NationStates Jolt Archive

If we accept that Laws are established by a society as a Deterrent in an effort to:

1) Protect human life,

2) “Protect” property from predation or destruction and

3) To establish a means to punish violators of regulatory edicts which do not relate to the above

Then when does it become an ethical/moral obligation to violate a Law?

Take for example: It is illegal to steal a vehicle and speed – however, if such action is taken for the express purpose of delivering a critically injured (dying) person to the nearest medical aid, such action is (normally) excused by the Courts – if charges are brought at all - upon the moral necessity for such action.

Likewise, kicking in a door/breaking a window (vandalism) to extricate a someone from a life threatening situation is usually excused based upon the accepted moral necessity for such action.

But even more than these gross actions, when is violating a regulatory Law not only justifiable, but a moral imperative?

Some would say that it is morally imperative to always obey the law, as to circumvent a law based on your own morals would undermine any system of laws.

The key is to form the laws so that there is no moral contradiction for people.

It's a case by case thing. You can't just say it is ok to break a law under certain specific conditions since occasionally, the situation changes the context. Gimme some time to think up a good example...

Since generally the Law will bear context in mind for any "misdemeanour" occurred during other moral actions, you're generally not breaking it; just putting it under a little stress.

The most common moral law-breaking scenarios involve information gathering that violates privacy. Generally, if you've got a wrongfully accused friend, you're justified breaking privacy laws if your target is withholding details that would affect the verdict. Also, whenever the law-enforcers are out of line (such as physical abuse of people), it's morally justified to refuse to accept that and, if necessary, get in their way.

It's a moral imperative when the laws serve no constructive purpose and only victimize the citizens. Like laws against marijuana use, the old Jim Crow laws, and laws that interfere with free expression or private ownership of guns.

Since generally the Law will bear context in mind for any "misdemeanour" occurred during other moral actions, you're generally not breaking it; just putting it under a little stress.

The most common moral law-breaking scenarios involve information gathering that violates privacy. Generally, if you've got a wrongfully accused friend, you're justified breaking privacy laws if your target is withholding details that would affect the verdict. Also, whenever the law-enforcers are out of line (such as physical abuse of people), it's morally justified to refuse to accept that and, if necessary, get in their way.You see, in Germany, that isn't allowed. If the person is being recorded by another private person without their knowledge, that can't be used in court. Exceptions are made for your private property, I think, or for surveillance.

It's a moral imperative when the laws serve no constructive purpose and only victimize the citizens. Like laws against marijuana use, the old Jim Crow laws, and laws that interfere with free expression or private ownership of guns.

What about taxation for education? What about drunk driving laws?

You can make very reasonable arguments against both, but would you say that there is a moral imperative to ignore both of those laws?

Once you start undermining the law based on your morality, you legitimize others efforts of undermining the law.

It's a moral imperative when the laws serve no constructive purpose and only victimize the citizens. Like laws against marijuana use, the old Jim Crow laws, and laws that interfere with free expression or private ownership of guns.
Ahh, so it is imperative that I Smoke simply because Pot is "illegal"?

The question is not really one of "can" I do it, but "must" I do it, because NOT violating a particular law would be more damaging to the intent of "Law" than violating it. Spirit vs Letter and all that.

What about taxation for education? What about drunk driving laws?

You can make very reasonable arguments against both, but would you say that there is a moral imperative to ignore both of those laws?

Once you start undermining the law based on your morality, you legitimize others efforts of undermining the law.
Taxation for education serves an important purpose as do drunk driving laws. Marijuana laws don't.

Ahh, so it is imperative that I Smoke simply because Pot is "illegal"?

The question is not really one of "can" I do it, but "must" I do it, because NOT violating a particular law would be more damaging to the intent of "Law" than violating it. Spirit vs Letter and all that.
No, but if you're on a jury you shouldn't convict a guy for weed.

No, but if you're on a jury you shouldn't convict a guy for weed.
That's called "Jury Nullification" and is an entirly different Thread/Topic... :p

Taxation for education serves an important purpose as do drunk driving laws. Marijuana laws don't.

That is what you believe, while someone else can quite reasonably believe otherwise. My point is, however, laws become meaningless when we assign value to them that is dependent on our own morals.

Society cannot abide vigilante activism.

That is what you believe, while someone else can quite reasonably believe otherwise. My point is, however, laws become meaningless when we assign value to them that is dependent on our own morals.

Society cannot abide vigilante activism.
Nobody can both disagree with me and be reasonable. It's just impossible.

Seriously though, I see your point. Does that mean I have to stop thinking of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King as a great man?

What about taxation for education? What about drunk driving laws?


I'll toss in that the public education system sucks ass. :) I'd say go private for education. Drunk driving laws are just duplication--there are already laws against assault, homicide, murder, etc. There is no need for extra laws regarding driving drunk. You hit someone or somebody's property, there are already punishments.


You can make very reasonable arguments against both, but would you say that there is a moral imperative to ignore both of those laws?


Yup. The government doesn't know what's best for individuals, so why do they get to choose the curriculum? I've already stated that duplicate punishment exists with drunk driving laws--that's not exactly moral.


Once you start undermining the law based on your morality, you legitimize others efforts of undermining the law.

I can handle undermining the 95% of the useless laws on the books today. :D

It's a moral imperative when the laws serve no constructive purpose and only victimize the citizens. Like laws against marijuana use, the old Jim Crow laws, and laws that interfere with free expression or private ownership of guns.

Are you claiming that it is a moral imperative to smoke marijuana and own guns?

It's always a moral imperative to smoke weed as often as possible

It's a moral imperative to violate gun control laws by blowing off the face of anyone who might try to confiscate your gun.

Are you claiming that it is a moral imperative to smoke marijuana and own guns?
No, but breaking those laws is a form of civil disobedience to undermine unjust laws.

No, but breaking those laws is a form of civil disobedience to undermine unjust laws.

Damn right!

*Pats DCD on the back, hands him an ice-cold beer*

No, but breaking those laws is a form of civil disobedience to undermine unjust laws.

First show me a watertight ethical argument that we have an ontological right to use marijuana and possess firearms...

First show me a watertight ethical argument that we have an ontological right to use marijuana and possess firearms...

Without guns, how would we prevent a dictatorship or protect our property from thugs and gangsters?

Laws are based on one group's definition of morals. Whether those morals seem justifiable is dependant on the individual, as is whether it is imparitive to break those laws or even just ethical. Another reason I like the general libertarian view (not the extreme view), even though it has problems of it's own. Since ethics and morals are dependant upon an individual's view, I voted whenever I feel like it because that's the closest to what I feel.

