at least TRIES to be fair and balanced.

Fox news has never admitted to their mistakes. Heck that's why they went with the lawsuit.

That lawsuit set a precedent for all news organizations.

You should probably do a bit more research before you try to defend Fox news as being fair and balanced.

and yet you take no issue with ignoring the actions of any of the other companies...

so may I presume that this is just another hit piece on fox, and ignore it as you would ignore the lies of CNN or Dan Rather?

(p.s. I am not writing this in HATE. there is little hate in me. just annoyed that one incident from over a decade ago dismisses any truth they are telling now)

The fact that Fox news is legally permitted to say anything they like from that event on doesn't imply that they might just be saying whatever they want?

I'm also not defending CNN or anyone else. Every news org is full of crap. Fox just happens to have an agenda and is a bit more blatant.

Just by what you've typed tells me your quite right leaning.

Now yes, I do believe that most of the news outlets are biased. But Fox is as far right as the rest combined lean left. You need to listen to all of them in order to try and discern the real deal. The truth is usually the gray area in between.


As for firearms, I think those who want them need to be given a psych eval to determine if they are competent enough to handle and wield a firearm properly.

I lean right by choice.

Yes, I listen to "the Left-Wing" media. 90% of the time they are all I can get on the radio.
there is also the truism from Sun Tsu "Know your enemy".

I'm not completely ignorant, I DO listen, and not just to find things I disagree with. I hope, each and every time I turn on the news that I will hear something that I agree with, and or makes me happy.

I should know better by now.

on firearms: who gets to make that judgment? and how can you trust them to always make the right call?
PLEASE do not say the government decides...

Gov sets the law, but the psych eval will be based on a licensed psychologist's decision.

I love my country, but I fear my government.

I think we are just going to have to disagree with each other on this topic. I don't see how we'd be able to come to a mutually acceptable middle ground.

Actully, I think they won the lawsuit just a couple months ago. Lemme see..

Huh. Guess I was wrong, yeah. February 2003. http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html

I just reviewed the story

ref: http://ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog.....rm_public.html
second video down on the left

FOX did not "win" the right to mislead. they got the whistleblower case thrown out.

I had not heard of this before, but I have heard of the ®BGH issue, and I oppose the use of ®BGH.

so, one point there.

hmmm... a news company being paid billions in advertising and insisting that a story NOT be run that sheds a bad light on one of their products. I can understand it, but these reporters should have had the wherewithal to move the story to another outlet.

NOT defending FOX, just saying if they didn't like the bull, they should have stepped over the cowpatty.

Reality has a liberal bias, I'm ashamed to admit. Everything I said is factually correct, and I can provide as much proof as you can desire for each and every claim. http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200911100063 is one such example. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it partisan.

Everything has a bias, but no, the news corporations are not as leftist as you are told to believe. Facts are not a liberal plot. The closest there is to a leftist news channel is MSNBC, and only because they have Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann. Hell, they hired a commentator who referred to Souter as a "goat fucking child molester." Yeah, that's one liberal mofo, right there. Fox is not just an extension of the Republican party, at this point, they pretty much run it.

It's quite obvious by your posts that you watch Fox, and specifically watch Glenn Beck. Unfounded claims, appeals to emotion, and outright attacks, as demonstrated by your post here. Expand your view. Watch the Daily Show and Colbert Report; it's funnier and you still get to be outraged. They also pick on Democrats! And while Jon may sometimes softball interviews, he and Stephen Colbert do plenty of factual pieces, while making it really obvious when they go out of context for the sake of humor.

Dude.. England. The only people there with firearms are special forces police. Even beat cops walk around with little more than a radio and a big stick.

and crime has gone thru the roof since that law was enacted. same for Australia, and every other local that adopted that stupid law saying that people are not ALLOWED to defend themselves.

personally, I like Kennesaw, Georgia. they have a law on the books clearly stating that if you are a homeowner within the city limits you are REQUIRED BY LAW to have a working firearm on your premises at all times.

