Pyrrho

If it is irrelevant, then why did you bring it up in the first place? Basically, you are admitting that you are obscuring the argument with unnecessary verbiage (and I agree with you on that).

Furthermore, you assume that slavery is:

1) based on race;
2) assumes the superiority of the master class;

Neither assumption is justified. The ancient Greeks, for example, collected slaves from among those who lost in war. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with race, as, indeed, it has had nothing to do with race throughout most of the history of slavery. The slavery practiced in the U.S. when it was formed was, from an historical perspective, deviant.

Furthermore, aside from being obvious from the former example, one need not assume anything about one race being superior or inferior, even if slavery were based upon race. It may be merely a matter of convenience, as one may then more readily tell who is a slave and who is not (though with the interracial breeding that invariably occurs, such aides tend to break down, as was observed in the U.S.).

These are good examples of assumptions that you make without you realizing that you are making assumptions.


(The portions in bold in the quotes below were originally posted by me.)

Consider your statement:

"It is inappropriate to disobey laws you do not agree with if you wish to be a member of the society which has made the laws."

This is an unjustified assumption.

And consider your next sentence:

"Therefore it is cowardly to disobey laws you do not agree with if you desire to live in the society which has made the laws."

Even if your previous unjustified assumption were true, it does not follow that it would be "cowardly" to disobey the laws.


Again, you are merely assuming:

"It is not logical to break laws with the motive of bettering society..."

I say, it is ridiculous to suppose that one should not use an option, that even you admit is a possibility, when it will be the most efficient means to achieve the desired end.


You state:

"The difficulty of leaving a society is irrelevant."

It is a matter of profound practical importance. In the real world, most people simply cannot legally move into any country they may wish to live in, even if one that they like really exists. Practically speaking, this makes your entire argument irrelevant, even if it were correct (which I obviously deny).


You state:

"If you can leave and disagree with the laws, you are honor-bound obey them until you leave. To do otherwise undermines the law which those who choose to live in the society require for order."

Again, there is no reason why anyone should believe that anyone is "honor-bound" to obey anything in your example, nor have you shown that disobedience to laws destroys the society.


You state:

"It is morally wrong to forcibly take over someone else's society and apply your own set of laws over theirs."

Again, you ASSUME that violating the laws entails force, but as I have repeated told you, one may engage in non-violent, yet illegal, protests. No force is necessary to violate many laws.


The simple fact is that you choose to use terms in a very restrictive sense, more restrictive than common usage, without first saying that you are doing so. You then complain when I point this fact out.

In your examples, you are confusing different collections of individuals. If we consider our society as simply the majority of people, then we, qua society, are not heroine users, though we are, qua society, speeders. You claim to admire precise logic, yet you continuously equivocate.

You state:

"I don't claim that all people obey or disobey laws. I'm saying that it is irrational not to, unless you are a prisoner, and that the motive for doing this irrational thing is fear/insecurity."

Here we can observe two unsupported assumptions: First, that it is irrational to disobey laws, and secondly, that the motive for disobeying the law must be fear/insecurity.

I have repeated told you of an example in which the motive for disobedience is NOT fear/insecurity, but is the betterment of society.


Here we have an argument that you have presented. Let us now examine it (the numbers are obviously added by me):

1) "If one desires to live in a society, then it is logical to assume that one desires for that society to be in existence."

Fair enough.

2) "From there you can assume that one would rather not do something that is detrimental to its existence."

Fair enough, as far as it goes. But suppose that the main motive is personal gain, one should, therefore, expect that personal gain would not be sacrificed for the society at large. This, however, will not matter, as there are serious problems later in your argument.

3) "If laws which apply to all members of society are required for a society to remain in existence, then disobeying laws would be detrimental to the societies' continued existence."

Here you are going beyond what I am willing to grant. As I have repeatedly stated, a society can exist without everyone always obeying the laws. There is NO reason to suppose that laws cannot be frequently broken, and yet the society may exist, and even thrive, for, possibly, many thousands of years (and its end is likely to be the result of external influences in any case, as history tells us that this is commonly, if not always, the case).

We can say that your argument, built upon this faulty premise, fails.

It is interesting to consider another of your remarks:

"If you like not having your money stolen from you, it is cowardly and illogical to steal it from someone else. The same principle applies here."