Without guns, how would we prevent a dictatorship or protect our property from thugs and gangsters?

What gives us the right to protect our property (or, for that matter, to own property in the first place)?

What gives us the right to protect our property (or, for that matter, to own property in the first place)?

So you think everything should be owned by the government?

So you think everything should be owned by the government?

Not necessarily: just that we have no evidence for an ethical right to own property and so using such a right to back up the right to use firearms and marijuana is spurious.

Seriously though, I see your point. Does that mean I have to stop thinking of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King as a great man?

That is a good point, when grave injustice is being done, I can understand peaceful disobedience, the sit-ins for example.

I guess I should just say that you damn well better be right when you do undermine the law.

I can handle undermining the 95% of the useless laws on the books today. :D

The best thing to do is let time take its course and do your part to educate people. Otherwise, you are unlikely to change the minds of those who keep the laws in place.

That is a good point, when grave injustice is being done, I can understand peaceful disobedience, the sit-ins for example.
So, if said violation of the Law is in and of itself peaceful then it becomes a moral imperative?

So, if said violation of the Law is in and of itself peaceful then it becomes a moral imperative?

Peace is not the justification.

This is a very difficult question, because I do believe that the individual should retain his/her rights and must fight for them if s/he must, but like I said before in this thread, for society cannot function without respect for the law.

*snip for length* When is violating a regulatory Law not only justifiable, but a moral imperative?
For myself, I feel it is imperative that I violate any law that interferes with the most fundamental human rights (under my definitions, of course :)). Protection of human life is included in this, as well as protection of fundamental liberties (for instance, if slavery were legalized I would break that law by helping slaves escape).

Have you read Defending the Undefendable yet? I kind of like Blocks argument* that it is heroic to break the law whenever the law is not defending anybody's rights. If there was a law against wearing blue ties, then it is heroic to wear a blue tie.

My own version of that would probably be like this: Imagine that we were at a place where you knew that no police was available and somebody started to commit a crime. If I then got out a gun and yelled at the lawbreaker "Stop that or I blow your brains out!". Would you then a) Get your gun out and back me up? b) Stand back and watch (none of my business eh...) or c) jump to take my gun away and defend the lawbreaker. Case a) means it is a good law, you should defend it whenever you can. Case c means it's a bad law, you should break it and undermine it whenever you get a chance. Case b) is some kind of middle ground, you should probably not break the law for no good reason.


*The argument goes as follows (My words, but it's fairly similar to something Block says. I bet his is more elegant).
A law is not just a rule. It is a rule with an implicit death threat against anyone who does not accept the rule. Without the threat the rule is not a law, merely somebody's opinion on what is good behaviour.
Thus a law is a use of force.
A use of force that is not defense of anybody's rights is an initiation of force.
So any law that is not defending somebody's rights is an initiation of force against those who break the law. In other words it violates their right to freedom.
If you work to undermine something that violates a person's freedom, then you are defending that person's rights.
And you are always justified (and in the eyes of W Block heroic) when you defend someboy's rights against a threat.
QED.

EDIT: Sorry, mixed up posters. The question at the top is for Vittos and Lewrockwellia. The rest is answer to the original question.

Peace is not the justification.

This is a very difficult question, because I do believe that the individual should retain his/her rights and must fight for them if s/he must, but like I said before in this thread, for society cannot function without respect for the law.
But doesn't respect for the law also include not using the law to violate the rights of others? When you work against bad laws you are working for respect of the law just as much as when you uphold good laws.

One issue that comes to mind is abortion clinic bombings. If you truly believe that a fetus is a person, are you justified in breaking the law to protect its rights?

Separate yourself from the issue of abortion, and answer this objectively.

But doesn't respect for the law also include not using the law to violate the rights of others? When you work against bad laws you are working for respect of the law just as much as when you uphold good laws.

You are working for what you think the laws should be, not the laws in principle.

The problem is, when one person fights the laws based on morality and we justify it, how can we not justify all moral obstruction of the law?

One issue that comes to mind is abortion clinic bombings. If you truly believe that a fetus is a person, are you justified in breaking the law to protect its rights?

Separate yourself from the issue of abortion, and answer this objectively.
It can't be answered objectively without coming to an objective determination of what a person is and whether a fetus meets the criteria for personhood.

Have you read Defending the Undefendable yet? I kind of like Blocks argument* that it is heroic to break the law whenever the law is not defending anybody's rights. If there was a law against wearing blue ties, then it is heroic to wear a blue tie.

No I have not. This is a compelling issue, so I may have to check it out.

One issue that comes to mind is abortion clinic bombings. If you truly believe that a fetus is a person, are you justified in breaking the law to protect its rights?

Separate yourself from the issue of abortion, and answer this objectively.
You mean like if they were bringing in persons they did not like to "euthanise" them? Like the T4 program? Yes, you would be justified in sabotaging that.

One issue that comes to mind is abortion clinic bombings. If you truly believe that a fetus is a person, are you justified in breaking the law to protect its rights?

Separate yourself from the issue of abortion, and answer this objectively.
Of course not. If you believe the death penalty is wrong, are you then allowed to go blow up prisons that have death penalty fascilities? If you believe murder is wrong, are you allowed to go around shooting murderers in the head? Whether or not you believe abortion is murder, our laws do not allow an individual to act as judge, jury, and executioner based on his or her personal feelings.

You are working for what you think the laws should be, not the laws in principle.

The problem is, when one person fights the laws based on morality and we justify it, how can we not justify all moral obstruction of the law?
Do you see a difference between natural law and personal morals? Like between "Is slavery a crime" and "Is premarital sex a crime"? If you do, then breaking the government's law to defend natural law is right, while personal morals does not enter the picture.

Since laws are man-made constructions, written condensation of (again) man-made rules, that are backed up by arms, I fail to see why they should be moral imperatives at all.
To the contrary, i feel inclined to disobey people putting guns in my face and threatening to punish me for the very reason. The fact that the guns hide behind lawyers and such doesn´t change anything.

Of course not. If you believe the death penalty is wrong, are you then allowed to go blow up prisons that have death penalty fascilities? If you believe murder is wrong, are you allowed to go around shooting murderers in the head? Whether or not you believe abortion is murder, our laws do not allow an individual to act as judge, jury, and executioner based on his or her personal feelings.
Does that mean that any representative of the government can do anything and you must not intervene? I mean like if you had the real T4 program, or even holocaust, going on in your back yard and the government had passed all laws to make it legal. Would you not be justified in trying to save a victim?

