NationStates Jolt Archive

Whenever the issue of using marijuana is debated here, somebody always trumpets, "But it's against the law!" as if that in itself is a reason why nobody should use the herb. The same argument has been levelled against those who would evade a military draft: "We can't pick-and-choose which laws we wish to follow".

Good points actually. I'm a very law-abiding person myself and I'm not an anarchist. I think societies need rules so that life is decent for as many people as possible.

Nonetheless there have been some very bad laws in the past and there are some now. Slavery, wife-beating, child labour, religious & sexual persecution, banning reproductive choice, cultural genocide - at various times and places these were codified and encouraged by law.

Depending on the time and place, to help a slave or a Jew escape persecution or death was to break the laws of that place. Should people who helped slaves or Jews be thought of as criminals because they recognized that certain laws were clearly wrong/immoral - and needed to be broken?

Truly, sometimes "The Law Is An Ass". And often governments and courts are simply too slow or unwilling to change laws when they are in critical need of change. I believe that in some circumstances it IS the right and moral choice for citizens to openly defy a law that is clearly outdated, wrong and more harmful than the thing that is being proscribed.

But how can we wisely determine which times/circumstances it is moral to break the law and when it is not?

Laws are enforced through the threat of state violence. They are terrorism in all but name. I only follow most laws to avoid government terrorism. Sometimes, morality and government terrorism happen to agree on something, so it is indeed wrong to kill even though the government uses terrorism to suppress murder.

That makes the government hypocritical, of course. The government uses terrorism to suppress terrorism. To those who don't think it's terrorism, think about it. What distinguishes the government enforcing tax laws and a terrorist making demands?

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

I follow laws, except when it comes to drugs, they just prove too tempting.

i dont see any reason to break the law. its all very reasonable. so whats the point? :?

Good question and i think the only people who will have clear answers are those who inhabit the extremes. I mself split law and morality from each other, while the two may often coincide (hopefully at some point this will be always) the two are not the same and cannot be used interchangably. But there is also the Law as a whole, which has a presumption of moral authority.

we have a moral obligation to break bad laws--also we're constitutionally mandated to overthrow the Govt by force if it gets too powerful

we have a moral obligation to break bad laws--also we're constitutionally mandated to overthrow the Govt by force if it gets too powerful :?: :shock:

What distinguishes the government enforcing tax laws and a terrorist making demands?
You can't elect someone esle to take the terrorists place?


Breaking the laws may be sometimes morally acceptable. That dosen't mean that its acceptable in general or that someone should do it. The proper way would be to, instead of breaking laws you don't agree with left and right, electing officials that promise to change the law. Why? Because everyone has different versions of morality. Some people might think its perfectly moral, still, to enslave others. Another person's view of morality might be that slavery is totally immoral, however stealing money from a rich guy isn't.

we have a moral obligation to break bad laws--also we're constitutionally mandated to overthrow the Govt by force if it gets too powerful :?: :shock:Im just quoting our founding fathers

When the benefiet of breaking the law outwieghs the punishment one would recive then it would be, in my opinion, moral to break the law. This may sound like I approve of stealing in certain situations I think stealing is acceptable. Breaking the law as a form of protest is foolish in most cases because the point that is made almost never appears to be worth the cost.

You can't elect someone esle to take the terrorists place?

Wrong. You can choose who governs you, but you can't choose not to be governed. A government as a whole can't be gotten rid of that easily.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

we have a moral obligation to break bad laws--also we're constitutionally mandated to overthrow the Govt by force if it gets too powerful :?: :shock:Im just quoting our founding fathers

they never said that.....

I just answered yes, because regardless of what the laws are currently, laws != morality
I generally follow laws...including drug laws (and now speed limit....grrrr)
but only because there are things more important to me than drugs, etc...

When the benefiet of breaking the law outwieghs the punishment one would recive then it would be, in my opinion, moral to break the law. This may sound like I approve of stealing in certain situations I think stealing is acceptable. Breaking the law as a form of protest is foolish in most cases because the point that is made almost never appears to be worth the cost.stupid but also heroic--anyone who suffers for their beliefs is a saint

we have a moral obligation to break bad laws--also we're constitutionally mandated to overthrow the Govt by force if it gets too powerful :?: :shock:Im just quoting our founding fathers

they never said that.....yeah they did--read some of Thomas Jeffersons writings

But how can we wisely determine which times/circumstances it is moral to break the law and when it is not?

you can only decide for yourself upon reflection which laws deserve what amount of defiance. though that has more to do with tactical considerations than with morality. if a law is 'wrong' in some sense, then you should defy it as best you can.

but you can't expect to always get away with it.