First, I need not grant your first sentence (though either way, it is irrelevant to the main argument, but since you bring it up...). There is no inconsistency in someone claiming that they, and they alone, are entitled to everything, and no one else is entitled to what they themselves possess. There is no contradiction involved, if I were to claim that everything belonged to me, and me alone. You may find such an idea repulsive, but it is not self-contradictory, so logic has nothing against it as a guiding principle for all actions. (There may, of course, be other considerations that would be relevant, but logically, there is no problem with this.)

Second, this again shows that you have not been paying attention. Civil disobedience need not involve theft, or an application of a principle that does not apply to all persons equally. In fact, many times, those who commit civil disobedience do so because they want everyone to be treated equally, rather than the unequal way they are treated under the laws.


You state:

"If one's goal is to live in a society, one ought to follow all the soceity's laws because doing otherwise is detrimental to the society, which is an illogical thought process if you desire the society's existence."

No. As you have been repeatedly explained to you, there is no reason to suppose that violating many laws must be detrimental to society.


You state:

"Saying that disobeying one or two laws is not detrimental to society is like saying stealing one or two candy bars is not detrimental to the K-Mart franchise."

This is a false analogy, probably based upon your earlier erroneous assumption that selfish motives are always the motives for illegal actions, which is simply false.

Generally speaking, acts of civil disobedience are done from altruistic motives, often for the betterment of society. So when you say:

"Likewise if everyone disobeyed whatever laws they wanted, this would also cause problems."

This ONLY would be true if what people want is bad for society. But if they ONLY broke bad laws, then it would be good for society if everyone broke those laws.

You appear to assume that there is always some good in every law, no matter what it might be. This is plainly false.


Your notion of "law" is extremely deviant. It obviously means that many things passed by the U.S. legislators, which they choose to call "laws", are not "laws" according to your definition. Many are designed to keep property in the hands of the rich (like tax breaks and loopholes for them), and have nothing to do with establishing order in society.

Following your new definition of "cowardice", many who break the law, such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King, were not cowards at all, as they were not "acting solely out of personal fear without regard to logic or reason". They acted for the betterment of society, not personal fear, nor was their approach unreasoned. So your claim that all people who break the law are cowards is false, by your own stated definitions.

Your constant inconsistencies are making this conversation rather tiring. You don't even follow your own definitions, much less those in common usage.

long winded fool

Why is it unjustified? How can laws have authority in a society if they are optional?

"It is not logical to break laws with the motive of bettering society..."

I say, it is ridiculous to suppose that one should not use an option, that even you admit is a possibility, when it will be the most efficient means to achieve the desired end.

Maybe this is true. I'm sure a similar rationale was used to justify the Europeans adoption of lands previously inhabited by Native Americans. They used their option of ignoring the wishes of the Native American peoples with the motive of bettering their society. No, the Native Americans didn't have a set system of laws and no they weren't all one single society, but it was still wrong to force our own opinions of how to have a healthy society on them. This is analogous to forcing our own opinions on our neighbors by disobeying laws that they choose to have in effect. Changing a society by logical discussion and communication, (i.e. protest, writing your governors and senators, etc.) is certainly a good way to get rid of bad laws and better society. Changing a society by force, (i.e. breaking the law,) is never a good way to better society, since two wrongs don't make a right. Rebellion just breeds more rebellion. The laws should not be decided by who has the biggest stick, and this is what civil disobedience essentially boils down to.

"The difficulty of leaving a society is irrelevant."

It is a matter of profound practical importance. In the real world, most people simply cannot legally move into any country they may wish to live in, even if one that they like really exists. Practically speaking, this makes your entire argument irrelevant, even if it were correct (which I obviously deny).

Once again, if you can't leave, you're a prisoner. Are you saying that there are some people who can't leave their societies if they want, but are not prisoners in their societies?

"If you can leave and disagree with the laws, you are honor-bound obey them until you leave. To do otherwise undermines the law which those who choose to live in the society require for order."

Again, there is no reason why anyone should believe that anyone is "honor-bound" to obey anything in your example, nor have you shown that disobedience to laws destroys the society.

I have shown this. If everyone disobeyed whatever laws they wanted, society would collapse, just like if everyone stole whatever they wanted, a store franchise would collapse.

"It is morally wrong to forcibly take over someone else's society and apply your own set of laws over theirs."