Does that mean that any representative of the government can do anything and you must not intervene? I mean like if you had the real T4 program, or even holocaust, going on in your back yard and the government had passed all laws to make it legal. Would you not be justified in trying to save a victim?
Depends on who's perspective you are using. From your own perspective, you could be justified in pushing an old lady down a flight of stairs. You can decide just about anything is justified. From the perspective of the government, you clearly would not be justified. From the perspectives of other human beings, your actions might be justified or they might not. You'll have to give me more information if you want me to give a conclusive answer.

One issue that comes to mind is abortion clinic bombings. If you truly believe that a fetus is a person, are you justified in breaking the law to protect its rights?

Separate yourself from the issue of abortion, and answer this objectively.Note that the Question revolves around Regulatory laws - i.e. Laws that do not directly address actions of one person against another - thus my examples of Theft/Speeding or Kicking in a Door.

The excercise of Warfare against the Status Quo is not what I'm trying to get at here.

Depends on who's perspective you are using. From your own perspective, you could be justified in pushing an old lady down a flight of stairs. You can decide just about anything is justified. From the perspective of the government, you clearly would not be justified. From the perspectives of other human beings, your actions might be justified or they might not. You'll have to give me more information if you want me to give a conclusive answer.
Do you know what T4 and Holocaust is? What more information can there be? People arrive by train all hours of the day, are unloaded from the cattle wagons and pushed into two small houses. Several minutes later dead bodies are carried out the back door of the houses and burnt. It all goes on in plain sight, it all is 'legal', while anything you can do to help victims or sabotage the proceedings is a 'crime'. If you think government law is holy you must not interfere, if you think human life is holy you must try to stop them. This is the ultimate example why those things are mutually exclusive.

Do you know what T4 and Holocaust is? What more information can there be? People arrive by train all hours of the day, are unloaded from the cattle wagons and pushed into two small houses. Several minutes later dead bodies are carried out the back door of the houses and burnt. It all goes on in plain sight, it all is 'legal', while anything you can do to help victims or sabotage the proceedings is a 'crime'. If you think government law is holy you must not interfere, if you think human life is holy you must try to stop them. This is the ultimate example why those things are mutually exclusive.
In the situation you describe the Rule of Law is moot since the Government/Law is actively violating the First Principle of Law - Protection of Lives. Therefore any actions taken against said government/law is not unlawful since the Law itself has been voided.

But that is not what I am wondering. I am talking about regulatory laws in Lawful societies - i.e. societies that do not make it policy to violate Principla #1 - and whether or not there is a moral imperative to ignore/violate Laws that regulate/restrict Rights, and if so, which Laws and why violating it is a moral imperative.

Of course not. If you believe the death penalty is wrong, are you then allowed to go blow up prisons that have death penalty fascilities? If you believe murder is wrong, are you allowed to go around shooting murderers in the head? Whether or not you believe abortion is murder, our laws do not allow an individual to act as judge, jury, and executioner based on his or her personal feelings.

I was not referring to killing those who perform the procedure, just destroying the actual building and equipment.

Are they justified in peacefully obstructing other people from entering the clinic? Are animal rights activists justified in releasing animals from labs?

That is what you believe, while someone else can quite reasonably believe otherwise. My point is, however, laws become meaningless when we assign value to them that is dependent on our own morals.

Society cannot abide vigilante activism.

You are correct that society can't abide vigilante activism, but there is a distinction between raw vigilante activism and disobeying unjust laws.

Put simply, raw vigilante activism is disobeying a law for any moral justification. For example, if you were following a Nietzschian ethical paradigm (where the highest good is excellence), and further supposing that the particular thing you are excellent at is burgling, then you might well burgle irrespective of the law, because that is what satisfies your own particular moral paradigm.

Disobeying unjust laws, however, is the practice of disobeying a law for a very specific reason: because either the law itself or the implementation of it in this case is not conducive to the overarching purpose of laws, which is to promote the general welfare of society.

Take, for instance, a law mandating that you beat your wife if she fails in her societally assigned duty to keep the house clean. Now, it is perfectly obvious that it is a law in the vulgar sense, because it is on paper, and presumably, it is also being backed by force (i.e. you could be beaten for failing in your duty to beat your wife). But in the larger sense, I would argue that it is not a law, because all laws are supposed to make the lives of the citizens under its jurisdiction better. This "law" does not. As such, I would argue that it doesn't qualify as a law, because it doesn't meet the full definition. As such, there is no real moral obligation to follow it, and every moral obligation to disobey it, because by doing so, you will in fact be upholding the spirit of the laws over the letter of them.

I would also say that there is a difference in how you approach the law depending upon its content, a fact that your analysis seems to trip over. Say, for instance, that the aforementioned law merely allowed beatings to happen, not mandated them. In that case, I would say that it is morally necessary to work to overturn that law, as it promotes injustice, but it is not necessary to directly defy that human law or to directly escalate the effort to violence, as there is no mandate to obey it and no punishment applied however you choose to side. So if you break down the law like that, you could say, for instance, that it is perfectly okay, or to be more precise completely moral and just, for people in the '60's to protest peaceably against laws that allowed discrimination against blacks. Were there any laws that were overt enough to mandate discrimination, it would be morally permissable to directly defy those, even to the point that violence resulted. But by the same token, there is no carte blanche to bomb Alabama's Capitol building.

Do you see a difference between natural law and personal morals? Like between "Is slavery a crime" and "Is premarital sex a crime"? If you do, then breaking the government's law to defend natural law is right, while personal morals does not enter the picture.

If there is a natural law, it is very poorly defined, and mankind would be very hard pressed to codify it.

If there is a natural law, it is very poorly defined, and mankind would be very hard pressed to codify it.

Do Good and Avoid Evil

How do we know what is good?

Treat all people as you would that they were ends in themselves, and never as a means to an end.

You are correct that society can't abide vigilante activism, but there is a distinction between raw vigilante activism and disobeying unjust laws. <snip>. Were there any laws that were overt enough to mandate discrimination, it would be morally permissable to directly defy those, even to the point that violence resulted. But by the same token, there is no carte blanche to bomb Alabama's Capitol building.
Have a Cookie! :D

If we accept that Laws are established by a society as a Deterrent in an effort to:
1) Protect human life,
2) “Protect” property from predation or destruction and
3) To establish a means to punish violators of regulatory edicts which do not relate to the above
Then when does it become an ethical/moral obligation to violate a Law?
It is okay to violate the law if your intent is to accomplish any one of those three tasks, when the law simply cannot.

It is okay to violate the law if your intent is to accomplish any one of those three tasks, when the law simply cannot. Or said law actively thrwarts those principles? ;)

I'd like to hear from the "nevers" (as well as from some of our more Statist/Euro posters...) Hello Fass? Nazz? Chomskiron? CanuckHeaven? OceanDrive2?