When the benefiet of breaking the law outwieghs the punishment one would recive then it would be, in my opinion, moral to break the law. This may sound like I approve of stealing in certain situations I think stealing is acceptable. Breaking the law as a form of protest is foolish in most cases because the point that is made almost never appears to be worth the cost.stupid but also heroic--anyone who suffers for their beliefs is a saintWhat if thier beliefs were misguided to begin with? Such as Neo-Nazis who are imprisoned? Are they heroes?

there are laws that it is immoral to obey
as in pre civil war US when it was law that you had to help return escaped slaves

one test of whether or not you really believe it should be defied is if you are willing to accept the legal penalties for breaking the law.

stolen from the net:

Thoreau's world-famous essay, Civil Disobedience, grew out of a night in July 1846 when he was detained in Concord jail for nonpayment of the poll tax. Henry had refused to pay the tax because of its association with the institution of slavery. His maiden Aunt Maria, without asking Thoreau, paid his tax and secured his release. Henry, wanting to continue his protest, was furious. Ralph Waldo Emerson is reputed to have visited Thoreau in his jail cell. "Why are you here?" Emerson asked. "Why are you not here?" Thoreau replied.

Laws are enforced through the threat of state violence. They are terrorism in all but name. I only follow most laws to avoid government terrorism. Sometimes, morality and government terrorism happen to agree on something, so it is indeed wrong to kill even though the government uses terrorism to suppress murder.

That makes the government hypocritical, of course. The government uses terrorism to suppress terrorism. To those who don't think it's terrorism, think about it. What distinguishes the government enforcing tax laws and a terrorist making demands?

What about laws against murder, rape and assualt? Surely you must follow these laws, not out of respect for law but simply because these actions are wrong.

When the benefiet of breaking the law outwieghs the punishment one would recive then it would be, in my opinion, moral to break the law. This may sound like I approve of stealing in certain situations I think stealing is acceptable. Breaking the law as a form of protest is foolish in most cases because the point that is made almost never appears to be worth the cost.stupid but also heroic--anyone who suffers for their beliefs is a saintWhat if thier beliefs were misguided to begin with? Such as Neo-Nazis who are imprisoned? Are they heroes?if they were imprisoned just for their beliefs then they would be martyrs

Breaking the law as a form of protest is foolish in most cases because the point that is made almost never appears to be worth the cost.

break the laws, but mask up and don't get caught.

There's no point in havng laws if people can just pick and choose which ones they follow. The law's not perfect, but what can you do? The alternative is anrachy (And I don't care what anybody says, that would be the worst thing possible).

What about laws against murder, rape and assualt? Surely you must follow these laws, not out of respect for law but simply because these actions are wrong.

Those are exceptions. Note this part:

Sometimes, morality and government terrorism happen to agree on something, so it is indeed wrong to kill even though the government uses terrorism to suppress murder.

There's no point in havng laws if people can just pick and choose which ones they follow. The law's not perfect, but what can you do? The alternative is anrachy (And I don't care what anybody says, that would be the worst thing possible).

Why? Why is letting the workers manage the means of production bad? Why is giving people control over their lives bad?

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

one test of whether or not you really believe it should be defied is if you are willing to accept the legal penalties for breaking the law.

i don't buy it. if you don't think there should be those penalties, why should you be willing to accept them? why not fight and keep on fighting?

There's no point in havng laws if people can just pick and choose which ones they follow. The law's not perfect, but what can you do? The alternative is anrachy (And I don't care what anybody says, that would be the worst thing possible).but laws that oppress people have no moral right to exist nor should they be respected--respect must always be a 2 way street

What about laws against murder, rape and assualt? Surely you must follow these laws, not out of respect for law but simply because these actions are wrong.

Those are exceptions. Note this part:

Sometimes, morality and government terrorism happen to agree on something, so it is indeed wrong to kill even though the government uses terrorism to suppress murder.
Maybe, but if we lived under an anarchist state without any police force, who would stop all of these crimes from happening? Murder and rape would be a regular occurrence (A million times worse than now).

Breaking the law as a form of protest is foolish in most cases because the point that is made almost never appears to be worth the cost.

break the laws, but mask up and don't get caught.To protest in disguise is the epitome of cowardice, in my opinion.

one test of whether or not you really believe it should be defied is if you are willing to accept the legal penalties for breaking the law.

i don't buy it. if you don't think there should be those penalties, why should you be willing to accept them? why not fight and keep on fighting?I think the point here is that the law is being defied by being broken, not merely broken. This is more of a question of making a statement about the law in question and it's wrongness. By accepting an unjust punishment for pointing out the the wrongness of the law you are using a weapon in the fight against the law.

Breaking the law as a form of protest is foolish in most cases because the point that is made almost never appears to be worth the cost.

break the laws, but mask up and don't get caught.To protest in disguise is the epitome of cowardice, in my opinion.

Laws are enforced through the threat of state violence. They are terrorism in all but name. I only follow most laws to avoid government terrorism. Sometimes, morality and government terrorism happen to agree on something, so it is indeed wrong to kill even though the government uses terrorism to suppress murder.

That makes the government hypocritical, of course. The government uses terrorism to suppress terrorism. To those who don't think it's terrorism, think about it. What distinguishes the government enforcing tax laws and a terrorist making demands?


