good for youThe too-easy Godwin-y response is "How does one say that in German?"
too many folks out there just ignore laws they find inconvenient, instead of getting off their ass and helping change 'em.
we don't have to like it but we ALL gotta live by the rules
Obviously, at some point, "living by the rules" becomes itself a larger crime. At what point is one justified in substituting one's conscience for the rule book? Is one ever justified doing the opposite?
39 comments:
I try to keep in mind....
It was once 'legal' in this nation to own slaves, and beat them to death if you wished.
It was once 'illegal' for women to vote in this nation.
Legal and illegal have nothing to do with right and wrong. Never did, never will.
People tend to assume that if it is the law then it is morally or ethically right. This is a mistake.
Use your own values to set what you follow and what is legal. Some peaple are tired of being led like sheep!
Which rules? The one our Lords and Masters have decreed? Or the ones our Founders intended? See... right there, you have a disconnect. And as soon as you pick one set or the other, you're expressing a preference. And -- trust me -- they DO conflict.
M
Mark,
"Or the ones our Founders intended?"
No, that one falls down too. Our Founders were all involved in suppressing the Whiskey Rebellion and turning in runaway slaves. Some folks' consciences had problems with that.
I don't have the time to keep track of all the f*cking rules. I try to obey all the gun laws I know of. I try not to break the traffic rules enough to get fined.
The rest? I have no idea what state and federal laws I'm breaking on any given day.
I'd like to think he meant that "we all gotta live by them" in a zen fashion and that "so we'd better ensure those laws are just and proper" was implied, especially given the preceding bit about getting off one's ass and helping change them, but who knows?
Laws of this nature are more about control and fund raisers for the government.
I would have no problem violating this one if I wanted to make shine.
I think you're gonna see more people ignoring more laws as time goes by. Minimal compliance to keep up appearances.
Being a pretty big fan of Immanuel Kant, I suppose the point for me is "when the law violates the categorical imperative." Slavery would violate it in two ways--it treated blacks as a means to an end, and obviously was a moral law to which many excepted themselves.
Issues like the speed limit and the aforementioned home brewery don't violate that moral law for me, and so I have no issues with following them.
On New Years I was home kind of grooving on the surrounding neighborhoods shooting their guns in the air like it was Tet. Lotta folks walked up here from Mexico. They ignore gun laws, auto laws, immigration law, tax laws. It's kind of inspiring! Juan Gaulto!
Robert,
Obviously there are good laws and bad laws. How does one decide which is which?
I mean, we can prove that "Following All Laws" can be as bad as "Breaking All Laws", so where's the line?
The comment I left was about being from WV and how we tend to obey the laws we don't find too annoying and ignore the rest.
I don't speed much nowadays because there are too many cars on the road where I live to do it safely, but a decade or two back I'd frequently get my car up to over 100mph on a back country road that had good line of sight and a minimum of places people could pull out.
I've carried a pistol without a permit, when I felt it necessary. I drank before I was of legal age, and I'm sure I'll commit a number of crimes today because I'm leaving the house and going shopping.
Despite all that, few people would look at me and think that I was a horrible criminal. Mainly because the laws I've broken don't really impact anyone else. And isn't that supposed to be the point of laws anyway?
As Sean Connery said in that crappy King Arthur movie: "There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free..."
You have to read it with a Scottish lisp.
I can never remember where I saw it, but the line "Who here does everything the government tells them?" keeps coming to mind.
Gee, Robert, those inspirational violations of the Four Rules comes at a cost. Not all laws are made just to screw the populace.
w.v mingtac: Black leather armor with strange logos from particular Chinese historical periods
Laws of man aren't like laws of physics. Breaking a statutory law is, like most things in life, a matter of cost versus benefit.
Speeding is the best example. I have been known to operate my car above the posted speed limit on occasion. Benefits: I'm having fun and I'm getting where I need to go faster. Costs: Increased chance of accident and/or injury; fines, loss of license, or even jail time if I'm caught.
It's a pretty simple calculus. Does the benefit outweigh (odds of penalty) x (severity of penalty)?