Again, you ASSUME that violating the laws entails force, but as I have repeated told you, one may engage in non-violent, yet illegal, protests. No force is necessary to violate many laws.

Violating laws is forcing your opinion on those who agree with the law. It is being uncooperative, and society is based on cooperation.

The simple fact is that you choose to use terms in a very restrictive sense, more restrictive than common usage, without first saying that you are doing so. You then complain when I point this fact out.

In your examples, you are confusing different collections of individuals. If we consider our society as simply the majority of people, then we, qua society, are not heroine users, though we are, qua society, speeders. You claim to admire precise logic, yet you continuously equivocate.

You're just relying on nebulous definitions to trap me. In whatever context I use a word, you point out that it can be used in a different context and assume that this means you've refuted me. This is an inverse of the fallacy of style over substance. Since I use general words in specific senses to make a point, when said words can also be used in other senses, my logic must be faulty.

"I don't claim that all people obey or disobey laws. I'm saying that it is irrational not to, unless you are a prisoner, and that the motive for doing this irrational thing is fear/insecurity."

Here we can observe two unsupported assumptions: First, that it is irrational to disobey laws, and secondly, that the motive for disobeying the law must be fear/insecurity.

I have repeated told you of an example in which the motive for disobedience is NOT fear/insecurity, but is the betterment of society.

It is irrational to disobey laws because laws are the glue that holds society together. Without rules, society cannot exist. The motive for disobeying a law is always fear, even if the fear is that you will not be able to effect a change without breaking the law.

Here we have an argument that you have presented. Let us now examine it (the numbers are obviously added by me):

1) "If one desires to live in a society, then it is logical to assume that one desires for that society to be in existence."

Fair enough.

2) "From there you can assume that one would rather not do something that is detrimental to its existence."

Fair enough, as far as it goes. But suppose that the main motive is personal gain, one should, therefore, expect that personal gain would not be sacrificed for the society at large. This, however, will not matter, as there are serious problems later in your argument.

If the motive is personal gain and this takes precedence over the motive of living in a society, then the motive is personal gain alone and not living in society. If you encounter a conflict of interest, you must choose one or the other. If you choose personal gain, you sacrifice society and vice-versa. You cannot logically have your cake and eat it too.

3) "If laws which apply to all members of society are required for a society to remain in existence, then disobeying laws would be detrimental to the societies' continued existence."

Here you are going beyond what I am willing to grant. As I have repeatedly stated, a society can exist without everyone always obeying the laws. There is NO reason to suppose that laws cannot be frequently broken, and yet the society may exist, and even thrive, for, possibly, many thousands of years (and its end is likely to be the result of external influences in any case, as history tells us that this is commonly, if not always, the case).

We can say that your argument, built upon this faulty premise, fails.


I don't think so. I grant you all this if you grant me that there is no reason that candy bars can't be shoplifted frequently without throwing the store out of business. This is just as logically true. Do you now condone shoplifting? If not, then your argument showing why must be built on just as faulty a premise as mine, since I can obviously logically steal small insignificant items on occasion and so can all my friends without killing the franchise of the store. This is all true. And still it's morally wrong. Why do you suppose that is?

It is interesting to consider another of your remarks:

There is no inconsistency in someone claiming that they, and they alone, are entitled to everything, and no one else is entitled to what they themselves possess. There is no contradiction involved, if I were to claim that everything belonged to me, and me alone. You may find such an idea repulsive, but it is not self-contradictory, so logic has nothing against it as a guiding principle for all actions. (There may, of course, be other considerations that would be relevant, but logically, there is no problem with this.)

Very true. That is where the goal comes in. That is why my argument starts out with "If you desire to be a member of a society..." Without this statement, the above observation would apply. Compare with, "If you desire to be supplied with possessions from a given store, it is illogical to steal them, since the store will lose money and eventually close. It is logical to buy them, so that the store can remain in business and continue to supply you with possessions. (And if you claim that there's no reason to assume that shoplifting causes a store to lose money and go bankrupt, then I suggest you talk to store owners in any high crime area. They'll tell you otherwise.)

Second, this again shows that you have not been paying attention. Civil disobedience need not involve theft, or an application of a principle that does not apply to all persons equally. In fact, many times, those who commit civil disobedience do so because they want everyone to be treated equally, rather than the unequal way they are treated under the laws.