There is no enforcement of that law, but crime drop significantly after that law was passed.

Look how the islamists are cowing European law.

They have been able to set themselves outside of european law, and basically write their own laws, due to their threat of violent actions if their stone age values are not respected.

It's only the most recent example :(

Those of the Islamic faith have become the Jews from times gone by... "they are forcing the european union to let them write their own laws by threat of violence" really? "they" are? all of "them"? even the ones just trying to get buy and dont give their religion a second thought unless someone screws with them over it? even the little boys and girls in school? all of "them"?

I'm not trying to be a dick, and probably failing cause i kinda am one.. but.. the way its phrased is...kinda dangerous.. you substitute the word "islamist" for any other minority group and it suddenly sounds alot worse...the dicks and extremists always stand out... and they do tend to get their way, but "they" usually speak only for their own goals, "they" want you to think that all of their minority is the same.....so that no one will listen when the normal every day person says "those" guys are insane... black panthers, the IRA... hell, the fugging KKK, white racists are shitheads! and every time i go in public and hold a door for a black lady i get this look like "oh my god, that shaven headed camo wearing skinhead is being nice to me! wtf is going on!"

...maybe i oughta stop shaving my head...it seems to be making people judge my character unfairly...

Islamist refers to Islamic fundamentalists. It's no a blanket term for all muslims.

i consider my self educated, thank you.

Any religious "faith" that subjugates women, and strips them of fundamental human rights is no faith at all.

And islamists are also pushing for worldwide blasphemy laws, to protect their followers from hearing words that might pry their tiny little minds out of the stone age.

I'm sorry, but free speech is more precious than any religious belief system will ever be.

I'm sorry to sound like I am bashing your religion. Well, no... I'm not.

Islam is a horrible belief system, and it's ardent followers tend to be cruel, heartless monsters. The "dicks" of the muslim world murder people. You can pull out the biggest race card you want, but islam will still remain a barbaric religion that enslaves women, hardens hearts, and contaminates other cultures like a vile oil slick.

It saddens me that such a relic of past brutality still persists into modern times.

*Shrug* im not muslim. it just bothers me the way that you hear people talking about them, because people talked about the jews in nearly the same way before the second world war..thank the gods that we got rid of that idiot president we had a few years ago...what was his name?...Shrub? or something? and replaced him with someone who knows what hes doing... anyway,

My problem wasnt with what you said, but rather the way it was said...i know that sounds stupid, but there it is, i thought you were making a general statement about all muslims, and as i say, ive heard this tune befroe..

I value free speech over anything and everything, but i also value your right to believe what ever the hell you want, that also means you have a right to talk about what you believe and not be persecuted for it... The aggressive Islamic movement (fundamentalists and terrorists) go across the line because they are telling people what they are allowed to say and what they are allowed to think. This dumbassary with that stupid comic strip...

So... there is no love lost between me and Muslims, I once had a Palestinian man in my class start preaching to me about how i just didnt understand because the way they behaved, with guns and bombs, was the only venue open to them and that i could never imagine what it would be like to be kicked out of your home by some invading army and having to live in a tent somewhere....I snapped his head off by telling how him and his family would have been treated for acting the way he was by any other conquering army through out history... (if a roman legion kicked me and my family out of our house id be thankful to not end up nailed to a tree, butt naked, along with all my loved ones, to starve, or, if lucky, suffocate on my own fluids...they did that, they are in fact rather famous for it)...i didnt make any friends that day but i think i made my point as he didnt bring it up again..

No...i get what you are saying...i just dont necessarily want to see an entire race of people round up and murdered because of a few scummy assholes who have diarrhea of the mouth...though it'll probably happen eventually...what's old is new again, as the saying goes...

i should also say, fundamentalists of any race or creed piss me off, the christian Taliban is just as bad as the islamic one...

