Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was thinking of a way in which one can determine if a law is morally justified or not and therefore decide from that criteria if it is incumbent upon one to obey it or to contemptuously trample it under foot. Now the criteria is intended for the average American who works for a living in either a small business of his or her own or who works for someone else, be it a small business or a large corporation. The criteria does not apply to large corporations because they by their very size and power are subject to a more stringent set of criteria and laws because they effect and influence more people than the average person does. Their power requires that they be scrutinized more closely than people who's influence is less powerful and pervasive. So unless you are a corporate CEO or are on the board of directors of a large corporation or in some other way affiliated, influenced, or financially enriched by a large corporation in any way other than an employee-I guess this would include politicians- read on:
Just because something is a law, does not mean it should be respected or obeyed. So how does one know which laws to obey and which to disregard: The criteria I offer is simple and universal. Simply imagine what life would be like if the law did not exist. There are laws against murder and rightfully so. Imagine a world in which murder was not illegal and thus punished. Would you want to live in that kind of a world? Indeed could anyone live in that kind of world? Not for long I would imagine. There are laws against theft and again, rightfully so. Imagine a world where theft was neither illegal or punished. This one may not be so hard to imagine as most of us are victims of theft in the form of taxes and fees and mandatory expenditures. But imagine a world where everyone, not just the state could rob you. The same can be said about laws against rape, abuse, exploitation, etc. Imagine a world in which these activities were not illegal and punished and I think most if not all would agree, we are happy to have laws against these activities. This general, indeed universal agreement, makes these laws morally justified and ethically sound. Indeed, some could even argue that these laws are permanently engraved in the human psyche, making the actual formation of them through legislative processes redundant. But, hey, better safe than sorry I suppose. And I imagine we must have these laws codified on paper in order to construct proper punitive measures for their violation.
Before moving on to the myriad laws that are not justified, I'd like to add this observation. The laws stated above that are morally and ethically justified are often the very ones violated by the state. It is the state, not ordinary citizens who has engaged in mass murder under the banner of war, and as a result sends the message that violence is sometimes the only way to achieve goals. It is the state that engages in mass theft under the banner of taxation, sending the message that you can take from others what you need. It is the state that exploits the people and teaches them that might makes right. What a poor example!
Now on to the laws that deserve no respect but only contempt, disdain and loathing. There are laws against earning a living without reporting your income to the state and paying various taxes on that income. Imagine a world in which this was not the case. Would it be a better world in your opinion? There are laws telling you what you can and can not ingest, inhale or otherwise put in your body. Would a world where these laws did not exist be better? What about laws against prostitution or gay marriage? Would a world without these laws be so terrible? Fact is, for some of these laws, there was a time when they did not exist and somehow humanity survived to live to this day. And what about this day. We have all these laws, but can anyone say that because of them we are living in a safe utopian paradise? Unless you think we are, how can you justify all these laws if they are not making life better for the vast majority? No all these useless laws are doing is making people angry and resentful and perhaps even violent. And perhaps they should take a cue from the state and go to war with the usurpers.
In conclusion, if a world in which a particular law did not exist seems more horrible and dangerous to you, support and obey that law. But if a world in which that law did not exist would seem the same or even better. Treat that law as you would a fly infested pile of dung. Now as to the large corporations I mentioned at the outset, they must be held to a higher standard because their potential for abuse is so much greater. A corporation, like a politician, can abuse and exploit in ways that you or I never could by virtue of their power, influence and capital, "for whom much is given, much is required." The fact is, most of us have not been given anything but have had to work hard for everything we have and that is as it should be. The same can be said of the large corporations with one exception. They have more influence over the processes which impact their success or failure than do you and I. Through corporate lawyers and endless litigations, lobbying, and plain old bribery cloaked as campaign contributions, these corporations and financial institutions influence the lawmaking process in their favor. Sometimes they blatantly disregard laws if the penalties for breaking them are less costly than compliance with them. You and I could never get away with that.
The relationship most of us have with the state is non-reciprocal. It is a one way street with the state doing the taking and us doing the giving. What has the state done for you lately? Did they help you find a job? No, if anything they make jobs more scarce by supporting big business, which in turn runs small business out of town. The fact is, you owe the state no allegiance whatsoever and the includes respect for its laws and its lawmakers for that matter. The state has done nothing for you but impoverish and enslave you. So regain your wealth by making money through the underground economy, and regain your freedom by refusing to obey any law that doesn't positively effect you by using the criteria presented above. The state must die so you can live. Now go live!
Just because something is a law, does not mean it should be respected or obeyed.
Interesting question. I think ultimately you have to base your decision on the basis of costs/benefits. Are the costs of disobedience, i.e., imprisonment, fines worth the benefits, however you want to value them.
Quote:
Before moving on to the myriad laws that are not justified,
It cannot be argued that a government from time to time will enacted laws which are "immoral" or "unjust" but as imperfect as laws maybe, they are only the product of imperfect people. But, having said that, in a democratic society, the justification for even immoral or unjust laws flow from the body politic and imperfect as that may be, their has never been a more "perfect" system for the enactment of laws.