That's not true. Rather, it's not complete. Laws are "enforced" through mutual agreement by people participating in a given society. There are always more non-governmental individuals than governmentals in any given civilzation. While a government may use force to try and control it's citizens, a government that functions in this way is never ultimately successful. History has given us many examples of people finally saying, "Enough", and forcing the government to accept it's position as subserviant to the will of the people. The besieged government may resort to violence to attempt to maintain control, but it's ultimately a futile gesture and will never work in the long term because, when the people are united in purpose and aware of their power, thier force is greater than that of any small handful of individuals who are attempting to subjugate them. The power always has and always will truly lie in the hands of the people. The question is, are they capable of realizing it and acting on it and then, once their purpose is accomplished, laying it down again in a way such that more "governmentals" don't take it up and restart the situation.

Like Ghandi said, "You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul." It is the duty of the people to remember that they are the ones with the final mandate to rule because they are the ones who are giving agreement to their ruling. If the people refuse to play by the government's rules, then the government has two options. It can try killing them, although in a truly united populace there will always be more people than people willing to shoot them in cold blood. Or it can serve as it should and modify it's direction in accordance with the wishes of the people.

Laws must be respected because the are the framework by which we form society. However, government constantly runs the risk of becoming corrupt. Not because of any inherant evil in governmental officials (I have to believe that), but because in the rarified atmosphere of modern day politics it is easy for government to become divorced from the people who give it permission and means to exist in the first place. When the government attempts to surpass it's mandate and enforce laws that are against the will of the people, it is the duty of the people to non-violently confront the government, force it to recognize it's error and demand correction.

DP. Wasn't this supposed to stop happening now that we've banished word games? :roll:

Breaking the law as a form of protest is foolish in most cases because the point that is made almost never appears to be worth the cost.

break the laws, but mask up and don't get caught.To protest in disguise is the epitome of cowardice, in my opinion.not necessarily--sometimes its just wise stratgey--why make it easy for the oppressor to reconize you?

break the laws, but mask up and don't get caught.To protest in disguise is the epitome of cowardice, in my opinion.

it may be. but it seemed to work well enough for tossing corporate property into boston harbor.

Maybe, but if we lived under an anarchist state without any police force, who would stop all of these crimes from happening? Murder and rape would be a regular occurrence (A million times worse than now).

in societies that actually existed without centralized government - and not just because they were in the middle of a civil war - rape and murder were no more regular than they are now.

Breaking the law as a form of protest is foolish in most cases because the point that is made almost never appears to be worth the cost.

break the laws, but mask up and don't get caught.To protest in disguise is the epitome of cowardice, in my opinion.not necessarily--sometimes its just wise stratgey--why make it easy for the oppressor to reconize you?Well, in my mind, masked protestors brings to mind the image of a KKK parade, in which the "brave" defenders of thier ideals and race and the protectors of some "pure" race hide behind masks and robes. Anyone who protests in that way is a coward equal to those.

Look at Bush's proposals limiting free speech, which is what our constitution is based on. It would be moral to break that law.

Maybe, but if we lived under an anarchist state without any police force, who would stop all of these crimes from happening? Murder and rape would be a regular occurrence (A million times worse than now).

There are other ways to deal with murder and rape.

That's not true. Rather, it's not complete. Laws are "enforced" through mutual agreement by people participating in a given society. There are always more non-governmental individuals than governmentals in any given civilzation. While a government may use force to try and control it's citizens, a government that functions in this way is never ultimately successful. History has given us many examples of people finally saying, "Enough", and forcing the government to accept it's position as subserviant to the will of the people. The besieged government may resort to violence to attempt to maintain control, but it's ultimately a futile gesture and will never work in the long term because, when the people are united in purpose and aware of their power, thier force is greater than that of any small handful of individuals who are attempting to subjugate them. The power always has and always will truly lie in the hands of the people. The question is, are they capable of realizing it and acting on it and then, once their purpose is accomplished, laying it down again in a way such that more "governmentals" don't take it up and restart the situation.

People do not consent to being ruled because they don't fight it anymore than people consent in The Matrix to be used as a power source because they accept the simulation. All government rests on violence.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

break the laws, but mask up and don't get caught.To protest in disguise is the epitome of cowardice, in my opinion.

it may be. but it seemed to work well enough for tossing corporate property into boston harbor.The problem is that the Boston Tea Party was not a protest of law, but an act of terrorism against the government. The object of the action was not to protest the tax law or the seizure law but to defy Gov Hutchinson in an act of violence that was, reasonably illegal. It is doubtful that any of the participants felt the law against destroying property siezed by the government should have been legal.

BTW it wasn't corporate property per se, it was property siezed by the crown.

i don't buy it. if you don't think there should be those penalties, why should you be willing to accept them? why not fight and keep on fighting?

because the question was how can you be sure youre doing it because its unjust and not just being self indulgent

if, for example, you want to smoke dope in the privacy of your own home, do it, but dont pretend that you are being some kind of protestor. youre just a stoner.

those who go out on whatever day it is and smoke dope in public as a group, risking arrest, are protesting. they run a real risk of being made an example of.