I will agree with you there.

you know, sometimes youtube just creeps the hell out of me.. i go onto youtube.com and what is waiting for me?...

i believe the Islamists would call it blasphunny... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCGiRf29lAg

Heh! "You find out you're jewish, and some bloke shows up in a uniform to lead you away." :)

i definitely need to see this movie ^.^

Law...Law exists to insure freedom. it is often, profoundly, abused, but without laws, none can be free.

The lowest, most brutish, of the species would for ever be in power simply because they answer to no moral. "All that catches my eye is mine, and all who stand in my way of taking what is mine shall suffer greatly"...Many of the "achievements" of the ancient empires were "achieved" by conquest. We will never know who built the sphynx because the odds are the pharaohs of Egypt (the most megalomaniacal people in the history of the earth) likely saw the vast wonders of the ancient empire, and sent their armies in to kill everyone and take it over. There was a third culture at the time of the Romans and the Greeks, and no, im not talking about atlanteans 9.9 though some think that there might be some link to the stories of Atlantis... this other culture, who, i beg your forgiveness, their name currently eludes me, made great advancements...and when it fell, many of these advancements were ultimately claimed by Greece or Rome (this is all coming from the history channel by the way, who tend to be of the theory if it didn't involve Nazis, aliens, demons, the end of the world, or the civil war, its not worth covering, so take it with a grain)...Those were the laws of force, whats mine is mine, and whats yours will be mine soon if i can get it from you...

Today laws exist for the people. They say what you can do. They tell you what you cant do. And the law that says i cant do something means you cant do it either. There are always those who would seek to corrupt the law to their own ends, many make a job of it, we call them politicians, policemen, and lawyers, but the laws are there for the common good. Yes violators are punished, but the question is: A child reaches for the glowing hot element in an open oven, you warn him not to touch it because it will hurt...he continues to reach for it anyway, ignoring mommy and her stupid rules, does a good mommy grab the child and put him over her knee, or does she let the child grab the searing hot element, letting the days of incredible pain and weeks of recovery teach the lesson? I will let you answer that one for your self as both seem viable teaching methods in this country ¬.¬...

Change can happen without violence...Change doesn't happen in a country, or in a world, it happens in one heart at a time, you cannot beat or threaten someone into being who you want them to be. Look at the gay thing. Conservatives can say what they want, but little by little, heart by heart, people are waking up to realize... "Okay, Bob and Jack being together....really isnt such a bad thing, and them getting married certainly doesn't hurt me.....hell, they seem happier then i am with my own marriage" yes, that is my personal politic, you may disagree, and if you do i encourage you to do so, but its how things happen... so much has changed just in the past century... yes, the murder of King did more to advance the cause of desegregation then any of his demonstrations, but does it not say something that change can happen without violence, when violence against a man of peace did nothing but accelerate cause?

There was a man in history who felt change happened only through violence, and that the only way for one race of people to survive is by devouring its neighbors who are competing for the same resources...I draw now connection to him and this discussion, but his example is what makes me believe so absolutely that change can, and must, be possible without the spilling of blood or the destruction of what others hold dear..

Law is the antithesis of freedom as it is the rule that states only what we cannot do. Justice protects freedom as it cannot be bent from its natural form very easily.

You may be thinking of the Khemit, the civilization that thrived in egypt during its fertile period.

You have a noble view of how law functions but unfortunately that is rarely the case. Those that have power have always and will always continue to ignore law. Be it subtle like evading a parking ticket due to their stature or substantial, like invading a nation. The powerful wield violence to ignore or manipulate law. This is as true today as it has always been.

Laws are in general not in place to protect us, but to protect the powerful.

Non-violent social change can and does happen, but only when it does not threaten the power elite.

"There was a man in history who felt change happened only through violence, and that the only way for one race of people to survive is by devouring its neighbors who are competing for the same resources." -Every leader with a military capacity backing them to enact those beliefs.