It is okay to violate the law if your intent is to accomplish any one of those three tasks, when the law simply cannot.
Heh, yeah, that's what I meant. But I would like to replace his three with protecting people from being hurt or threatened when they have done no wrong.

The best thing to do is let time take its course and do your part to educate people. Otherwise, you are unlikely to change the minds of those who keep the laws in place.

Perhaps. But there comes a time when talking is over, and fighting begins (may I never see it).

I was not referring to killing those who perform the procedure, just destroying the actual building and equipment.

Are they justified in peacefully obstructing other people from entering the clinic? Are animal rights activists justified in releasing animals from labs?
"Justified" is a messy term. Personally, no I don't think they are justified. But I'm sure they think they are. Again, it's a matter of perspective.

Do you know what T4 and Holocaust is? What more information can there be? People arrive by train all hours of the day, are unloaded from the cattle wagons and pushed into two small houses. Several minutes later dead bodies are carried out the back door of the houses and burnt. It all goes on in plain sight, it all is 'legal', while anything you can do to help victims or sabotage the proceedings is a 'crime'. If you think government law is holy you must not interfere, if you think human life is holy you must try to stop them. This is the ultimate example why those things are mutually exclusive.
And if you believe, as I do, that neither the government nor human life is objectively holy, then you acknowledge the simple and basic reality that "justification" is as subjective as morality.

You see, in Germany, that isn't allowed. If the person is being recorded by another private person without their knowledge, that can't be used in court. Exceptions are made for your private property, I think, or for surveillance.

in the States, it varies from state to state.

Here in Virginia, it's admissable without a warrant, as long as one person in the conversation knows about the recording (I.E., I can tape a conversation between you and me; and it's admissable, since I know about it...)...

Let's say a Regulation bans the possession of a certain thing - a book on toxic plants or chemistry, or matches, or Condoms. What then?

For the Christians out there the answer is you can never break a civil law because all civil laws are made by servants of God. Romans 13: 1-7 1 Peter 2:13 Titus 3:1-4 Note that this was written at the time of Nero and other "upstanding" leaders. God puts these men in power for his reasons. It is not up to us to question those reasons. If God wants to remove one of these leaders he can do so as he did when East Europe fell with little violence. To disobey civil law is the same as disobeying any of God's laws.

"When is it Ethical/a Moral Imperative to violate the Law?"

It's virtually impossible to answer a general question in this area, since the circumstances and outcomes are so variable.

You are correct that society can't abide vigilante activism, but there is a distinction between raw vigilante activism and disobeying unjust laws.

Put simply, raw vigilante activism is disobeying a law for any moral justification. For example, if you were following a Nietzschian ethical paradigm (where the highest good is excellence), and further supposing that the particular thing you are excellent at is burgling, then you might well burgle irrespective of the law, because that is what satisfies your own particular moral paradigm.

Disobeying unjust laws, however, is the practice of disobeying a law for a very specific reason: because either the law itself or the implementation of it in this case is not conducive to the overarching purpose of laws, which is to promote the general welfare of society.

Do vigilantes who circumvent the courts not believe they are promoting the general welfare. It seems to me that every argument so far has said "You are free to oppose the law if it oppresses you." Every law oppresses you, that is the entire point of laws. I don't get where you can say, "well he is morally justified for breaking this law, but this person's morality isn't sufficient to break that law."

Take, for instance, a law mandating that you beat your wife if she fails in her societally assigned duty to keep the house clean. Now, it is perfectly obvious that it is a law in the vulgar sense, because it is on paper, and presumably, it is also being backed by force (i.e. you could be beaten for failing in your duty to beat your wife). But in the larger sense, I would argue that it is not a law, because all laws are supposed to make the lives of the citizens under its jurisdiction better. This "law" does not. As such, I would argue that it doesn't qualify as a law, because it doesn't meet the full definition. As such, there is no real moral obligation to follow it, and every moral obligation to disobey it, because by doing so, you will in fact be upholding the spirit of the laws over the letter of them.

So as a libertarian , I should uphold what I feel is the spirit of the laws, by not paying full taxes, not registering for the draft, and blocking the uninsured from entering into hospitals? According to libertarian morality, those are unjust policies and I would be a justified hero for doing that, right?

"Justified" is a messy term. Personally, no I don't think they are justified. But I'm sure they think they are. Again, it's a matter of perspective.

So does perspective decide whether or not you can disregard laws?

So as a libertarian , I should uphold what I feel is the spirit of the laws, by not paying full taxes, not registering for the draft, and blocking the uninsured from entering into hospitals? According to libertarian morality, those are unjust policies and I would be a justified hero for doing that, right?

Hero, no. Doing what's actually right, by holding individuals responsible for their actions and choices? Yes. Life's never fair, but it's no more fair to force others to fill in gaps, or equalize playing fields.

You can still give to charities that would fill in for hospitals and emergency room costs and fees, you could help stop the frivolous lawsuits (not that there aren't any legitimate ones, mind you) against hospitals and doctors, to help drop medical costs, getting rid of taxes and privitizing most "services", thereby dropping taxes, and certainly not having to register for the draft.

Can it happen overnight? Probably not. Can it be done? Yup.

Hero, no. Doing what's actually right, by holding individuals responsible for their actions and choices? Yes. Life's never fair, but it's no more fair to force others to fill in gaps, or equalize playing fields.

Would a socialist be justified for keeping me from keeping those uninsured from entering the hospital? Or is my morality superior to his, making me more justified?

Would a socialist be justified for keeping me from keeping those uninsured from entering the hospital? Or is my morality superior to his, making me more justified?

You are dealing from an individually responsible standpoint as a Libertarian. With that philosophy, a socialist has a much less moral standpoint, due to the enactment of force--to force you to let someone tresspass, to force you to pay for the tresspasser's medical needs, etc.

It all depends on a relative viewpoint--just like most anything.

Now, if you feel they are entitled to medical care, then that's your prerogative. Do you get to force anyone else to pay for your beliefs? Nope. Force isn't allowed, unless in a defensive capacity--assault, tresspass, etc.

"The best way to oppose an unjust law is to ignore it in the most just manner possible"- Ghandi.

Good question--even though it's five pages in I'm going to offer my two cents. Mmmm.... two cents...

The proper question to ask in this situation is: "When is the law violating an Ethical/Moral 'Imperative.'" Laws fall under two ridiculously general categories: there are laws that are bullshit and laws that aren't. Typically, this differentiation depends on your ability to distinguish bullshit from non-bullshit; a skill many of us seem to lack on even a basic level.

