Playing devil's advocate here, you brush with a broad stroke in assuming that, "If a person decides that they don't want to follow ANY law, the whole system is kind of pointless."
Someone could easily argue that the legal system protects the people who have decided to follow laws--legalists; that is to say, those who follow the letter of the law as a matter of course--from those who violate those laws, and who might violate the rights of the legalists.
Further, I also see a possible counter to your point here: "This raises the question of what governments actually do when they create these 'laws' to give you 'rights.' Well that in itself is a logical fallacy, why would I need someone to give me permission to do what I am already able to do and aware enough to decide for myself?"
So, let's accept that everyone subject to these laws are both capable of doing what law permits, and that everyone is aware enough to decide whether or not to do something for themselves. Accepting that, we must ask about how these capacities of action and decision affect those subject to laws. In that case, then, we must acknowledge the capacity of the subject to decide upon a course of action that the law forbids. As an example, murder: one may decide to murder someone, and succeed at it. In that case, doesn't a law forbidding murder codify the victim's right to live, and protect the life of possible victims with a threat of imposing punitive measures?
I do believe (and would guess you believe the same) that "rights" precede "laws," and that the legal system functions largely as you described in saying, "while many people believe the legal system is built to protect you, it's actually put in place to control you," I just don't think your argument is airtight. In the interest of strengthening it, I've offered two examples with which one might argue that the legal system (or simply a legal system) does protect, or attempt to protect, the rights of those subject to that system. Certainly looking forward to reading any replies to the arguments offered above.
Laws are either agreed upon or disagreed upon and they are never unanimous. 99 people may agree that we shouldn't kill each other, but as long as 1 person out there thinks it's okay, that law is just another imaginary line to them that they feel completely justified in crossing. If they would feel comfortable taking another person's free will they have no fear of taking everyone's. If instead that person was taught from a young age why free will is important and that respecting each others freedom and liberty is the only way to ensure our own perhaps we could change some minds. Obviously the imposed "punishment" or whatever threat the law poses to them isn't getting the point across because people are still killing each other even with the threat of governmental retaliation. If people are still getting murdered and these laws exist, then what protection is it offering?
That's a massive stretch, but also why I think we need to approach this problem from a different direction so that people do become that aware and grasp the full severity of their decisions.
I'm saying your right to exist shouldn't be trusted to a "law." We all have a right to exist and pretending like some government gave us that right is a joke. If the government gives me the right to live and thus protects that right, then I truly am a slave and nothing more than a possession of that government which gives me the right to exist.
I appreciate the different perspective, I was using murder as one of my main examples because it's the ultimate removal of someone else's free will/right to exist, but we all know the majority of laws are restrictions. It's illegal to buy or sell marijuana in most of the U.S. for example. That doesn't give me anything, that takes away. There's a law that I have to register a vehicle with the government, that's not giving me anything and it's costing me money. Rights are something we are born with, laws are restrictions put in place to control those rights, and I don't see where any government in the world has a "right" to tell me that I have the "right" to live.
Rights are every bit as much a fiction as laws are- witness the murderer can remove your right to live by rendering it inconsequential after the fact, just as easily a "the government", or a microbe/cosmic ray/any other random cause of death.
There is absolutely NO objective significance to the concept of "rights".
What is the difference in the ideal if the government grants you some right, versus God, whose existence is disputable, whereas the physical manifestation of a government is not, versus your declaration of some innate right?
We all know the difference ITRW.
The governments much like God are only as real to anyone as they believe they them to be. I couldn't make anyone believe anything they don't want to believe or them me. The point is that there is very clear evidence and logical reasoning to support the fact that governments create laws and assign "rights" as if they have to give you permission to exist and find ways to restrict that existence into what they want it to be.
The second part of your last sentence I agree with somewhat- but can you explain that first part?
Also, I don't think ANYONE can dispute a government's objective reality successfully in the case of war, for instance- and the world is NEVER at peace, so I think you have to grant its continuous existence, not just as some ephemeral metaphenomenon.