Your first paragraph seems to hint at you wanting anarchy, since that is the only true regime that offers true freedom in the ideals. The truth of it though is that with that level of freedom, the stronger in that society would exert their own laws/rules. So do you want laws made by a big central government or lots of little dictators?

Might hint at but this is mostly mental exercise :3

To borrow a couple concepts (and combine them):

There's no such thing as a justice system. There's a series of laws and precedents that have taken shape that *resemble* one, but by no means do the laws have any reflection on reality. So, generally, people will do whatever they like, and the smart, powerful and/or rich people will do so within the random rules of the law system, even if it is immoral.

Second concept: Why doesn't it change? Because it works well enough for enough people at any given time that we're not motivated enough to make a change. Same reason anything nonsensical stays the way it is.

Summary: Laws have always been a product of people with power clubbing people without power, and we're all too lazy to stand up for the underdog.

Well, shit. That makes my work seem totally pointless. :p

Why, what do you do?

Eheh. By your words, nothing. :> I'm in appellate law.

Mmm. Fair enough. I'm shaped by my experiences... which dictate that being fired for being LGBT is entirely legal (even on appeal), and having someone staple used firing range sheets to your front door isn't harassment (even on appeal).

:v If a vending machine sells 100 candy bars, and one candy bar gets stuck, is the machine broken? In my experience, the justice system works pretty well. :> But that's just my experience. What do I know. >D

Even if something is 99% accurate, there's still room for improvement. I'm not claiming that we're better off abolishing it all and leaving everyone to fend for themselves.

Nah, you just said that there was no such thing as the justice system. :>

"Justice system" implies that when it acts, it acts for justice. It does not. It acts to support and preserve laws. Now, *most* of the time, they overlap, but not 100% of the time. To which I cite back-hall deals, plea-bargains, and the effect of fame on the legal system, IE the OJ Simpson and Martha Stewart trials, to name a few.

Yeah...no.

Interesting read there, including all the political drama.
Interesting indeed.

The problem being that violence results in retribution in most cases. If you watch any documentary on gang violence that is made clear. I have a button with a saying from Ghandi, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.". Be very careful in desires for revolution because you never quite know who it is that you're banding with to enact the change.

Indeed but that was before the invent of the internet, Viral video and 24 news. In todays world information is more powerful than any bomb over made.

The Pen and sword debate has been finally ended with the successful hacking of a nation before a single soldier stepped foot in the land.

Link A
Link B

how do you do that with the links? i been trying to figure that out for a while..

type in [url= *url goes here*] they type the text you want, then [/ url] without spaces.

thanks!

what about the law that says its illegal to shove your kid's face in a pot of boiling water because he's a "sissy"? or the discrimination laws that say you have committed double the crime if your only motivation in doing it was pure hatred? *blink* i guess they do kinda infringe on your god given right to be an asshole but i cant see them as being necessarily bad..

mmm, i have no problem with letting people do what ever they want as long as it hurts no one else...the problem with letting people drink and get stoned when ever they feel like it is that it would infoulably lead to intoxicated driving, which would get innocent people hurt, and third party property destroyed...as long as they aren't hurting anyone though i could care less...and cops...atleast usually, feel the same way...atleast most of the ones ive met...unless they are having a bad day and felt like assing someone around...nudity is just humans being humans... the global age of consent hardly more then a century ago was ten years old, so i get the general feeling that it would not be emotionally destroying for a child to see an adult nude... its mostly because people are ashamed of their own meatpuppets and if other people walk around naked, they are afraid they might have to also...