Similar to our little "gray area" miscommunication, the reference to stealing was an analogy:

Shoplifting=disobeying laws
K-Mart=society

"If one's goal is to live in a society, one ought to follow all the society’s laws because doing otherwise is detrimental to the society, which is an illogical thought process if you desire the society's existence."

No. As you have been repeatedly explained to you, there is no reason to suppose that violating many laws must be detrimental to society.

Are you serious? Is there any reason to assume that if I steal a pack of gum from Shop 'n Save that this will be detrimental to the franchise? You can say that the detriment of stealing gum is negligible, but obviously it grows as others start stealing gum. And if we all still get away with it, we'll start stealing more expensive things and more will join in since there are no immediate consequences. It will be free stuff until Shop n' Save permanently closes down and all the stuff is gone for good. Therefore, violating laws is ALWAYS detrimental to society, even if the effect is extremely negligible. If one person does it, all ought logically be able to do it. Since this is not the case, that one person should not do it.


You state:

"Saying that disobeying one or two laws is not detrimental to society is like saying stealing one or two candy bars is not detrimental to the K-Mart franchise."

This is a false analogy, probably based upon your earlier erroneous assumption that selfish motives are always the motives for illegal actions, which is simply false.

Motives are not part of this analogy, and it is actually a very accurate analogy, thank you.

Generally speaking, acts of civil disobedience are done from altruistic motives, often for the betterment of society. So when you say:

"Likewise if everyone disobeyed whatever laws they wanted, this would also cause problems."

This ONLY would be true if what people want is bad for society. But if they ONLY broke bad laws, then it would be good for society if everyone broke those laws.

You appear to assume that there is always some good in every law, no matter what it might be. This is plainly false.

If people want to disobey laws, then by definition what they want is bad for society, since disobeyed laws weaken societies and obeyed laws strengthen them.

Your notion of "law" is extremely deviant. It obviously means that many things passed by the U.S. legislators, which they choose to call "laws", are not "laws" according to your definition. Many are designed to keep property in the hands of the rich (like tax breaks and loopholes for them), and have nothing to do with establishing order in society.

Following your new definition of "cowardice", many who break the law, such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King, were not cowards at all, as they were not "acting solely out of personal fear without regard to logic or reason". They acted for the betterment of society, not personal fear, nor was their approach unreasoned. So your claim that all people who break the law are cowards is false, by your own stated definitions.

Your constant inconsistencies are making this conversation rather tiring. You don't even follow your own definitions, much less those in common usage.

Laws are designed to establish order. Not all laws actually establish order. So what? Societies don't pass laws in order to make things confusing and chaotic. They pass laws to accomplish a goal of keeping the society alive. Not all laws are logical or good, but they are always designed to put order into a given system.

As stated earlier, any breaking of the law is acting out of fear. If I am afraid that my voice won't be heard unless I harm society by breaking its laws, then I am acting out of fear. When I get to this point, it is time for me to leave. While I may delude myself into thinking that I'm breaking the law because I am altruistic, the truth is that I'm breaking the law because I want my way over someone else's way and I'm afraid that I can't convince them with discussion, so I will force them to adapt to my way of thinking. And, historically speaking, if they still don't bend to my will then I should kick them out of their society and make it the way I want it. I'm afraid this is the logical breakdown of civil disobedience, revolution, and similar things that we as a society often erroneously view as courageous, when they are nothing but intolerant and cowardly self-absorption and greed.

Pyrrho

The point is, the vast majority of people in the real world, as a matter of fact, are essentially prisoners in the country into which they are born, and are not free to move wherever it may please them to move. So even if you were right in your claim that voluntary members of a society ought to obey all laws, it would be completely irrelevant to the vast majority of people in the real world.

Again, if you doubt my claim of this matter of fact, seriously look into what it would take for you to legally move to New Zealand. The simple fact is, their policies reject the vast majority of people, and pretty much any country worth living in has serious restrictions on who is allowed to enter (even if one had the money to physically get there, which many people in poor countries lack). Keep in mind, we are not talking about a temporary visit, but permanent residence, if not citizenship. You probably would be allowed to visit New Zealand, but odds are, they would not allow you to move there permanently. You, however, show no interest in reality with your theory, and prefer to engage in generating a good deal of useless verbiage. For the vast majority of people, your position is about as relevant as lengthy dissertations on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

And all of the above is assuming that you are right, which is a false assumption.