For example, drug laws constitute the application of force [since if I buy a bag in a grocery store I'd be arrested] in order to dictate to me the contents of my brain [since said chemicals obviously occur primarily within one's mind]. Therefore, the laws are bullshit. Since the government is trying to tell me which chemicals are allowed to be in my brain and which aren't--say nothing of whether its bad for me or not: so are guns or Skoal--there can be no reasonable validation for their existence.

Some laws are bullshit but can't really be circumvented [unless you try really hard], like pretty much all tax programs. Some still are meaningless BS even to those who enforce them [like in the Netherlands with marijuana and in the US with Campaign Finance Reform].

This isn't an end all be all, but:

The law has differing degrees of illegality. Some illegal acts are "worse" than others, according to the law. Therefore:

It is a moral imperative to break the law whenever doing so prevents an even "worse" law from being violated, or to reveal to the authorities that the "worse" law is being violated.

You are dealing from an individually responsible standpoint as a Libertarian. With that philosophy, a socialist has a much less moral standpoint, due to the enactment of force--to force you to let someone tresspass, to force you to pay for the tresspasser's medical needs, etc.

It all depends on a relative viewpoint--just like most anything.

Now, if you feel they are entitled to medical care, then that's your prerogative. Do you get to force anyone else to pay for your beliefs? Nope. Force isn't allowed, unless in a defensive capacity--assault, tresspass, etc.

But do you see what I am saying. You are saying that you have the right to oppose the law because your morality is better. While I agree with you on what the laws should be, I cannot agree with you that our obligation to laws is contingent on our personal morality.

So does perspective decide whether or not you can disregard laws?
Your ability to violate a law is typically determined by your physical, economic, and social options. If you are a quadrapalegic you probably will have limited ability to violate jaywalking laws, for instance, and if you are an impoverished bum living in the ghetto you probably won't have much opportunity to violate campaign finance laws.

Your ability to DISREGARD laws is much simpler, though potentially less relavent to the rest of the world. For instance, I choose to disregard the laws prohibiting one man from having sex with another man...however, since I am not a man, my disregard for that law doesn't result in my violating the law. Any person capable of understanding a law is capable of disregarding it, so perspective does not "decide" whether or not they CAN disregard laws. Their perspective will determine whether or not they CHOOSE to disregard the laws.

But do you see what I am saying. You are saying that you have the right to oppose the law because your morality is better. While I agree with you on what the laws should be, I cannot agree with you that our obligation to laws is contingent on our personal morality.

But isn't our personal morality what defines these laws?

That's the problem--there are too many laws covering too many people. And they don't apply to everyone--they don't work for certain cultures or belief systems. If law is to really work, there need to be very few, very iron-clad laws, and the rest needs to be handled by interaction.

So, if morality couldn't overrule law, there can only be a select few.

I speed all the time. I disobey rules and laws all over the place. Yes, I will put my morals above a generalized, compromise-based laws that don't make sense.

Ok Here Goes Why I did this... (It's only 2 pages deep to me Melkor ;) )

Look at my "Location".

I carry a Gun. Everywhere. (as long as there is no automatic "security" Rectal Exam :mad: ) Whether it is "Legal" or not - thus, I "violate a law". But that law is only "activated" if one of four things happen:

(1) I end up in a Defensive (Protect Life) situation and have to display/shoot it.
(2) I am stupid and let someone see my gun without Situation #1 (My Bad)
(3) I violate some other Law and end up being searched. (My bad)
(4) Gestapo tactics are in play and I get randomly searched on the street by some sort of "sniffer". (Govt Bad)

Now, given that most people seem to believe that violating the Law is a moral imperative (duty) whenever you think the Law is unjust - or at the very least when violating the law can save a life, then it seems to me that carrying (your choice of weapon) becomes a moral imperative.... does it not? :eek: :D

Ok Here Goes Why I did this... (It's only 2 pages deep to me Melkor ;) )

Look at my "Location".

I carry a Gun. Everywhere. (as long as there is no automatic "security" Rectal Exam :mad: ) Whether it is "Legal" or not - thus, I "violate a law". But that law is only "activated" if one of four things happen:

(1) I end up in a Defensive (Protect Life) situation and have to display/shoot it.
(2) I am stupid and let someone see my gun without Situation #1 (My Bad)
(3) I violate some other Law and end up being searched. (My bad)
(4) Gestapo tactics are in play and I get randomly searched on the street by some sort of "sniffer". (Govt Bad)

Now, given that most people seem to believe that violating the Law is a moral imperative (duty) whenever you think the Law is unjust - or at the very least when violating the law can save a life, then it seems to me that carrying (your choice of weapon) becomes a moral imperative.... does it not? :eek: :D

I don't care if you do carry a gun, but when you are caught breaking the law, I support full sentencing.

But isn't our personal morality what defines these laws?

That's the problem--there are too many laws covering too many people. And they don't apply to everyone--they don't work for certain cultures or belief systems. If law is to really work, there need to be very few, very iron-clad laws, and the rest needs to be handled by interaction.

So, if morality couldn't overrule law, there can only be a select few.

I speed all the time. I disobey rules and laws all over the place. Yes, I will put my morals above a generalized, compromise-based laws that don't make sense.

An objective morality is what should define these laws, but we haven't reached a valid objective morality. If personal morality is left to govern laws then we have interaction where the percieved purpose of the law is in conflict, and what results is lawlessness.

The key is to form the laws so that there is no moral contradiction for people.
Is that even possible?

What about taxation for education? What about drunk driving laws?
Neither of them are "laws that serve no constructive purpose and only victimize the citizens".

Is that even possible?

I'm not sure. It hasn't been tried.

If it is the government would border upon anarchy.

Neither of them are "laws that serve no constructive purpose and only victimize the citizens".

Zaxon disagrees, so he thinks he is justified in obstructing the carrying out of those policies. Would you feel justified in trying to make sure those policies were carried out?

I don't care if you do carry a gun, but when you are caught breaking the law, I support full sentencing.

No offense, VO, but that rather goes against the line of Libertarian thought.

An objective morality is what should define these laws, but we haven't reached a valid objective morality. If personal morality is left to govern laws then we have interaction where the percieved purpose of the law is in conflict, and what results is lawlessness.

Which is why we have to cut down the millions of laws on the books and settle on a handfull--because humans cannot ever be objective.

I don't care if you do carry a gun, but when you are caught breaking the law, I support full sentencing.Because?

Remember, if the primary intent of the Law is to Protect Life, then (non aggressive) actions taken to protect life are within the Intent of the Law.