I totally accept the subjective reality of God, but can't come up with any demonstrable objective support (I don't need it myself, but there's a raft of anti-theists in the world who insist that without objective proof, God doesn't exist, CAN'T exist, and anyone who can accept subjective reality as "good enough" deserves ridicule they're glad to deliver).
When you are born in a country, like with the U.S. you are automatically made an extension of that country due to citizenship, which is a "right" given by the government. What other "rights" you are given depends on the country and it's particular laws, but the laws that are in place are all essentially parts of politics and decisions you had nothing to do with. You are raised in education systems controlled by the same government that basically forced you into being a part of it without ever asking your permission. You are then taught that this entity that has controlled your whole life is doing it for your benefit and that questioning it or doubting it is unpatriotic and of course you don't want to be unpatriotic, because they also teach you that they are the best there is and going anywhere else is dangerous or less "free." The point is that all of these thing inherently influence your free will from a young age and play a part in the course of your life. That's the logical part of it. As far as evidence, do I really need to go find sources? Declassified government documents make it clear there is always an agenda to control the masses, I mean the Patriot Act alone was more or less, "give up some of your freedom to protect the rest of it." That's without even getting into the events leading up to it being legitimate or false flag.
Addressing your reply in a rather slipshod manner, let me begin with a quote from it: "If instead that person was taught from a young age why free will is important and that respecting each others freedom and liberty is the only way to ensure our own perhaps we could change some minds."
Wouldn't that be great? It almost sounds like 'the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave'; that is to say, you're describing a system that teaches children from a young age that individuals have inalienable rights. Accordingly, public schools teach children that they have rights (besides being inalienable) also have the guaranteed protection of law. The only difference in the society that you propose is that these we wouldn't teach these children that their rights had any legal protection.
Obviously, I can't and wouldn't say that our punitive legal system has succeeded in eliminating any crime. On the contrary, it invents crime where none exists, and frequently promotes the crimes it has established; ex: police quotas. I'm simply saying that the society you envision amounts more or less to necessarily teaching children (lest we make them naive) that some people will refuse to recognize their rights, and possibly kill them. If you can imagine how to offer them some sense of safety and protection besides a legal system of some kind, I'm all ears. To answer your question, "what protection is it [the law] offering?" from within this framework, I reply that what I called 'the guaranteed protection of law' is an illusion for children that may or may not prove useful. Although it's certainly a useful one for the committed 'legalist.'
Moving on:
"That's a massive stretch," you replied, but it's a stretch that I read from your original post. I will quote the passage again:
"This raises the question of what governments actually do when they create these 'laws' to give you 'rights.' Well that in itself is a logical fallacy, why would I need someone to give me permission to do what I am already able to do and aware enough to decide for myself?"
If we don't accept the massive stretch you introduced, then we forget about people who may lack capacity or awareness. The execution of mentally-disabled persons counts as just one example of the legal system addressing a demographic which some may reasonably consider lacking that capacity or awareness which you had originally assigned to yourself, and implicitly (one hopes), to the rest of humanity.
Of course, in situations concerning the execution of the mentally disabled, we're still talking law in terms of punishment. I don't intend to re-frame the legal system away from its obvious nature here. I had only intended to point out the underlying assumptions of your argument, while at the same time accepting them for the sake of making the point I thought more important to emphasize.
Next:
You wrote, "I'm saying your right to exist shouldn't be trusted to a 'law.' We all have a right to exist and pretending like some government gave us that right is a joke." Let me now reaffirm that rights precede laws. However, from the perspective of the legalist, these rights would thus produce the laws which protect them. Perhaps my legalists are your slaves, except I wouldn't go so far as to say so, due simply to my previous sentence's conceit of the hypothetical legalist. Someone who believes, however, that rights arise from law would fit your description perfectly.