One could just as easily state that by following laws, one is "forcing" one's opinion on others. You are again using words deviantly when you claim that all illegal actions use "force".

Furthermore, your assertion that society is based upon cooperation is questionable, at best. Very often, the function of the laws in a society is to enslave the poor and keep those who are in power in luxury. This is, in fact, what actually happens in the real world many times. Of course, you have shown such little interest in reality in the past, so why should anyone suppose that you would now become interested?

Your statement about "force" above is very much like another statement you have repeatedly made:

One may as well say, any following of law is acting out of fear. Your claim that all actions of a certain type have a particular motive is extremely implausible. As a general rule, there are many different possible motives for the same action, and with such a broad category of action as "illegal", it is a virtual certainty that there is more than the one motive that you claim, being different for different people, and different for the same person at different times, or with different illegal actions. You are either using the term "fear" deviantly, or you are making an unwarranted (and ridiculous) assumption.


It may very well be true that without rules, society cannot exist. But one cannot logically deduce from that that all rules must be followed in order for society to exist. A great many laws can be violated with the society still functioning. History is full of examples of this, and contains no examples without frequent violations of the law. Your perceived need for complete and absolute obedience to the law is purely imaginary, and has nothing whatever to do with the real world.

It appears that you then admit that one may live within a society and not follow the laws, and this may very well be a logical choice. Or perhaps you will now say that they are not really members of society? That would be an ad hoc definition of what it is to be part of a society, or what the makers of this web site call "The "No True Scotsman..." fallacy":

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#scots

One can, according to your recent admission, live in a society, and not follow the laws, and one would be acting in accordance with logic to do so. This, however, is something you previously denied.

(The remarks in bold were originally posted by me.)
It is very much a false analogy. When someone steals from a store, the store loses money from the theft. When someone speeds all alone on a highway (without anything else happening), with no one ever witnessing the action, then there is no loss of money to society. This will be true no matter how many times it is repeated. The store can go out of business from excessive theft, regardless of whether the owner sees it, but the government can't be "put out of business" or destroyed by the speeding described above, no matter how many times it is done. The law can be broken countless times without any loss to the state, but a store will lose money from only one theft. These two are so completely different that your claim that the one is an analogy for the other is completely ridiculous and absurd.

Of course, given your inclination for contradictions and absurd claims, I don't expect that this or any other discussion could ever persuade you of the error of your ways.

long winded fool

I'll accept your claim that the vast majority of people who want to live in New Zealand cannot live there, but you must now logically prove that the vast majority of people in the world want to live in New Zealand. Not all societies are as difficult to become members of as New Zealand. And, assuming you're correct, what exactly does showing that the vast majority of people in the world are prisoners in their society do to this argumet? This possibility is logically included.

One could just as easily state that by following laws, one is "forcing" one's opinion on others. You are again using words deviantly when you claim that all illegal actions use "force".

This is true. In a society, the opinions of the majority as pertaining to codes of conduct are and should be enforced on the minority. If the minority don't like it, they need to complain and obey, or leave. If they do neither, they are being illogical.

Furthermore, your assertion that society is based upon cooperation is questionable, at best. Very often, the function of the laws in a society is to enslave the poor and keep those who are in power in luxury. This is, in fact, what actually happens in the real world many times. Of course, you have shown such little interest in reality in the past, so why should anyone suppose that you would now become interested?

When people form a society it is because of some common bond. Even societies of war-mongering criminals must cooperate to keep their society together. Not all societies are logical. All societies must cooperate to some extent by definition. Without some cooperation, you don't have a society. You have a bunch of individuals fighting each other. A society forms when individuals cooperate.

One may as well say, any following of law is acting out of fear. Your claim that all actions of a certain type have a particular motive is extremely implausible. As a general rule, there are many different possible motives for the same action, and with such a broad category of action as "illegal", it is a virtual certainty that there is more than the one motive that you claim, being different for different people, and different for the same person at different times, or with different illegal actions. You are either using the term "fear" deviantly, or you are making an unwarranted (and ridiculous) assumption.

