Do you have personally have the right to judge whether a law is good or bad?

[Philosophizer]

Do you personally have the right to judge whether a law is good or bad?

If you find a law to be unjust or unnecessary, do you have the right to ignore or disobey it?

 

[Her]

You have the right (or rather, the ability) to disobey a law, but if you choose to do so, you accept that the government can charge you if/when they catch up to you, regardless of whether you personally think the law is unjust or not.

I ignore laws about pirating and stuff like that because I think they're unjust, but I do so with the knowledge that I could be prosecuted or otherwise face consequences for it.

 

[Somewhere_]

You have the right to disobey any law because the law does not equate morality. Except stuff like murder and theft. Of course its probably not a very good idea because you will be most likely punished. :/

 

[Philosophizer]

You have the right (or rather, the ability) to disobey a law, but if you choose to do so, you accept that the government can charge you if/when they catch up to you, regardless of whether you personally think the law is unjust or not.

If the law is bad, should you face a punishment for breaking it in the first place?

I ignore laws about pirating and stuff like that because I think they're unjust, but I do so with the knowledge that I could be prosecuted or otherwise face consequences for it.

So you are deciding for yourself which laws are unjust or not, which is placing yourself above the authority of those passing the laws. In essence, you are saying government has no authority over you. (Not that I view that as a bad thing)

 

[Philosophizer]

I think she's saying that she's aware of the consequences given by breaking that law. Even if you're a murderer, rapist, genocide or the most evil thing you can think of; the government does have authority over you. When someone breaks the law, they became a lawbreaker, it doesn't mean the government holds no authority over them.

If a group of people (say the Founding Fathers) gathered together and had enough resources to resist the government, would the government have authority over them?

 

[Her]

If the law is bad, should you face a punishment for breaking it in the first place?

As with most aspects of life, you have to view these kinds of things on a case by case basis. One's perspective on what makes a 'good' law doesn't mean it is one, same with what makes a 'bad' law.
I don't think Snowden should be imprisoned for what he did, but the fact of the matter is that he broke a very strict rule under US law and will most likely be imprisoned for the rest of his life, should he ever find himself back there. He transgressed the law for the common good of the American people and largely the world itself, shining light on what the majority consider illegal or immoral practices by the US government. They're punishing him less for the crime itself but because he exposed their own crimes. In that scenario, I think morality triumphs over legality.

I can't think of a negative example off the top of my head so I'll have to get back to you on that or go from wherever you lead me to with your reply.

So you are deciding for yourself which laws are unjust or not, which is placing yourself above the authority of those passing the laws. In essence, you are saying government has no authority over you. (Not that I view that as a bad thing)

Perhaps. I think I'm simply being selfish rather than consciously going out of my way to subvert government or whatever, but I see how it can be perceived as such.

 

[Kanzler]

So you are deciding for yourself which laws are unjust or not, which is placing yourself above the authority of those passing the laws. In essence, you are saying government has no authority over you. (Not that I view that as a bad thing)

What? No.. Deciding for yourself what's unjust or not isn't placing yourself above the authority of those passing the laws. I mean, you might think it's unjust that you can't go to the bathroom at school without a hall pass. Does that mean you're above the authority of the school? Of course not, you'll get detention anyways if you break the rules.

Yeah, in essence you are saying government has no authority over you (emphasis mine).

 

[Philosophizer]

As with most aspects of life, you have to view these kinds of things on a case by case basis. One's perspective on what makes a 'good' law doesn't mean it is one, same with what makes a 'bad' law.
I don't think Snowden should be imprisoned for what he did, but the fact of the matter is that he broke a very strict rule under US law and will most likely be imprisoned for the rest of his life, should he ever find himself back there. He transgressed the law for the common good of the American people and largely the world itself, shining light on what the majority consider illegal or immoral practices by the US government. They're punishing him less for the crime itself but because he exposed their own crimes. In that scenario, I think morality triumphs over legality.

I can't think of a negative example off the top of my head so I'll have to get back to you on that or go from wherever you lead me to with your reply.

Since morality trumps legality, doesn't that make the law irrelevant and pointless? If morality is always right but the law is only sometimes right, shouldn't morality be followed, not the law?