That is why speeding (reckless driving) or driving without or on a suspended licence to take someone to the Hospital is (usually) NOT sentenced - fully or otherwise.

Zaxon disagrees, so he thinks he is justified in obstructing the carrying out of those policies. Would you feel justified in trying to make sure those policies were carried out?

Hence the impossibility of coming to a resolution without violence, when trying to enforce many laws on a populace of differing beliefs, cultures, and practices.

No offense, VO, but that rather goes against the line of Libertarian thought.

I am not a libertarian.

But does libertarianism espouse obstructing the law, or setting up just laws?

Which is why we have to cut down the millions of laws on the books and settle on a handfull--because humans cannot ever be objective.

Agreed.

Hence the impossibility of coming to a resolution without violence, when trying to enforce many laws on a populace of differing beliefs, cultures, and practices.

Resolution should come from diplomacy, not violence.

You do not need to convince me that many laws are unjust, I know that.

But why is violent obstruction of the law validated?

Because?

Remember, if the primary intent of the Law is to Protect Life, then (non aggressive) actions taken to protect life are within the Intent of the Law.

That is why speeding (reckless driving) or driving without or on a suspended licence to take someone to the Hospital is (usually) NOT sentenced - fully or otherwise.

Because the law must be respected for society to function. If the law is not respected and individual morality decides whether or not you obey the law, the law loses all value. You cannot hope instill your own laws, while actively obstructing the laws that others seek to instill.

Land rights, for example, many people question their validity. Can someone claim a piece of unused land that you hold legal title to, and hold that claim through threat of violence?

I am not a libertarian.

But does libertarianism espouse obstructing the law, or setting up just laws?


Makes sense that you're not a libertarian. Libertarians espouse having very few laws, and obstructing large numbers of sweeping governmental laws.


Resolution should come from diplomacy, not violence.


If only humans could actually do it that way. When you get to a difference of morality, you can't compromise because that changes your morality, the basis of every decision that makes you, you. That's why fights ensue. If there isn't a possibility of compromise, that leads to physical conflict.


But why is violent obstruction of the law validated?

Because just like illegal contracts, illegal laws are void, and therefore not to be honored.

Because the law must be respected for society to function. If the law is not respected and individual morality decides whether or not you obey the law, the law loses all value. You cannot hope instill your own laws, while actively obstructing the laws that others seek to instill.


Ah there's the problem: You seem to see society>individual. I hold the opposite to be true. It's up to individuals to get along, as opposed to mobs to get along.


Land rights, for example, many people question their validity. Can someone claim a piece of unused land that you hold legal title to, and hold that claim through threat of violence?

Legally? No. But the EPA does it all the time, when they find a critter rare in one area, but plentiful in another--they stop many people from building or improving the land they paid thousands of dollars to acquire.

Because the law must be respected for society to function.And they are respected now? If the law is not respected and individual morality decides whether or not you obey the law, the law loses all value.Guess what. The plethora of politically motivated "laws" have already done that.
You cannot hope instill your own laws, while actively obstructing the laws that others seek to instill. And how is possession of a thing "actively obstructing"?
Land rights, for example, many people question their validity. Can someone claim a piece of unused land that you hold legal title to, and hold that claim through threat of violence?
it's not the Validity of the law in question, so much as the Intent. Back at the OP, the basis for the question was laid out in the three "intents" of Law - much like the "3 Laws of Robotics".

When a law violates the Intent of The Law, then is there not a moral imperative to uphold The Law - even at the expense of a law?

Ah there's the problem: You seem to see society>individual. I hold the opposite to be true. It's up to individuals to get along, as opposed to mobs to get along.

Individuals cannot interact without mutual protection within the interaction. In order to provide for this mutual protection there must be laws that are upheld.

When this mutual protection is not upheld, there will always be instances of individuals manipulating other individuals.

Legally? No. But the EPA does it all the time, when they find a critter rare in one area, but plentiful in another--they stop many people from building or improving the land they paid thousands of dollars to acquire.

But their personal morality states that no one should have unused land while others have no land. Why are they not justified in holding that land through violence, when you would be justified were the situation reversed?

Individuals cannot interact without mutual protection within the interaction. In order to provide for this mutual protection there must be laws that are upheld.


I generally start out with respect and good-naturedness, instead of worrying about what laws I should be following.


When this mutual protection is not upheld, there will always be instances of individuals manipulating other individuals.


You have that regardless the society. It's call politics.


But their personal morality states that no one should have unused land while others have no land. Why are they not justified in holding that land through violence, when you would be justified were the situation reversed?

Because you can't steal from someone. If they own the land, you can't tell them how to use it. Just like you can't tell someone how to use their bodies. Personal morality can't extend beyond the person. If someone doesn't want to be killed, you can't murder them. That's also why you can't make laws that stop a person from doing whatever they want to themselves. (IE suicide, drinking, drugs, etc.). You can't force your view on others--you can only defend.

And they are respected now?

Those that are rigorously enforced are. Do you know very many people who don't pay their taxes because taxation is theft?

Guess what. The plethora of politically motivated "laws" have already done that.

So a ban on public gun possession is a politically motivated law, or is a law that the reasonable people of a society made because they believe they will be safer?

And how is possession of a thing "actively obstructing"?

He is breaking the law, I would be obstructing it for opposing full sentencing.

it's not the Validity of the law in question, so much as the Intent. Back at the OP, the basis for the question was laid out in the three "intents" of Law - much like the "3 Laws of Robotics".

When a law violates the Intent of The Law, then is there not a moral imperative to uphold The Law - even at the expense of a law?

Well, I don't quite agree with his "Intents of Laws".

But do you really think that present laws today contradict those intents?

The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. - Ayn Rand

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness --

Simply, There is LAW and there are laws. LAW derives from unalienable Rights, laws derive from the Governments "instituted among Men"

Even the Constitution is Subordinate to the Declaration and it's Principles, as the Declaration specifically describes "that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government".

Therefore, laws that are in violation of the core Principles (again, which operate as the "3 laws of Robotics) are invalid and should be igdnord/violated as long as that violation does not, in and of itself violate the underlying Principles.

I generally start out with respect and good-naturedness, instead of worrying about what laws I should be following.

Not everyone does that, and not everyone has same standards for what good-naturedness is.

Because you can't steal from someone. If they own the land, you can't tell them how to use it. Just like you can't tell someone how to use their bodies. Personal morality can't extend beyond the person. If someone doesn't want to be killed, you can't murder them. That's also why you can't make laws that stop a person from doing whatever they want to themselves. (IE suicide, drinking, drugs, etc.). You can't force your view on others--you can only defend.