The problem is that the Boston Tea Party was not a protest of law, but an act of terrorism against the government. The object of the action was not to protest the tax law or the seizure law but to defy Gov Hutchinson in an act of violence that was, reasonably illegal. It is doubtful that any of the participants felt the law against destroying property siezed by the government should have been legal.

That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. They're terrorists because they violated the sacred concept of property? What about the government that declares war and threatens people on a daily basis with armed police?

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

People do not consent to being ruled because they don't fight it anymore than people consent in The Matrix to be used as a power source because they accept the simulation. All government rests on violence.

Of course they do. That's the entire basis behind the highly successful non-violent protests of visionary peace leaders like Ghandi and Martin Luther King. A government only has as much power as it's people are willing to give it. Indeed, that's the whole point of "The Matrix" (well, that and special effects). Even in a regime as repressive and restrictive as that one, eventually the people decided it wasn't for them and overthrew it (er, maybe, I'll admit I never saw the last two movies).

Tacit acquescence is tantamount to tacit acceptance. What government has managed to sustain itself indefinitely by violence alone? There isn't one. Certain governments may very well attempt to rest of violence, but that ideal is fundamentally inimical to the basic purpose of government, which is to serve as the collective representation of the societal agreement by which people in a certain social collective have determined is the best way for them to co-exist.

Laws only beifit the stability of a society, that is their only role. And by doing this they suffocate a persons inherent freedoms to do whatever they want. I believe in the absolute worth of the indivudual over the whole, laws kill freedom, and freedom is the only true valuable anyone has. It is always nessisary to break the law...unless u believe in the value of the whole over the individual.

Of course they do. That's the entire basis behind the highly successful non-violent protests of visionary peace leaders like Ghandi and Martin Luther King. A government only has as much power as it's people are willing to give it. Indeed, that's the whole point of "The Matrix" (well, that and special effects). Even in a regime as repressive and restrictive as that one, eventually the people decided it wasn't for them and overthrew it (er, maybe, I'll admit I never saw the last two movies).

Dictatorships are blatantly nonconsensual. The people there certainly don't consent. All you have to do is note that the US uses more ideology and less force to make people consent because government is all they know, just like the Matrix.

As for the Matrix, they eventually agreed to peace between the humans and machines. The Matrix was even left intact.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

It's all well and good to say that people should disobey 'unjust' laws, but what is that? Who judges what an unjust law is? There are a few people who find the laws against murder unjust, in the same way that there are a few people who think the law shouldn't allow things like sodomy. Who decides?

Wrong. You can choose who governs you, but you can't choose not to be governed. A government as a whole can't be gotten rid of that easily.
If people felt the need to get rid of government, then there would be a serious political party representing that view. In the 1990s in America, even the big-government party was (very reluctantly) signing on to some reforms to shrink the size of the government. If enough people wanted anarchy to be the way, then it would happen. Luckily, fringe groups (No neo-con jokes, please - we've heard it multiple times) don't get elected without a significant amount of the people in their country supporting them.

Dictatorships are blatantly nonconsensual. The people there certainly don't consent. All you have to do is note that the US uses more ideology and less force to make people consent because government is all they know, just like the Matrix.

And which dictatorships have survived in the face of united resistance from the people?

BTW it wasn't corporate property per se, it was property siezed by the crown.

it was tea owned by the east india company.

The problem is that the Boston Tea Party was not a protest of law, but an act of terrorism against the government. The object of the action was not to protest the tax law or the seizure law but to defy Gov Hutchinson in an act of violence that was, reasonably illegal. It is doubtful that any of the participants felt the law against destroying property siezed by the government should have been legal.

That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. They're terrorists because they violated the sacred concept of property? What about the government that declares war and threatens people on a daily basis with armed police?

W@hat concept of property? The Sons of Liberty had every respect for all the private and corporate property involved in the incident and no corporate or private property was damaged by them in the incident except for that property siezed by the crown. The Captains of the ships involved had nothing but praise for the conduct of the Sons of Liberty and their respect for both provate and corporate property. Destroying corporate property was not the intent of the incident, and the leaders went to great pains to insure the safety of corporate property. They were terrorists because they destroyed crown (government) controled property in an act directed against the crown with the intent of depriving the crown (govenment ) of its authority, and also to destroy the tea before anyone in the colonies could buy it when the Govenor put it on auction. One might argue that it is not terrorism in that they used restraint and did not want to create an attitude of terror to controll the actions of indivuals and instead used force to prevent theactionsof indivuals, but that gets into what is terrorism (a different argument).

The major point is that the Tea Party was not directed against an unjust law, but against an unjust government. The intent was not protest the tea law or the removal of the hullage requirement law or the tax laws, but instead the incident was directed at governor Hutchinson and his siezure of the tea.

When the laws of man violate or contradict the laws of God. The laws of God take precedence. Just as the laws of nature also take precedence over the laws of man.
Hence we have the inalienable right to civic protest.
As the Declatration of Independence says, "When ever any government becomes abusive of the natural rights of men, it is the right of people to overthrow such government."