What? No.. Deciding for yourself what's unjust or not isn't placing yourself above the authority of those passing the laws. I mean, you might think it's unjust that you can't go to the bathroom at school without a hall pass. Does that mean you're above the authority of the school? Of course not, you'll get detention anyways if you break the rules.

You can't physically walk out of the school and skip detention? What are they going to do to a kid, force him into a room and keep him there at gun point?

Authority is nothing without the use of force, and if a group decide they are not subject to the government and have the means to physically resist it, they are rejecting and placing themselves above the authority of said government.

 

[Kanzler]

You can't physically walk out of the school and skip detention? What are they going to do to a kid, force him into a room and keep him there at gun point?

Authority is nothing without the use of force, and if a group decide they are not subject to the government and have the means to physically resist it, they are rejecting and placing themselves above the authority of said government.

Okay, I see, you're using a very narrow conception of authority that precludes things like moral authority and religious authority. Okay.

But still, that's not overturning authority. You do that when you resist the government's ability to compel you. Outside of open rebellion, I don't see how you'd be overturning authority.

 

[Her]

Since morality trumps legality, doesn't that make the law irrelevant and pointless? If morality is always right but the law is only sometimes right, shouldn't morality be followed, not the law?

No, as I said, things have to be viewed on a case by case basis. Blanket statements have little meaning.

 

[gimmepie]

As I said in the other thread, (in a democracy) the government has authority that has been placed in its hands by the people. If you live in the country run by that government, then you are under its authority whether you like it or not.

If you knowingly break the law, then you're not subverting the power of government, you're putting yourself in a position in which the government has the right to enact consequences on you according to the authority that has been given to it by society.

It's also foolish to try and compare which trumps which in the case of morality vs law. Morality is a personal thing that varies from person to person but the law is a constant. You can choose which one you follow, but ultimately breaking the law gives the government the right to punish you. Nobody can punish you for breaking your moral code unless you're also breaking the law.

 

[Neil Peart]

This world would be a very interesting place if anti-tax people stopped paying taxes. Just think about that for a minute. One of my former friends is a Libertarian, and he always talked about starting a revolution by getting thousands of people to stop paying taxes.

 

[Philosophizer]

As I said in the other thread, (in a democracy) the government has authority that has been placed in its hands by the people. If you live in the country run by that government, then you are under its authority whether you like it or not.

Yes, we're under the government's authority. Should we be? Do we have to be? What if everyone like you who imagined it to have authority suddenly stopped and thought "Everyone is an individual who doesn't need a group of people labelled "government" telling them how they believe their lives should be run and enforcing those views with threats of violence"?

If you knowingly break the law, then you're not subverting the power of government, you're putting yourself in a position in which the government has the right to enact consequences on you according to the authority that has been given to it by society.

Would you give a group of people the right to pass "laws" you don't agree with and use force to punish you if you disobey? If I asked you if you want to hire me to "pass laws that represent you" but I had the right to fine or imprison you for breaking them, would you say "sure" or would you want to know the laws beforehand? Moreover, would you want to follow the law because it is the law, or because you believe it to be right? Under the concept of law, it's irrelevant whether you personally believe it to be right or wrong, the only reason you have to follow it is because it is the law.

It's also foolish to try and compare which trumps which in the case of morality vs law. Morality is a personal thing that varies from person to person but the law is a constant.

The only thing constant about the law is that all the current laws must be followed; they can change. Also, plenty of laws are based on what the politicians who pass them believe is right or wrong.

"Government" is a group of people claiming to have the right to decide how society should organize and interact and takes it away from you, because you are not the one personally there writing and passing the legislation. Electing a representative is nothing more than hoping they pass laws you agree with, and if they don't, oh well. You still have to follow them. Do you want to give authority to a group like that?

You can choose which one you follow, but ultimately breaking the law gives the government the right to punish you.

So you want to give the government the right to punish you for acting based on what you personally believe is right if it goes against one of their laws?

Nobody can punish you for breaking your moral code unless you're also breaking the law.

"Unless you're also breaking the law." I'm sure you notice the contradiction.

 

[gimmepie]

Yes, we're under the government's authority. Should we be? Do we have to be? What if everyone like you who imagined it to have authority suddenly stopped and thought "Everyone is an individual who doesn't need a group of people labelled "government" telling them how they believe their lives should be run and enforcing those views with threats of violence"?