Finally, I agree with the thrust of your final paragraph. I would even say I agree with it entirely, except that I feel the need to emphasize that the perspective I have offered has not been my own, but rather one invented purely for the purpose of discourse. In fact, I pretty much agree with you in spirit, if you couldn't tell already: I seek only to refine the practice and the rhetoric; or, as we might say otherwise, to conceptualize a society which has the protection of rights in the absence of a punitive legal system, and to create more compelling arguments for the establishment of that society.
The biggest problem with laws is that they protect the rights of some, in some cases and other cases they are just completely asinine, but they also infringe on the rights of others. The protection being offered by any of these laws is the illusion and entire point of the discussion. If someone is mentally unstable or disabled to the point that they are incapable of comprehending the laws then it's ultimately irrelevant because they first and foremost have no comprehension of what they are supposed to abide by and secondly don't have the capacity to determine if their actions do or do not comply.
It's obviously not an easy situation to deal with these problems, but any illusion that a law is protecting these individuals or us from them is just more separatist fear based logic. A person couldn't be incapable of comprehending and complying and also capable of benefiting from a law so it's essentially the same as police reading Miranda Rights to a criminal that doesn't speak English or know the laws.
The government has no need to protect or permit anything if they aren't the one giving you the right in the first place. All laws are fundamentally built off the original concept that it's the governments sovereign duty to give you the rights you are born with. If this entire bureaucracy didn't exist in the first place, the laws would never exist and the whole discussion would be pointless. I would argue that being born gives us all an equal right to exist and that simplifying all of the technical garbage created by the legal system to give out illusions of necessity or benefit from their existence is really just no different than telling children Santa Claus is real or the Easter Bunny exists.
Perhaps giving people the illusion of safety is really the problem in the first place. I would argue that telling people they are offered any real protection because a law makes something illegal is giving them a false sense of entitlement. If someone feels that the government is responsible for their well-being then they aren't as focused on becoming self sufficient and capable of sustaining their own existence. Perhaps with a stronger sense of community and less scarcity based mindset taught by the education system people would be more willing to help each other and realize that we are all responsible for ourselves and SHOULD feel a moral obligation to share and help those that can't help themselves so that those that are sick, disabled, elderly, mentally ill, or for whatever reason incapable of caring for themselves are also our responsibility because we should respect their right to exist as we do our own.
Edit: You are right about the massive stretch statement. I can't expect to hold myself or others to a different standard, but at the same time it's obvious not everyone is concerned about the reality of the situation. There is always going to be the issue of when the majority decides to stop accepting these "laws" as acceptable or necessary and it probably won't go over well. Slowly over time with discussions like these, the changes that are occurring in movies, music, and society will hopefully create the situation to start these changes over time. I have never been pro violent revolution and I feel like the only real revolutions are the ones that take place in our minds.
"If someone is mentally unstable or disabled to the point that they are incapable of comprehending the laws then it's ultimately irrelevant because they first and foremost have no comprehension of what they are supposed to abide by and secondly don't have the capacity to determine if their actions do or do not comply."
I would agree that this is irrelevant if the legal system didn't also include laws to protect those incapable of comprehending the law. See Connecticut General Statute § 53a-46a (h)(3) (2009), which makes illegal the execution of inmates whose "mental capacity was significantly impaired or [whose] ability to conform [their] conduct to the requirements of law was significantly impaired but not so impaired in either case as to constitute a defense to prosecution[.]" So, at least within the framework of the legal system, we have a protection of a right to life (which I would call an inalienable right) even for those subject to punishment under the law, according to their ability to comprehend the law. I believe the state later outlawed capital punishment entirely, but the point stands: mental impairment isn't irrelevant to the law. With that in mind, we're forced to accept the massive stretch you offered [...]
I shall end my debate response here, because I have now read your edit to the original post, and I must admit, I find the act of imagining the society without laws more productive and more interesting than my previous aim. I have enjoyed discussing this with you, and hope these changes come to pass.
I always love discussing this stuff. :) You bring up many valid points and the mental health debate will never go away, but until some magical day that it is irrelevant, it always will be a major issue. Thanks for discussing your views!