i understand laws...some are obsolete...some are stupid, and a cop i knew once said if he followed anyone, even another cop, long enough, he could arrest or fine them for something, its impossible to make it through a day without breaking a law...but all are there for a reason, all im saying is that some of them are necessary to defend those who cannot defend them selves...nature says the weak suffer and the strong thrive, i dont want to live in a country that makes that doctrine..someone once said that the true measure of any group of people is how they treat the weakest members of their ranks...and i say the truest measure of a person is what he is willing to give up for someone who needs him. In nature, a weak or injured wolf is killed by the pack, (who ever reads this and spazzes, dont give me pack loyalty, i love wolves, but its true, an injured packmember is just a hindrance, and is either abandoned or just outright slaughtered,) a video made it onto youtube of a dog running into a busy highway to pull another dog who had been injured in traffic to safety...maybe it isnt natural, but i know the world id rather live in, a world that has things in it worth dieing for...laws arent one of them, but there isnt always a hero there to save the day

Oh, by the way.

LAW

when in doubt, C4.

Essentially though, you are right and this is the anarchist viewpoint. Law from the barrel of a gun is not righteous and just, and it is generally just expedient to behave and not get thrown in the slammer for your actions.

All those protestors getting gunned down whilst singing "give peace a chance", all the tear-gas and water cannon used at the G8 meetings on innocent, peaceful protesters (yes, there most certainly ARE people who want nothing more than to smash and grab, but that doesn't excuse the hammer going down on those who are not) - this isn't law for the meek, this is law to keep those in power in power. Nothing more, nothing less. You may call it a social contract, but break it and you risk far more than being ostracized.

Try being somebody who doesn't believe in slavery

Just try being a black woman who doesn't want to sit at the back of a bus.

Try being somebody who doesn't think invading a country of people who aren't interested in your "democracy" is right (twice, at least)

try being somebody who thinks that partners in a life-contract don't need to be opposite sexes.

We are very, very far from free.

Most are happy, sure, but it's the tyranny of the masses, and what happens when the masses don't agree with you?

http://partiallyclips.com/2009/09/2.....faceless-suit/ Bing.

A lot of this has to do with essential Freedoms, and the natural limits of those Freedoms. Let me offer a commonly used example.

"My Freedom to swing my fist around stops right where your nose starts."

Let's look at that for a moment. you and I have the same essential Freedoms. and the only limits on those Freedoms are when they start to cause harm to others. In other words, Your 'right' to have an unbroken nose trumps my 'right' to swing my arm around.

We can come up with a lot of other examples, and most will seem obvious: if you have something I want, I cannot take it without asking you if it is okay first; if I promise to pay you for a sketch, I should pay you what we agreed upon; and so on. We work by these conventions every day, and in small groups we don't even need to codify them as 'law.'

The penalty in these small groups also tends to be tailored to the offense, but often results in the loss of personal 'honor' in the eyes of the group. This is an effective punishment for the most part because everyone in the group wants to stay with the group, and losing too much 'honor' will result in expulsion. Thing of your own personal circle of friends, you like them, you want to be around them, so you try to avoid doing things that will make you seem like a 'jerk' or a 'creep' in their eyes. Even if there is one person in the group you dislike, you put up with him 'for the sake of your friends.'

As a group gets larger, it is harder to know everyone else on the level where personal 'Honor' ('cool,' 'style,' whatever) seems that important, and stronger punishments are needed to ensure the group can 'function' without too much active internal strife. The rules also start to get stricter and more arbitrary, since it is now a subset of the group dealing with 'justice' and 'fairness.'

As the group grows even larger, the laws grow more detailed and convoluted, until you need a subset of the 'justice dealing' subset just to explain the rules to each other and to the decision makers. Nobody really knows what is right or wrong anymore, as something that seems perfectly right and natural to Able and Baker is seen as an Abomination in the eyes Charlie and Delila.

...

In a perfect world, we would be able to live and work in small groups, with the few 'laws' reaching overhead are there solely to prevent unpleasant acts between groups. A delicate balance between Anarchy and Totalitarianism, as it were.

Ah, but there are different kinds of strength, and laws of late have favored not the physically strong but the socially strong.

Also petitions DO work. We use them constantly in my state (WA) to get stuff done.