Example:
Reproductive Freedom.
Some would ban people from having more than one child or having any child period.
Others wish to force people to have children.
Both base their view on the Bible.
But in the Bible it says:
Genesis 1:28 "God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth."
Clearly giving all human beings the right to reproduce without government restrictions.

But then you also have
1 Corinthians 7:7-9
"I wish that all men were as I am. (celibate/abstainer). But each man has his own gift from God: one has this gift, another has that. Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried as I am. But if they cannot control themselves (their sexual urges), they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. "

Clearly 1 Corinthians is giving a God given right of reproductive freedom as it expands on Genesis 1.
While Genesis says you have an alienable right to reproduce, 1 Corinthians
says you also have the inalienable right to choose not to reproduce.

The reason this right cannot be restricted by any legitimate government is that the Bible and other laws of nature have established that reproductive freedom is an nonalienable right that neither the government, community, or other group can abridge. Only God himself has the right to take this right away and the government and community are not God.

If people felt the need to get rid of government, then there would be a serious political party representing that view. In the 1990s in America, even the big-government party was (very reluctantly) signing on to some reforms to shrink the size of the government. If enough people wanted anarchy to be the way, then it would happen. Luckily, fringe groups (No neo-con jokes, please - we've heard it multiple times) don't get elected without a significant amount of the people in their country supporting them.

The government "shrinkage" desired by consies and the abolition of government desired by anarchists are completely different. What do you call the department of homeland security and attempted laws against homosexuals and pornography if not attempts to expand government power.

It's all well and good to say that people should disobey 'unjust' laws, but what is that? Who judges what an unjust law is? There are a few people who find the laws against murder unjust, in the same way that there are a few people who think the law shouldn't allow things like sodomy. Who decides?

All laws are unjust because they are enforced by violence, but some laws coincide with morality, so it is wrong to kill or rape. If you choose not to kill, though, it should be for moral rather than legal reasons.

And which dictatorships have survived in the face of united resistance from the people?

Cuba, China, and the USSR have all lasted for a long time.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

The government "shrinkage" desired by consies and the abolition of government desired by anarchists are completely different. What do you call the department of homeland security and attempted laws against homosexuals and pornography if not attempts to expand government power.

Indeed, the size of the government has been (or attempted to be) expanded in many areas after a solid decrease in many areas for about two decades. To say that the government can't go away, though, isn't right. The government can go away, and it can shrink, it can grow, and it can be all powerful, depending on what the people want.

The government "shrinkage" desired by consies and the abolition of government desired by anarchists are completely different. What do you call the department of homeland security and attempted laws against homosexuals and pornography if not attempts to expand government power.

Indeed, the size of the government has been (or attempted to be) expanded in many areas after a solid decrease in many areas for about two decades. To say that the government can't go away, though, isn't right. The government can go away, and it can shrink, it can grow, and it can be all powerful, depending on what the people want.

The people have the right "to establish what ever government type they deem to be in the best interest of securing their personal liberties and happiness." DI.

we have a moral obligation to break bad laws--also we're constitutionally mandated to overthrow the Govt by force if it gets too powerful :?: :shock:Im just quoting our founding fathers

they never said that.....

Read the Declaration of Independence sometime.

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [i.e., securing inherent and inalienable rights, with powers derived from the consent of the governed], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Or Ben Franklin:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Possibly Thomas Paine:

Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.

and

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.

How about George Washington:

In a free and republican government, you cannot restrain the voice of the multitude.


And this Washington quote I have always found interesting, even though it's wildly off topic:

The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.

[quote]It's all well and good to say that people should disobey 'unjust' laws, but what is that? Who judges what an unjust law is? There are a few people who find the laws against murder unjust, in the same way that there are a few people who think the law shouldn't allow things like sodomy. Who decides?

All laws are unjust because they are enforced by violence, but some laws coincide with morality, so it is wrong to kill or rape. If you choose not to kill, though, it should be for moral rather than legal reasons.
Killing and raping will always happen if there isn't some way to enforce it. It's OK to say that killing and raping is wrong but this is the real world we live in. Some people disagree and often, the only thing that keeps people from carrying out these acts is the law.

BTW it wasn't corporate property per se, it was property siezed by the crown.

it was tea owned by the east india company.Yes and no. It was technically at the time owned by the East India Company, but they were unable to sell it and were going to take it to England. Govenor Hutchinson was in the process of siezing the tea for nonpayment of taxes on the tea had placed a hold on the Dartmouth (which was to leave Boston Harbor that afternoon). While the tea at the time of the party did technically belong to the East India company at the time of incident, the incident was not directed at the tea as the property of the East India Company but instead against the tea which was about to siezed by the crown. Much like the attack on the World Trade Center was an attack on corporate property technically (it belonged to the Siverstien Group), it was not directed at the WTC as the property of the Silverstein Group (which had in fact only owned the property for a short time before 9/11). Unlike the WTC, the East India Company only had to suffer the loss of tea which was going to taken from them by the crown anyway.

