Why need Law?

The law is defined as the body of rules and regulation to keep a discipline in a general society.
In any civilized society, law making becomes necessary to avoid any or at least minimize the
chances of conflicts and disputes. It is necessary to maintain the order in society and to ensure
that doubtful or disputed claims can be resolved in an orderly and peaceful manner.
If there were no laws or system of laws, there would be anarchy all over .Disputes will be
resolved forcefully without caring if the justice had been done or not. If the laws are disregarded,
the crimes will prevail and would be unchecked. Anonymous
Law dive the sense of security. Laws are made to force people to be good, because individuals
are more controlled more by there passion and education alone can't make them good, so laws
were created to scare people in being 'good'.
We need laws in society so our society can regulate and work properly. They are designed to
protect us and our property and to ensure that everyone in society behaves the way that the
community expects them too. Without laws there would be complete anarchy.
Law can be ‘positivist’ in nature – meaning no judgment is made in regards to the quality of that
law - implement it regardless if it is a good or bad. Such a theory does not look at the moral
implications of the laws – it’s a amoral view of law. Natural law on the other hand, is the idea
that ‘God’ makes laws. This theory originates as far back as early Greece and the ‘Gods’. The
most complete account of natural law doctrine can be found by Aquinas St. Thomas. For
instance – "Nothing else than the rational creature’s participation of the eternal law", "Every
human law has just so much of the character of the law as it is derived from the law of nature.
But if in any point it differs from the law of nature, it is no longer a law but a corruption of a
law", "…that positive law is a determination of natural law". One natural theorist is Kant
Emmanuel – "No law can be right merely by convention", "Laws, as such, are to be regarded as
necessary a priori – that is as following of themselves from the conceptions of external right
generally – and not as merely established by statues".
The disputed question is "is law really needed"? As simplistic as it may seem to answer, it is
fundamental that we ask. Personally, laws are guidelines that set out appropriate behavior that
has been developed over time, and are based on moral beliefs, a human condition that sets out a
purpose that society in general is called upon – or required to fulfill. Without the fulfillment of
these desired tasks, man simply will become equal to animals – or worse still, allow their darker
sides (or impulses) to emerge and control their lives. Thus, law acts as a guardian against the
inevitable anarchy that would engulf humanity (if you want proof, simply turn to the riots that
take place in America when officers of the law go out on strike).
On the other hand, we have those who believe that mankind is naturally good, and it is the
external forces that surround us that are completely responsible for any wrong doing that takes
place – for instance, the government.
Augustine’s assertion that law was a natural necessity to curb man’s sinful nature held the field
for many centuries. But the belief that man’s nature might be corrupt and sinful has been at times
weighed against the belief that man posses a natural virtue which is capable of development.
Leaning heavily upon Aristotle’s conception of the natural development of the state from man’s
social impulses, Aquinas held that the state was not necessary evil but was a natural foundation
in the development of human welfare.
This continued perception of man with no laws or structures to force certain behaviors creating
the ultimate ‘utopian’ society is legally termed (or coined) as laissez faire. But when we think
about this supposed utopian society, we can see that it is not possible. The only time it would
have ever been a feasible theory would have been at the time of man’s conception as in Adam
and Eve – and history has already show us that their duration in paradise did not last that long.
Come to think of it, even Adam and Eve had guidelines, no matter how limited, that they had to
follow for their retention in paradise – and they failed - as would any other anarchy based, or
limited direction society.
The most influential of all people that promoted anarchy of sorts, would undoubtedly be Karl
Marx. He envisaged the overthrow of the capitalist society by a violent revolution of the
oppressed proletariat. Law was nothing but a coercive system devised to maintain a classless
society would be brought into being, and law and the state would ‘whither away’ as being no
longer needed to support an oppressive regime. The Marxist looks forward rather than back to
the Golden Age (if it ever really existed) when social harmony will be attuned to the natural
goodness of man unimpeded by such environmental snares as the institution of private property.
But it can be seen that the introduction of Marxist socialism has always been closely followed by
the implementation of more laws and legal repression, rather than having them abolished.
It is fact, that even in the simplest of societies, some form of legal rule and guidance is without
doubt needed to control the anarchist like environment – which ironically counteracts the entire
purpose of a lawless society.

Disadvantage of law?
Law is a system of rules and procedures made for the purpose of maintaining order and to protect
harm to persons and property. Laws are not bad all the time. Law provides justice to the human
being. Although the law restricts personal freedom, time consuming, difficult to administer and
enforce. It is really difficult to live without laws. There would be no way to enforce our
contracts, regulate the way people drive, trust the safety of our foods and drugs, or protect us
from our neighbor's dog. If the law made violates the person’s right or liberty, a person can
always approach the court for proper remedy. Hence you can find only few disadvantages
compared to the advantages of law.
It can restrict personal and civil freedoms.
It may be inequitable/affect parts of the population unfairly.
It can difficult to administer and enforce.
It can be expensive to formulate and enact.
It can be time consuming and tedious to change/update/repeal
It can be blind in its administration, and not allow flexibility if a situation calls for it