But their morality states that it is your legal title to that unused land that is violating their rights, and that openning it up for use is a defending of their rights.

I am not specifically questioning the validity of any laws, I am questioning the idea that personal morality is justification for violating laws. Simply saying, "Well, my morality is better than theirs" just isn't going to cut it.

Simply, There is LAW and there are laws. LAW derives from unalienable Rights, laws derive from the Governments "instituted among Men"

There are no inalienable rights. If rights were inalienable we wouldn't be having this conversation because government would not only be unnecessary, it would be impossible.

Even the Constitution is Subordinate to the Declaration and it's Principles, as the Declaration specifically describes "that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government".

Therefore, laws that are in violation of the core Principles (again, which operate as the "3 laws of Robotics) are invalid and should be igdnord/violated as long as that violation does not, in and of itself violate the underlying Principles.

And it is up to you to decide whether or not they are in accordance, not the rest of the individuals who make up society?

Not everyone does that, and not everyone has same standards for what good-naturedness is.


So you'd suggest having a law made for how to say, "Hi"? Wow.


I am not specifically questioning the validity of any laws, I am questioning the idea that personal morality is justification for violating laws. Simply saying, "Well, my morality is better than theirs" just isn't going to cut it.

My morality is always better than the morality of a non-entity (IE a government) because there is no morality from a non-entity. If someone's morality involves forcing someone else to do something, without provication (such as doing nothing with legally owned land), it is an infringement on that being.

I am not specifically questioning the validity of any laws, I am questioning the idea that personal morality is justification for violating laws. Simply saying, "Well, my morality is better than theirs" just isn't going to cut it.
And here is where you are confusing the intent of my post. I assert that there is "Law" that trancends "laws", and that "Law" is the basis for all subsequent "laws". My own Morality has nothing to do with it - which is why I used the Kantian term "Moral Imperative".

I would be the last to suggest that people should violate laws "whenever I feel like it". However, when a law violates the core princilple of Law - i.e. to Protect Life - then that law should not be obeyed.

And here is where you are confusing the intent of my post. I assert that there is "Law" that trancends "laws", and that "Law" is the basis for all subsequent "laws". My own Morality has nothing to do with it - which is why I used the Kantian term "Moral Imperative".

I would be the last to suggest that people should violate laws "whenever I feel like it". However, when a law violates the core princilple of Law - i.e. to Protect Life - then that law should not be obeyed.

Which is ironic, since I am using the Kantian formulation of universalisation to counter it.

I don't support gun control, but to me, gun control seems like an effort to protect life.

My morality is always better than the morality of a non-entity (IE a government) because there is no morality from a non-entity. If someone's morality involves forcing someone else to do something, without provication (such as doing nothing with legally owned land), it is an infringement on that being.

Socialists are in fact entities, much to my chagrin.

And once again you are telling me your morality, and not giving me reasons why it is more valid than another person's morality.

I don't support gun control, but to me, gun control seems like an effort to protect life.Except that it doesn't, (because the guy with the crowbar will beat the guy without a gun almost every time,) therefore it isn't a legitimate one. Thus the prohibition prevents me from folowing the Moral Imperative to Protect Life.

Socialists are in fact entities, much to my chagrin.

And once again you are telling me your morality, and not giving me reasons why it is more valid than another person's morality.

If you're going to continue down this road, there is no morality higher than anyone else's. I can't convince you that force on others is a violation of morals.

It will come to force of arms, should someone try to rob me. There, you got your violence. And it will always be that way, if someone tries to control another.

Do vigilantes who circumvent the courts not believe they are promoting the general welfare. It seems to me that every argument so far has said "You are free to oppose the law if it oppresses you." Every law oppresses you, that is the entire point of laws. I don't get where you can say, "well he is morally justified for breaking this law, but this person's morality isn't sufficient to break that law."

1) They may, but the point I was trying to make was twofold: firstly, that despite the fact that vigilantes think they are acting rightly, they are not, and/or secondly, they are using unjust means to achieve their ends. That is the mark of vigilantism.

2) I never said that a law should be opposed if it oppresses you. Laws that prevent me from burgling oppress me in the sense they restrict what I can get away with in society, but I still support laws against burgling, not because they are beneficial to me in the long run (to be honest, I have nothing of value for a burgler to steal), so much as the fact that a law against burgling is in the best interest of society.

Ultimately, what this means is that in order to uphold the natural law in the face of contravening human law, you first have to obtain sufficient theoretical wisdom to know what the natural law is, and second have the practical wisdom sufficient to know how best to defy it justly. In practice, this means that few people are really justified in breaking the law, but that those people usually have extremely valid reasons to do so and valid methods to correct the problem with the human law.


So as a libertarian , I should uphold what I feel is the spirit of the laws, by not paying full taxes, not registering for the draft, and blocking the uninsured from entering into hospitals? According to libertarian morality, those are unjust policies and I would be a justified hero for doing that, right?

Not what you feel is the spirit of the laws; what is.

I would say first and foremost that libertarians would be mistaken, because they dramatically undervalue the degree to which man is a social animal. They measure all things only in terms of individual benefit and loss, and assume that collective good is nothing more than the aggregate of individual good, when historically we have seen that this is simply an incorrect way of understanding what society is and how it works. As such, I would say that they simply don't have a good understanding of the natural law, and that they would rarely be justified in their efforts to defy the laws of society.

This isn't to say, of course, that they may not ever be right, or that they won't ever try to defy the law. They probably will, because as long as there are taxes, there will be people saying that if they were smaller we'd all be better off, and there will be people who act on that rhetoric. But it is saying that, for instance, an attempt to defy health codes in the workplace would simply be unjustified and in contravention of the moral law. The fact that they do and will defy the law says nothing about whether they ought or ought not defy the law.

If a law is not in violation of the LAW, then as a citizen you have no moral imperative to violate it. Taxation, Seatbelts, general dumb crap that you can argue about with Politics do not violate the lowest order of abstraction in the civil contract - i.e. to protect life from predation. Therefore, as pernicious as they may be, I can find no moral imperative to violate them.

Tribal/civilization is first and ultimately organized to provide protection from predation. A law that hinders that is not valid/followable since it undermines the basis of the implied civil contract.

Really, I have just been playing devil's advocate, I don't feel there is ever a moral imperative to obey or disobey the law. There is a practical imperative for government to enforce the law, but that doesn't really apply.

Syniks, I think you are mildly stretching for justification for concealed weapons.

Zaxon, I largely agree with what you are saying.