That's the entire basis behind the highly successful non-violent protests of visionary peace leaders like Ghandi and Martin Luther King.

of course, lurking behind both of their movements was the standing threat that if the peaceful way didn't work than the arguments of some to take up arms would gain even wider popularity.

All laws are unjust because they are enforced by violence, but some laws coincide with morality, so it is wrong to kill or rape. If you choose not to kill, though, it should be for moral rather than legal reasons.

So you have a contradiction. While laws are what were used to put the Marquis de Sade away, they were unjust because they were based on force. Or are you saying the only laws are the laws of individual morality?


Cuba, China, and the USSR have all lasted for a long time.


The U.S.S.R. has fallen because of the power of the people. Cuba won't outlast Castro and the people haven't realized their power yet. China is home to many rebellions, the latest being the Communist overthrow. Even now, China is having to relinquish many of it's more draconian policies in the face of public resistance.

There are many more examples in history of governments being changed by the will of the people than there are of governments successfully imprisoning their own citizens for any length of time.

And this Washington quote I have always found interesting, even though it's wildly off topic:

The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.

Hey!!! That is in an official public document that part of the law of the land.
Look up The Treaty of Tripoli. It has those exact words just about.
Just remember all those fanatics saying there are no public documents saying America was not founded on Christianity.

That's the entire basis behind the highly successful non-violent protests of visionary peace leaders like Ghandi and Martin Luther King.

of course, lurking behind both of their movements was the standing threat that if the peaceful way didn't work than the arguments of some to take up arms would gain even wider popularity.

A shadow support that was never endorsed by either leader or the majority of followers of either movement. And, ultimately, the methods of non-violent protest proved more successful than any armed rebellion could have.

That's the entire basis behind the highly successful non-violent protests of visionary peace leaders like Ghandi and Martin Luther King.

of course, lurking behind both of their movements was the standing threat that if the peaceful way didn't work than the arguments of some to take up arms would gain even wider popularity.The only reason we had to have a revolutionary war in the first place was that the British responded to peaceful overtures by butchering innocent civilians and arresting some of the colonists envoys.
Americans didn't want war, the British forced it on us.

That's the entire basis behind the highly successful non-violent protests of visionary peace leaders like Ghandi and Martin Luther King.

of course, lurking behind both of their movements was the standing threat that if the peaceful way didn't work than the arguments of some to take up arms would gain even wider popularity.The only reason we had to have a revolutionary war in the first place was that the British responded to peaceful overtures by butchering innocent civilians and arresting some of the colonists envoys.
Americans didn't want war, the British forced it on us.

I'll admit that, as an ardent pacifist and non-violent activisim supporter, I'm stumped by that one. It's one of the situations where I must carefully explore my faith and question my beliefs made doubly disturbing by the fact that, had those actions not taken place, I might not be allowed the freedom to question my beliefs at all.

Depends on the law in question - if it's something like public safety I'd prolly follow it. However if it's one of those racist/reglious supremacy/priveleges-some-small-elite-group-and-outcasts-the-rest laws I'm more than happy to break it

That's the entire basis behind the highly successful non-violent protests of visionary peace leaders like Ghandi and Martin Luther King.

of course, lurking behind both of their movements was the standing threat that if the peaceful way didn't work than the arguments of some to take up arms would gain even wider popularity.The only reason we had to have a revolutionary war in the first place was that the British responded to peaceful overtures by butchering innocent civilians and arresting some of the colonists envoys.
Americans didn't want war, the British forced it on us.

I'll admit that, as an ardent pacifist and non-violent activisim supporter, I'm stumped by that one. It's one of the situations where I must carefully explore my faith and question my beliefs made doubly disturbing by the fact that, had those actions not taken place, I might not be allowed the freedom to question my beliefs at all.
Tis a troubling paradox is it not.
Sometimes, to preserve life, we are forced to take life.

In general terms, I believe the government needs to legislate only three general areas: Force, fraud, and externalities. "Force and fraud," of course, is the rallying cry of many a libertarian. An externality is an agreement between two or more parties which will affect another party which is not part of the agreement -- as an example, two families might find it enjoyable to burn tires in their backyards, but the other households of their neighborhood -- who are not part of their agreement -- would be affected by the hazardous smoke.

There's also some silly stuff about public works like road construction and some rights like property ownership. <_<

There's no point in havng laws if people can just pick and choose which ones they follow. The law's not perfect, but what can you do? The alternative is anrachy (And I don't care what anybody says, that would be the worst thing possible).

Ah, yes, the old "ONLY TWO OPTIONS EXIST!!!!!11111one" argument. Clearly, if I break any law -- say, if I drive my car over a solid white line in the street and thereby violate the California Vehicle Code -- I have plummeted the entire continental United States into a state of horrific anarchy.

You may say I'm being extreme. I am, and I think it makes my point nicely. Please remember that there is almost always a middle path of moderation.

To protest in disguise is the epitome of cowardice, in my opinion.