Should we be? Yes. There is no better alternative, if you want a world that can function you need a world with governing bodies. The alternative is anarchy and that could quite easily be the end of the human race.

Do you have to be? No. You're welcome to move to any other part of the world you want. You can vote in whichever government you want. You have the freedom to choose whether or not you want to live under a certain government. That's the great thing about democracy as opposed to a dictatorship.

Also, remind me when the government makes threats of violence? They'll fine you or imprison you for breaking the law (laws that we as the people give them the power to make and enact) but the government isn't holding a gun to your head. The police, federal police/Fbi and military aren't threatening you with violence and even against criminals there is only ever enough force used to subdue a fleeing or violent criminal. If you go quietly, you won't be harmed. If you go quietly and do get harmed, then the police themselves are liable to be punished by the same laws.

Would you give a group of people the right to pass "laws" you don't agree with and use force to punish you if you disobey? If I asked you if you want to hire me to "pass laws that represent you" but I had the right to fine or imprison you for breaking them, would you say "sure" or would you want to know the laws beforehand? Moreover, would you want to follow the law because it is the law, or because you believe it to be right? Under the concept of law, it's irrelevant whether you personally believe it to be right or wrong, the only reason you have to follow it is because it is the law.

If you asked me to vote for you I'd refuse based on the fact that our political ideologies don't align at all. I'd rather vote for someone who'd like to see a country prosper other than fall apart. However, if somehow you came into power and I broke a law that you managed to pass, then yes you'd have every right to imprison/fine me and whilst I wouldn't enjoy it I would recognise the governments right to do so.

It really isn't hard to learn the laws beforehand, the important ones are ingrained in our heads from when we're school children and we learn about the more complex ones as we get older. We have every law that is currently enacted out on the internet where we can study them too and there's thousands of books on law. Hell, here Politics and Law is a class you can take at school. It's not like the government is making sneaky laws to try and catch us out for kicks, laws that are passed are easily found by the public and very publicly announced half the time.

The only thing constant about the law is that all the current laws must be followed; they can change. Also, plenty of laws are based on what the politicians who pass them believe is right or wrong.

That is why I said "the law" not "laws". You're correct that laws passed are often based upon what the government deems is right or wrong, although many are also passed due to outside pressure groups and lobbyists. On top of that, we as the people give the government the right to pass laws when we elect them in. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

"Government" is a group of people claiming to have the right to decide how society should organize and interact and takes it away from you, because you are not the one personally there writing and passing the legislation. Electing a representative is nothing more than hoping they pass laws you agree with, and if they don't, oh well. You still have to follow them. Do you want to give authority to a group like that?

They're not claiming anything, governments have the right to make these decisions because we give them that right. You make it sound like political parties don't want to stay in power, the funny thing is that people in positions of authority like to keep them. If they don't want to get voted out, they'll make laws that as many people as possible agree with.

For example, Australia's current government have made a shitload of enemies in the middle and lower classes (the majority of the people) so it is highly doubtful they'll be elected back in come the next election. The US system is a tad more convoluted, but the gist is the same.

So you want to give the government the right to punish you for acting based on what you personally believe is right if it goes against one of their laws?

If I personally believe something is right and still break the law, the government has the right to punish me. Or rather, the right to trial me at court and then punish me if a jury convicts me if you want to be more specific. I am okay with that because my vote counts towards who is in power. If I feel like a law wrongs me, I can rally to see it changed.

"Unless you're also breaking the law." I'm sure you notice the contradiction.

There was exactly zero contradictions in that statement. Nobody can punish you for breaking your own moral code unless (this being the key word) you are also breaking the law.

 

[Lunaris Adamantine]

You do have the right to judge a law. You also have the right do try and change it, but it takes more than one person alone. As for breaking laws, you can do that if you want. You might be able to get away with doing so. But if you keep doing it, you'll likely go to jail or pay a fine for it. Cause that's how laws work, in case you didn't know.

Whether they are stupid or not, laws are all created for a reason. Yeah, some of them should probably be changed or removed, but unless they are it's just best to go along with them. If you want them to change, then find people who agree with you and try to make it happen. But don't just break them because you find it to be 'unjust or unnecessary'. Your opinion about it might be wrong, anyways.