Pyrrho

My question was:

"Do you always obey the speed limit, as well as all other traffic laws?"

(The purpose of my question is clearly stated in the post in which the question originally appeared.)

To which came this reply:

So you believe it is appropriate to evade questions that are relevant to the discussion at hand? I realize that it is common practice here, but I am curious if it is something that you endorse.

In answer to your question, "No". I do, however, believe that people often violating the laws does not necessarily result in anarchy. That is one of the evident differences between long winded fool and me.

themistocles

Well, I was hoping that it was obvious that the question would either make a point on its own or would be seen as loaded so that further discussion could be made. Not only is it not avoiding the question, it serves the purpose of furthering a point to be made. That out of the way...

I don't want to speak for LWF, but playing devil's advocate, I think it's very plausible to say the reason we have specific speed limits is legal clarity. If people routinely do 45 in a 35 and rarely get caught is one thing. But if you were to get pulled over, "everyone else does 45 here" isn't a very good argument to not be pulled over.

Connotations of "anarchy" aside, that everyone routinely breaks the specified speed limit degrades popular respect for the specific law. Perhaps its debatable whether or not it's a safe or unsafe speed law, but it's not debatable whether or not routine breaking of the law by many renders the law that much more moot. Cook at 350 degrees and we have "anarchy" to a small and relative degree.

long winded fool

I'm not a courageous man, if that's what you're asking. True, minor violations do not immediately result in anarchy, but they are violations all the same. "Because everyone does it" doesn't necessarily preclude it from being a cowardly act. I personally think legal slavery is always a cowardly (irrational) act, though there was a time when it was widely accepted. I wouldn't necessarily call all slave owners cowards, I would call their actions and motives cowardly. (Maybe it's the same thing, but I've known very brave men and women who still act solely out of irrational fear every once in a while.)

I'm not trying to label people, I'm trying to label actions and thought processes. I don't go around calling people who speed cowards, but any willing violation of the law is a cowardly act in that it undermines the good of society for one's own individual benefit. Selfishness and greed stem from fear. So acting on selfish desires is acting out of fear. Hence my label of cowardice. Not quite the standard use in such a small degree, but it's cowardice all the same.

Themistocles, I couldn't have said it better myself. And what a great quote you posted earlier!

Dr. Retard

long winded fool:

So I think this is your position:

(1) Suppose you live under an unjust legal system, and you cannot leave. Then it's OK not to snitch.

(2) Now suppose you live under an unjust legal system, but you can leave (though the costs may be very great indeed). Then, if you don't snitch, you are a dishonorable, irrational coward.

And I have a feeling that you will bite any bullets we offer. So I'll report my conviction that this position is alarmingly stupid. And I'll ask: what reason do we have to accept this position?

Calzaer

Fallacy: Appeal to Common Practice.

In the words of Opus: "If ten thousand people do a silly thing, it's still a silly thing."

christ-on-a-stick

Something that has occurred to me in the reading of this thread is that there seems to be a sentiment implied by long-winded-fool and others (correct me if I'm wrong) that the "society" - meaning the government that makes the laws - is the RULER and we - the "members" of society - are the RULED.

However, at least in the U.S., we are *supposed* to have a government "of, by and for the people". In other words, they are supposed to work for us. But do they? We have a system that is supposed to be democratic, in which we could change laws through democratic means. However, it is my opinion that it has become clear in recent years that the burgeoning size, scope and corruption of governmental channels and agencies has led us far astray from the will of the people (insofar as it is in accordance with the Constitution) being done in many cases.

Let me put it this way: if someone, in the US for instance, has disagreement with the Constitution and the basic principles on which the government was founded (that are not alterable through democractic means), then by all means find a country that suits your sensibilities better or accept the consequences of where you live.

However, if someone (such as myself), who was born here and not only agrees with but holds dear the principles of our Constitution - finds that the people who are *supposed to* work for them (elected officials, government etc.) have not only abdicated their responsibilities but have created a huge self-serving power structure that gives them the ability to control the populace through force if necessary...