Quote:
It is the state, not ordinary citizens who has engaged in mass murder under the banner of war, and as a result sends the message that violence is sometimes the only way to achieve goals.
No war can be conducted by the state without either the approval or acquiesces of the populous. This is true regardless of the form of government. Wars cannot be fought even by tyrants without the willing participation of the people.
Quote:
It is the state that engages in mass theft under the banner of taxation, sending the message that you can take from others what you need. It is the state that exploits the people and teaches them that might makes right. What a poor example!
I will never cease to be amazed by the ridiculousness of this argument. Taxation under autocratic rule, perhaps. An argument could certainly be made that under feudal law taxation was indeed a form of theft, but under a democratic form of government, the argument simply falls flat. Even the most primitive of societies require some contribution from its members for the maintenance of the whole.
Quote:
Now on to the laws that deserve no respect but only contempt, disdain and loathing. There are laws against earning a living without reporting your income to the state and paying various taxes on that income.
I would prefer to imagine a world where individuals could be trusted to be forthright and honest without need of proof, but that isn't the world in which we live in.
Quote:
There are laws telling you what you can and can not ingest, inhale or otherwise put in your body. Would a world where these laws did not exist be better? What about laws against prostitution or gay marriage? Would a world without these laws be so terrible?
I would have to agree and state that no, the world would not be a terrible place without such laws, and as we continue the process of forming a more perfect union perhaps we can do away with such laws. But recognize that it is a process.
Quote:
No all these useless laws are doing is making people angry and resentful and perhaps even violent.
Here's the rub, the absence of such laws make some people angry, resentful and perhaps violent. Take for example abortion, based upon what I consider to be your libertarian perspective, some people are angry, resentful and extremely violent that the law does not prohibit abortion in any form.
Which brings me to this:
Quote:
And perhaps they should take a cue from the state and go to war with the usurpers.
We have met the usurpers and they are us. We will "commemorate" the last war against the "usurpers" in 2011. Over a 600,000 dead, and a nation racked by recrimination and hatreds that exist to this day. Frankly, I would prefer not to revisit that moment in our history.
I my humble opinion, open to the utter disdain of all tyrants
A "law" is just if it serves as a RETALIATORY force against an INITIATOR of force. In other words, if there is no "victim" there can be no "crime". And any just law ONLY serves as a just RETALIATION when it serves to restore the state of the victim to the pre-agression state. A "just" law does not ever define special groups, entities, or interests not equally applied to ALL people, read all INDIVIDUALS. Just laws do NOT attempt to manipulate, coerce, or use the threat of force to cause people to act involuntarily, "protect" from fictional or potential future "crimes".
Just laws only retaliate, read restore justice, to the individual victims of those individuals who initiated force.
Anything else are just wet-dreams and oppression by those with a thug mentality against the innocent.
Well can you all imagine, if there were no laws to obey, what the hek would happen, It would be a free for all for some. There are laws in place right now, and still look at the trouble we have, if there were no laws to follow at all, this would be one sad world.
Well can you all imagine, if there were no laws to obey, what the hek would happen, It would be a free for all for some. There are laws in place right now, and still look at the trouble we have, if there were no laws to follow at all, this would be one sad world.
Imagine a world in which these activities were not illegal and punished and I think most if not all would agree, we are happy to have laws against these activities. <snip> And I imagine we must have these laws codified on paper in order to construct proper punitive measures for their violation.
I can follow you so far. But I think you're missing a step: Codifying is of course necessary, but who interprets and enforces the laws? Without some sort of reasonably disinterested authority and an appeals process, you're left hanging as regards finding the facts of the case as well as having law interpreted.
I'd say that for a reasonably modern society, you'll also need an enforcing authority. There are examples of societies where there weren't any - Iceland as described in the sagas is one - but if you're left to do your own law enforcement, the strong will still be able to prey on the weak.
The strong will be OK. There has always been swift retribution for harming somebody who was backed by armed relatives or a strong tribe or a feudal lord. Killing a bum used to be quite safe, on the other hand.
Quote:
There are laws against earning a living without reporting your income to the state and paying various taxes on that income. Imagine a world in which this was not the case. Would it be a better world in your opinion?
As we seem to agree to the necessity of - at the very least - a judicial system of sorts, we're forced to finance that somehow. What's your alternative?
People has always formed governments, not because they're stupid, but because government solves some necessary function. The classic example is that of the early farmer standing zero chance of holding on to his harvest against a roving gang of thieves. So a warrior class emerges. If a warrior is to be any good, he needs to practice - a lot. No time to do his own farming. So there has to be a system to make the farmer feed the warrior. Presto, government. Unfair? Perhaps, but the alternative is a lot of dead farmers.
Saying "the state is the enemy" is naive. Saying "the state needs to be made to work better", on the other hand, makes a load of sense. And is why one can't afford to not be engaged in politics.
If I'm ticketed or arrested for breaking a law then it is an unjust law.
If someone else (whom I don't like) is ticketed or arrested for breaking the same law it is a just law.
I would take that to the Supreme Court!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