Really, I have just been playing devil's advocate, I don't feel there is ever a moral imperative to obey or disobey the law.Hi. We're from the government. We have declared your existence illegal. Please die now...
(don't tell me that hasn't happened/isn't happening) There is a practical imperative for government to enforce the law, but that doesn't really apply. but no "legal" one for them to protect your life.
Syniks, I think you are mildly stretching for justification for concealed weapons. Ya think? ;) I wonder if you've been to some of the areas of Chicago I've been obliged to walk... where you better believe I carry a gun - Mayor Daley and the Crook Squad be damned.

But honestly, when the law says you can't defend yourself the law is void because no law or government has the right to tell you to die. All Civilization revolves around the idea of protecting the nonagressive individual from death.

Hi. We're from the government. We have declared your existence illegal. Please die now...

I have a practical imperative to resist, but not a moral one perse. I don't think that I have a real moral obligation to keep living.

but no "legal" one for them to protect your life.

Well, whatever the government wants to do is legal.


But honestly, when the law says you can't defend yourself the law is void because no law or government has the right to tell you to die. All Civilization revolves around the idea of protecting the nonagressive individual from death.

Well, a lot of civilization has revolved around subjecting the nonaggressive individual as well, but that is beside the point.

The law is not void, because it represents society, if you are caught you will receive society's punishment, because society must punish people who break the law.

None of these answers fit my response, which is:

Whenever the government (law makers) overstep their authoritative legitimacy by enacting unconstitutional laws. Break 'em and call it an act of protest. :D

I have a practical imperative to resist, but not a moral one perse. I don't think that I have a real moral obligation to keep living.Biological imperative? The very fact of your existence creates the imperative. If it didn't, your body wouldn't struggle for the surface when you are drowning.
Well, whatever the government wants to do is legal.But that makes it neither necessairly Ethical or Moral. Some things must be resisted, either openly or tacitly (as in carrying concealed weapons).
Well, a lot of civilization has revolved around subjecting the nonaggressive individual as well, but that is beside the point.Not initally. Lowest order of abstraction in anthropology. Individuals get eaten, groups survive. They survive by providing mutual defense.
The law is not void, because it represents society, if you are caught you will receive society's punishment, because society must punish people who break the law.Society creates LAW (concrete principles of human interaction) creates society, society creates laws that must be representative of te Principles that formed the society to be valid.

Zaxon, I largely agree with what you are saying.

GAH! :headbang:

I was wondering how you were resolving your political score with what you were saying.

I'd like to hear from the "nevers" (as well as from some of our more Statist/Euro posters...) Hello Fass?

I think it's amazing I can be "statist" when I don't even know what that means. And my answer is not "never."

I think it's amazing I can be "statist" when I don't even know what that means. And my answer is not "never."
Statist in the weakest sense just means that you think it makes sense that there is a state. With a given context it means that the state should have bigger influence in that area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statist

Because you can't steal from someone. If they own the land, you can't tell them how to use it. I can if I don't believe they have a right to own the land.

Just like you can't tell someone how to use their bodies. Personal morality can't extend beyond the person. Doesn't land ownership (or any property ownership) extend beyond the person?

That is why speeding (reckless driving) or driving without or on a suspended licence to take someone to the Hospital is (usually) NOT sentenced - fully or otherwise.Perhaps, then, it is acceptable that the law is on the books, provided that someone who is caught with the gun can prove that they are carrying it for self-defense?

I do have to agree, though, you're stretching the "it's acceptable to break the law to save a life" argument a bit. It's an interesting stretch, though.

I think it's amazing I can be "statist" when I don't even know what that means. And my answer is not "never."
Um Fass... You can be a Euro without being Statist. (three categories, not two) :rolleyes: ;)

An objective morality is what should define these laws, but we haven't reached a valid objective morality. If personal morality is left to govern laws then we have interaction where the percieved purpose of the law is in conflict, and what results is lawlessness.
And what do you have when those who are supposed to be defending the law are using it to enforce their own opinions instead of defending human rights?

Why? He has a right to carry his gun, since that does not hurt anyone (freedom). Thus as libertarian you should support his right to have the gun and oppose any initiation of force (like trying to take it away).

To top it off, the highest national law at his place (US constitution, second amendment) specifies that this right must not be infringed upon. If his courts were consistent even they would not mete out any punishment for using his constitutional rights.

I support freedom, but I also support government enforcement of laws. I will cast my vote in favor of free gun ownership, and do my best to convince people to overturn gun bans, but I will not ignore laws that were arrived at by what I see as a (somewhat) fair political process.

And what do you have when those who are supposed to be defending the law are using it to enforce their own opinions instead of defending human rights?

All I am trying to do is show the paradox of saying that the law should follow an objective morality, but then saying our obedience to the law would be contingent on our personal morality.

All I am trying to do is show the paradox of saying that the law should follow an objective morality, but then saying our obedience to the law would be contingent on our personal morality.
You have said in this thread that everything the government does is legal.
You are now saying that it is wrong to go against the government law.
The logical conclusion of this is that everything that a government does is right, and anything that you do to prevent the government from something is wrong. So, are you willing to apply that to any government that has been in in history or that can come in the future? I don't. So I have no choice but to put human rights (that you can't tell from my morals, but I can) before the government law.

You have said in this thread that everything the government does is legal.

Legality is solely determined by government, so government policies are always legal. It has nothing to do with morality or ethics.

You are now saying that it is wrong to go against the government law.

I am saying that government must enforce the laws, and we must respect the enforcement of laws if they are arrived at through a legitimate system.

The logical conclusion of this is that everything that a government does is right, and anything that you do to prevent the government from something is wrong. So, are you willing to apply that to any government that has been in in history or that can come in the future? I don't. So I have no choice but to put human rights (that you can't tell from my morals, but I can) before the government law.

If you respect democracy and our government system as a legitimate form of lawmaking than you must respect its conclusions.

Um Fass... You can be a Euro without being Statist. (three categories, not two) :rolleyes: ;)

"Statist/Euro" - if they are not the same, why the slash indicating that they can replace each other? It seems like you did in fact mean that the two were equivalent.

If you respect democracy and our government system as a legitimate form of lawmaking than you must respect its conclusions.
Very well. The 18 August 1939 the democratically elected government of Germany enacted a decree that all mentally handicapped children must be registered. They were then gathered in special facilities and 'euthanised'. Since you "must support" any decisions made by democratically elected governments you must support this. I don't.

"Statist/Euro" - if they are not the same, why the slash indicating that they can replace each other? It seems like you did in fact mean that the two were equivalent.
Not what I meant (I was in a hurry this morning) but you can take it that way if it makes you feel more self righteous (I know that means a lot to you... ) ;)