Imagine that law and law enforcement is a game, one where the winner is determined by whose opinion outlast, who’s. Why should there be a bias toward either side, shouldn’t it be like a hunt? The winner is deter mined by who can out smart the other, not by who can be more rambunctious or who can use less couth. Neither should it be determined by who has more political power; it should be determined by who can attain the most resources for there point and who can outsmart the other. Isn’t this how it’s supposed to work? How about we try popular opinion then, how does that work? Well it covers the most people, but it doesn’t really work for anyone in the end, not the whole why. I think that there might be the better idea, what if law were based on social contracts, agreements on certain ideals, then when one feels that a law has been broken, a large symposium is held. In this symposium the cases are displayed and the contract disputed on display, then all of those whom are interested in the dispute decide its outcome, they vote on the outcome, or write a new contract, the opinion of those at the symposium determines the punishment and the handling of the situation. This would allow issues to be handled promptly and laws to be overturned for specific situations, the outcomes would then be recorded and given authority until challenged, the more people who are involve in the decision, the more authority the outcome has. This would allow a system that is dynamic and as changing as the society that uses it. Lastly, I would say that there should be a time when all of the laws are no longer valid, like a stature of limitations; say, every one-hundred years, a law must be re-voted into usage, or re-written to fit the current society. Technology allows us to have such a true large-scale democracy now; this would also people to choose which laws affect them during their lives. The symposium would be composed in this manner, the parties would align themselves, collect and set forward their opinions and prioritize there demands with negotiation and diplomacy, they would the make their display and argument to the audience and attempt to convince them of their position. The audience would then decide the outcome in the same manner, they would display their opinions and write a contract and make a decision with a negotiator, not a judge, the people themselves would make the decisions on the laws agreed to, the negotiator would simply act as a piece keeper. Everyone would need to be a contributor to the law and would then have to live by the decisions they make, the only catch to the whole thing would be that if you want to contribute to the law you must agree to the outcome. Simply, if you don’t want to be effected by the law, don’t voice your opinion, but if you don’t contribute to the law you can’t be protected by it. When you sign a law, you are not only signing to follow it, but also to be protected by it.