>>60
The point is to establish baselines that maintain social order because people act to the detriment of their neigbors.
You might want to pick a better term, then. Your concept of ``social order'' is really about enforcing
people's rights (e.g. the right to personal safety, the right to know whatever the fuck is in your food, or the right to privacy), and sometimes about establishing a neutral convention where one is required (e.g. cars drive on the right side of the street). I think your terminology is dangerous because a Taliban could also say that they're just ``enforcing the social order'' (regardless of the countless glaring human rights violations); it's better to look at this from the point of view of the individual, and defining the law in terms of the
rights of the individual.
punishments
No,
no,
no,
no,
NO! People don't learn from punishment; actually, in prison, they are likely to become even
more broken than they were when they came in. If you want to actually have
less people trampling over other people's rights, then you need to
fix the people you find guilty such that when they are released, they understood that what they did was very wrong, and they won't do anything similar ever again.
death sentence
I said it before and I'll say it again, only one person has the right to decide their own life, and it's themselves (yes, I am a supporter of the right to suicide). By ``signing the social contract'', I expect my right to life to be absolute. No amount of framing, conspiracy, and fake evidence may curtail my right to life.