Why the heck should *I* leave??? I was born here and I have every right to continue to live here, and not be "run off" by those who are supposed to work for me and to whom I give over 30% of my annual income . That's what strikes me as patently ridiculous about this whole "don't reap the benefits of society unless you want to obey the laws"... guess what? If by benefits you're talking about municipalities, law enforcement, judiciary etc... I PAY FOR THEM, as does everybody other adult who pays their taxes in this country. You call it "cowardice" to engage in civil disobedience by refusing to cow to those laws that are unjust and against the will of the people and are being enforced by a bullying government that has bloated to its core. To NOT practice such civil disobedience strikes me as much more cowardly than having the principle to stand up and say "don't tread on me" ...instead of just running away from the bully.

themistocles

Well, Christ on a stick, what is a law that the people largely disagree with but continues to exist?

I mean, I think the inferred crime at the beginning of the topic was marijuana legalization. Surely, one may argue there are vested interests in keeping marijuana illegal? But a resolution came up, here in Nevada, and was overwhelmingly turned down by the people. More than 70% of voters said "no" to legalization.

I think laws generally do reflect the will of the people. You can nit-pick of government actions and such, and may very well be right, but when we speak of laws themselves, they more or less do reflect popular will.

And, this is just my personal opinion, but when we talk about "interests" as if there insidious secret groups, I think the fact is that the United States reflects all pockets of society and it's rather arbitrary to decide that some "interests" (hell, voters constitute multiple interests alone) are inherently insidious and don't count is rather unfair. But that's just my opinion and unrelated to what I've said before this paragraph.

christ-on-a-stick

Here's one to start off:

In California, the medical marijuana initiative PASSED. It's on the books. That hasn't stopped Ashcroft from invoking Federal Law and *literally* raiding hospices and arresting bedridden patients for the crime of growing Mary Jane to ease some of the discomfort of their last days.

I'll bring some more, but I'd like to hear your response to that.

themistocles

Well it does bring up an interesting issue of states rights vs. federalism.

What the people of Nevada might value is different than what the people of California value and thus you have different voting patterns for laws. But it also brings up the question, what is the federal trend in attitude towards legalization, especially since it's federal law which prohibits marijuana (and federal law supersedes state law)?

The nation has generally sided with the standard of federalism over state, so it would be arbitrary to say that one state law that contradicts national law should stay, unless you deal with the issue nationally, not within states.

christ-on-a-stick

Oh, I forgot to discuss the flip side of the coin. As I said, I uphold and hold dear the principles of the Constitution on which our government is founded and is supposed to operate.

What, then of the laws that the majority of people support but that are unconstitutional? Tyranny of the majority and all? I hold the same position, which is that I would feel no MORAL obligation to abide by laws that infringed upon my constitutionally afforded rights. If the power structure that be wanted to toss me in jail for it, obviously I wouldn't have much of a choice, but "accept it"? Hell no. I would fight it all the way on those very grounds.

If someone broke a law that they felt was unconstitutional and was thrown in jail for it, some here seem to be saying that they would be "cowardly" for not accepting their fate. What if they fought it in court and eventually the law was indeed struck down as unconstitutional? Would their "cowardice" then be erased? What if they fought it in court and DIDN'T win - would that change whether the law was in fact unconstitutional or not? Should not they not even have *tried*?

By some of the logic I have seen here, the people who hid and "unlawfully" freed the slaves were "cowards". But the principles that they were fighting for were later accepted to be right - does that mean that they were doing wrong at the time but it just "became" right?

The example of Nelson Mandela is also worth noting. He spent YEARS in jail for standing up to his oppressors, but according to some here was "cowardly" for not just saying "ok, it's your country, you win". Because it wasn't just THEIR country, it was HIS country just as much.

The proposal that people who don't like the laws of the country they live in should either A) leave or B) give up if they can't change the system "democratically" is so simplistic as to be ludicrous. Not all countries are democratic; what are those people to do in the face of tyranny? Kill themselves? Leave? Why should they have to? Does "might make right" and those who wield power by whatever means necessary deserve to have their "subjects" who had best obey or get the heck out?