Two points -- first, the "cowards" often live to fight another day; second, those who protest quietly display more bravery than those who do not protest at all. There is a difference between a willingness to act against injustice and presenting oneself to be detained or shot by tyrranical government -- a fighter in most any context is, generally, obviously more effective if he or she survives longer.

in societies that actually existed without centralized government - and not just because they were in the middle of a civil war - rape and murder were no more regular than they are now.

At first, I instinctively rejected that, but after a few seconds, I'm thinking you may be pretty much correct. Part of me still wonders how we would have accurate data on such things if no government collects crime reports, but then, it is a rare government that stops rape before it happens; generally, the police only arrest someone after they have committed a crime -- a criminal justice system, while perhaps a deterrent to premeditated crime, can do little to deter a desperate or impassioned lawbreaker.

Somewhat off-topic, but I wanted to say it anyway.

It's all well and good to say that people should disobey 'unjust' laws, but what is that? Who judges what an unjust law is? There are a few people who find the laws against murder unjust, in the same way that there are a few people who think the law shouldn't allow things like sodomy. Who decides?

Heh. A few people have been looking for the answer to that question for... oh... seven-thousand years, if I remember right? Let us know when you find the perfect answer.

In the end, the only thing that determines "justice" and "injustice" is belief. Each individual possesses distinct beliefs. In many cases, those beliefs coincide at least roughly with the beliefs of others; in some cases, they do not. A vast majority of people believe that murder is an immoral action; not so in the case of sodomy as you mentioned. Each individual generally stands up for what he or she truly believes in, and each individual generally believes themselves moral for doing so -- your urge to find a perfectly detailed moral system which will uniformly apply to each individual of the human race is unreasonable and unproductive in my eyes.

Cuba, China, and the USSR have all lasted for a long time.

The dictatorships I believe you refer to in all of those nations lasted or have lasted for less than a century. The fall of one dictatorship or totalitarian government can give rise to another; that does not mean that the two governments are the same. Never mind, of course, that the previous governments in all three of those cases fell to massive public uprisings.

Sometimes, to preserve life, we are forced to take life.

I don't ever agree that that is true. As a rational species who attempts to forge a society based on laws and common good, we can not ever justify maintaining order at the point of a gun. Violence is a renunciation of reason and reason is all that sets us apart as a species. To willingly engage in violence must not only be wrong, but is to surrender one's humanity. Wars happen, but they shouldn't. Each war, each death, is a failure on our part as a species to live up to our potential. I don't believe in violence but I am constantly forced to believe in failure.

Sometimes, to preserve life, we are forced to take life.

I don't ever agree that that is true. As a rational species who attempts to forge a society based on laws and common good, we can not ever justify maintaining order at the point of a gun. Violence is a renunciation of reason and reason is all that sets us apart as a species. To willingly engage in violence must not only be wrong, but is to surrender one's humanity. Wars happen, but they shouldn't. Each war, each death, is a failure on our part as a species to live up to our potential. I don't believe in violence but I am constantly forced to believe in failure.If you were backed into a corner and someone had a gun pointed at you and was going to kill you, you would not defend yourself?

If you were backed into a corner and someone had a gun pointed at you and was going to kill you, you would not defend yourself?

That's a life boat situation and I don't believe in life boat situations. Also, there is a difference in defence versus murder. I would attempt to get myself out of the situation, make no mistake, but I would also have attempted to never be in the situation in the first place. If the question you are asking is, "Would I, if forced into a binary choice, kill another person to preserve my own life," then the answer is no, I wouldn't.

If you were backed into a corner and someone had a gun pointed at you and was going to kill you, you would not defend yourself?

That's a life boat situation and I don't believe in life boat situations. Also, there is a difference in defence versus murder. I would attempt to get myself out of the situation, make no mistake, but I would also have attempted to never be in the situation in the first place. If the question you are asking is, "Would I, if forced into a binary choice, kill another person to preserve my own life," then the answer is no, I wouldn't.
I'm not talking about murder, I'm talking about self defense.
Suppose your sister was being raped by her boyfreind in his car, and he was going to kill her when he was done. And the only way to stop him was to kill him. Would you do it?

I'm not talking about murder, I'm talking about self defense.
Suppose your sister was being raped by her boyfreind in his car, and he was going to kill her when he was done. And the only way to stop him was to kill him. Would you do it?

Again, though, you are creating a false life boat situation. There are umpteen ways this situation could have been prevented or avoided and, even if the situation came to pass, there are thousands of ways to head it off without jumping straight to killing or even violence.

If the government lacks common sense, the people should remind them.

In many states you could get punished severely for smoking marijuana, while a drunk driver would receive a less harsh sanction. The drunk driver endangers not only himself but other traffic participants. The MJ smoker in his own house hurts no one.

In general terms, I believe the government needs to legislate only three general areas: Force, fraud, and externalities. "Force and fraud," of course, is the rallying cry of many a libertarian. An externality is an agreement between two or more parties which will affect another party which is not part of the agreement -- as an example, two families might find it enjoyable to burn tires in their backyards, but the other households of their neighborhood -- who are not part of their agreement -- would be affected by the hazardous smoke.