I can see this. The motive of obeying laws is the preservation of the society, implying a certain fear of the society's death. However, acting logically, even when afraid, is not cowardice. It is logical to preserve the society if you are afraid of not living in a society. It is illogical to act to the detriment of society if you are afraid of not living in that society. Likewise, it is not illogical to act to the detriment of a society if you are not afraid of the death of that society. Boiled down: If you like it here, obey the rules. If you don't, you don't have to obey the rules, but you ought to leave if you respect your right to your own opinion, as you obviously do if you choose to ignore law. If you disobey and choose to stay, you are being inconsistent and illogical based on personal fear and therefore are acting cowardly.

It may very well be true that without rules, society cannot exist. But one cannot logically deduce from that that all rules must be followed in order for society to exist. A great many laws can be violated with the society still functioning. History is full of examples of this, and contains no examples without frequent violations of the law. Your perceived need for complete and absolute obedience to the law is purely imaginary, and has nothing whatever to do with the real world.

Is it not also true that if everyone shoplifted, a store will eventually close due to lack of profit? Is it not also the case that you can't logically deduce from this that all merchandise must be purchased in order for the store to stay in business? Is this then a logical excuse for me to steal one or two minor things only once in a while without being negatively labelled as doing something detrimental to the store? For one so interested in logical fallacies, you fail to recognize your own.

It appears that you then admit that one may live within a society and not follow the laws, and this may very well be a logical choice. Or perhaps you will now say that they are not really members of society? That would be an ad hoc definition of what it is to be part of a society, or what the makers of this web site call "The "No True Scotsman..." fallacy":

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#scots

One can, according to your recent admission, live in a society, and not follow the laws, and one would be acting in accordance with logic to do so. This, however, is something you previously denied.


Not true. I didn't deny this. What you have stated is true. One cannot choose to live in a society while not following the laws and be acting in accordance with logic. POW's can live in a society and not obey laws and be acting in accordance with logic. They cannot however choose to live in said society and disobey the laws and call themselves logical.

It is very much a false analogy. When someone steals from a store, the store loses money from the theft. When someone speeds all alone on a highway (without anything else happening), with no one ever witnessing the action, then there is no loss of money to society. This will be true no matter how many times it is repeated. The store can go out of business from excessive theft, regardless of whether the owner sees it, but the government can't be "put out of business" or destroyed by the speeding described above, no matter how many times it is done. The law can be broken countless times without any loss to the state, but a store will lose money from only one theft. These two are so completely different that your claim that the one is an analogy for the other is completely ridiculous and absurd.

The analogy is sound, you are misinterpreting it, as seems to be your wont. "Losing money" is not the point of the analogy. Undermining a system you claim to honor is the point. If you like K-Mart, don't shoplift. No, stealing a pack of gum is not going to kill the franchise. Why is it always wrong/illogical to steal, then? Figure this out, and you've figured out why it's always wrong/illogical to disobey laws.

Of course, given your inclination for contradictions and absurd claims, I don't expect that this or any other discussion could ever persuade you of the error of your ways.

Okay.

(I'm going to make a critical thinker out of you yet, Pyrrho!)

LHP Adept

Please forgive me if I go over something that has already been discussed. I skipped over much of the above because it seemed devoid of intellectual content.

LWFool, your posts seem to reveal the conviction that one (or one who feels as you do) cannot, in good concsience, become or remain a member of a society which has even one law which the person cannot, in good conscience, obey. Have I accurately read your thesis?

If this is your thesis, then I have a question:

1) What should one do if there are no societies on earth in which he can be a conscientious member (or if no such society will accept him)? Live as a hermit, eschewing all contact with the rest of humanity?
Example: Fred has strong personal preferances for drinking vodka, sky diving, and listening to the music of Elvis Presley. Fred's country outlaws sky diving after a series of fatal accidents.
Fred goes to the library and discovers that every society on earth either outlaws one of his three favorite things (which he is unwilling to give up) or else is not accepting new members from his part of the globe.
According to your thesis, he is obligated to move out into the woods/marsh/mountains/tundra and subsist on what he can grow himself. Right?

long winded fool

Right. He cannot in good conscience disobey the laws of a society he chooses to live in. If his neighbors democratically decide he must give up skydiving, he must give up skydiving or go somewhere where his neighbors will allow him to skydive. If that somewhere is outside of society, then that is where he must go. In all cases, the laws of society are sovereign for as long as they are laws and one cannot disobey them without making him or herself detrimental to the society they choose to belong to.