I agree with you to the extent that it detracts from the discussion. However the information derived from the hypothesis is what makes the theory, and I just think to get anywhere in a discussion it is important to to have a base understanding of the tools in which process the subject at hand. But you are right I digress.

I should have made it clear. My statement was made solely from my perspective opinion. I am no scholar it just seems to me that is the way it works. Thanks for the information I will have to check out that theory, it sounds interesting.

I thought entropy was a term used in thermodynamics to dictate the lack of structure and order in a mechanical system. So Im curious how it pertains to this. Im honestly not trying to be hostile, just genuinely curious.

Definitely immoral, laws are put into place to dictate a society, where as morals are there to dictate the individual. Most of the time an individual without morals does not take part in a society. Imagine if the world was just made of individuals, there would be no society of any kind. As much as I hate it social sturctures help nurture progress and with out that nothing would ever change, and without change there would be no life.

I would argue that law is dictated by morality, and not the dicator there of.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't you call that a hypothesis?

Liberty is a means by which freedom can be achieved.

Classic case of man against god one of 12 dilmas that drive every story told through out history, and what is life if not a story told through the eyes of the beholder.