Remember that force and fraud are the basis of all authority. They use force to make you do something you don't want to do and they use fraud to make you think there isn't a better way.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Laws and morals are two different things. Although some laws involve morality.

Laws and morals are two different things. Although some laws involve morality.So when morality and law diverge it is morally correct to disobey the law? Like in France where morality is outlawed it is OK and moral, albeit illegal, to act in a moral fashion. I am of course refering to the banning of Hijab in French schools, a moral requirement of Islam. But the Hijab is also required under the law of Islam, so the two laws are in conflict. And isn't the French law moral under prevailing French morality?

There are times when not only is it okay to violate the law, it's a moral imperative to do so. Others have provided some good examples of this throughout the thread--disobeying the Fugitive Slave Act is perhaps the strongest example that readily jumps to mind, although I could argue for fleeing the country rather than being drafted to fight in a war you consider immoral as well.

I fail to see how democracy itself is a particularly moral choice of government. Even with a constitution, the ability of the majority to crush supposed equality by picking on minorities is clearly evident in absolutely every single nation to date; political equality has never and nor will it ever equate to social and financial equality, and quite rightly so; we aren't equal in ability, belief, logical capacity, knowledge and so on and so forth. Practically every system to date has attempted at one time or other to show that we all are all important and valuable in our own ways and this can add apparent legitimacy to any economic or political concept; the ideal of equality in particular is so ambiguous as to be ludicrous. Right wing groups - including extremists - can appeal to the working class via the argument that workers are as equally important to the strength of the nation as the middle class; that all groups within a country work towards the betterment of the nation when they try to improve their own situation. In many ways this concept offers the exact same idea of equality that Communism does.

Majority rule itself, even were we to attain pure democracy, is still not a particularly moral agent - what makes five million people more intelligent, more rational, and more morally decent than four and a half million? Democracy, generally, instills a sense of legitimacy in the population of a regime, which gives it stability. In allowing all (or most) people to vote, the people tend to feel that since they have contributed (even by choosing not to vote,) they are somewhat responsible for the outcome of the vote - making criticism of the system itself either difficult or based on pedantic problems with solutions based on fallacious assumptions. To put it plainly, sometimes the majority make decisions which a good many people will find to be abhorrent and this problem does not disappear when the democratic aspects of a system are strengthened. In many ways, such as through proportional representation, the stability of any government coming to power is severely weakened and undermined, as parties are forced into coalitions and therefore concessions of principles, even though proportional reprensentation is clearly more democratic than first past the post systems - such as America and the UK.

Its other main good point, which in some ways can also be jolly bad to many people, is that when conjoined with a constitution or other non-elected set of ideals it can to some extent limit the ability of any one group to persecute another, which is one of the few ways by which it obviously more lenient than a dictatorship or oligarchy. Even this is imperfect (one only has to recognise the racism, classism, religious discrimination and sexism still apparent in all nations,) and mostly theoretical, and may only be maintained when the vast majority of people believe - with little reason - in an inherent goodness afforded by democracy. In of itself democracy is clearly not a moral agent and allows a good deal of what many may see as immoral actions to be commited.

There is no universal morality and thus there is no way to form a utopia. The more laws there are, the more stringent they are - by definition - the more likely they will be deliberately disobeyed as people will see them as immoral. We can expect nothing less.

I fail to see how democracy itself is a particularly moral choice of government.

you have only two choices. minority decision making or collective decision making. under certain forms of collective decision making it becomes possible that some will rule over others. however, minority decision making necessitates that some rule over others.

i know which way i will choose.

DP

So when morality and law diverge it is morally correct to disobey the law?

I would say that the phrasing of your question answers the question itself. If law and moral are not the same thing -- as most people will concede they are not necessarily so -- then of course it is moral to violate the law.

The main difficulty there is that, while the law is both clearly delineated and identical for all, morality is not. Generally, law is based on morality; thus the debate.

Right wing groups - including extremists - can appeal to the working class via the argument that workers are as equally important to the strength of the nation as the middle class; that all groups within a country work towards the betterment of the nation when they try to improve their own situation. In many ways this concept offers the exact same idea of equality that Communism does.

But in many ways it does not. While it is true that many political groups advocate "equality," it's probably not good to ignore the critical aspects of how they will reach and assure this equality and what, exactly, their equality will mean for the people.

To put it plainly, sometimes the majority make decisions which a good many people will find to be abhorrent and this problem does not disappear when the democratic aspects of a system are strengthened.

It is quite impossible to please all of the people all of the time; what error is there, then, in trying to please the most people the most of the time? The rights of the minorities must be protected; beyond that, I see no obvious fault with utilitarian rule of law. The devil, of course, is in the details, and there is fault in many democracies in that they fail to protect those rights. Democratic rule is not perfect, but I'm not sure there's anything better.

Oh, and what Free Soviets said. He are smart. :B

There is no universal morality and thus there is no way to form a utopia. The more laws there are, the more stringent they are - by definition - the more likely they will be deliberately disobeyed as people will see them as immoral. We can expect nothing less.

I agree there.

((bump))