It's no different when, for instance, someone chooses whether to carry a concealed weapon somewhere prohibited. If you know what you're doing, the odds of getting caught should be very slim (unless you carry a spare magazine, apparently). But depending on the jurisdiction, the penalty for getting caught could be prison and the permanent revocation of one's right to own a gun at all.
"Obviously there are good laws and bad laws. How does one decide which is which?
I mean, we can prove that 'Following All Laws' can be as bad as 'Breaking All Laws', so where's the line?"
There's the rub, ain't it? But throwing the baby out with the bathwater isn't an answer, either.
There's as much that's good about SCOTUS justice Potter Stewart's "I know it when I see it" standard as that's bad about the ambiguity of it.
Tam, the best answer I have is from Heinlein,
"I will accept any rules that you feel are necessary for your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."
That's pretty much how I live my life. I'm from the school of leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. If I see a chance to grasp more freedom I go for it, but I try not to risk what I have in the meantime. It hasn't gotten bad enough for me to risk what's left yet, but I've made my decision about when that point will come and I keep that to myself. That's the best I can do.
My favorite stupid law? It is a felony in Texas to possess more than 5 sex toys.
I am not certain where the FedGov gets the authority to make it a crime for you to produce spirits for personal use without twisting the commerce clause beyond recognition.
Why do such laws get passed?
The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. - Ayn Rand
"The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the Prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this."
- Albert Einstein ("My First Impression of the U.S.A.", 1921)
WV: "calingin" - Calling gin as said by a Virgin Islander.
When you wake up in the morning and the Government has stuck a decapitated horse-head in bed next to you - when it's not the Jihadi's who demand your submission, but the Capo di Tutti di Congressi et Senatori.
I have no problem not doing crime against person: I don't go around beating on folks.
I have no problem not doing crime against property: I don't steal.
But there's no such thing as crime against government. I obey the Eleventh Commandment: "Thou shalt not get caught." Judicious caution, of course; I bear the sole responsibility for the consequences of my decisions and actions.
But all that makes it very easy to live with myself and have a very clear conscience.
Art
In principle I just ignore them all as I can, good or bad. But the nasty police power hinders that in practice. Truthfully, I obey the law out of fear alone. When I break it I do so because the penalty is remote enough or small enough to make bearing it worth the risk vs the reward of doing whatever it is that I'm doing. Man's Law is a very Old Testament Law, that rules through fear and awesome displays of naked power.
The singular beauty and probably the fatal flaw of libertarianism is that a simple credo suffices for all law.
AT
we don't have to like it but we ALL gotta live by the rules
Sounds like, "We were only following orders," no?
Jim
For the little question about 'shine, although distilling is controlled by the fed, freezing is not. Cooling a mixture of alcohol and water below the freeze point of water will freeze more water than alcohol, and concentrate the alcohol in the remaining liquid. This is how you can turn hard cider ~6% alcohol quite legally into apple jack ~40% alcohol. Often there is a technological method around a bad law.
Through the grace of God,and my own hard work,I own homes in suburban Detroit and northern Michigan.Both jurisdictions expect me to pull permits for just about everything but paint and wallpaper.I had to pay $115.00 for a permit to have propane tank set on my northern property,and they are not coming to inspect the installation.They just want the money.F'm.
Texas has TWELVE felonies involving Oysters.
Obviously there are good laws and bad laws. How does one decide which is which?
Well, if Billy Beck ever gets back from doing whatever it is he's doing, he could probably render us a fine exposition on the subject.
To amplify what Robert said, while "good" laws follow from well-formed ethical concepts, the converse can only be partially converted. (An ethical person will follow "good" laws, but a person who obeys "good" laws may not be uniformly ethical.)
Without a proper philosophical grounding that includes ethics, good and bad laws are indistinguishable. Following the law has little to do with being morally correct, as any good lawyer knows. Most laws are simplistic rules written primarily for people who couldn't reason their way to doing the right thing in the first place.
I think this is what Billy drives at when he states that philosophy is not optional.
Any law that does not serve the purpose of securing the individual right to life, liberty, and property cannot bind in conscience. Compliance (or, you know, not) is a purely tactical decision.
Well, Moriarty waxes philosophical on the whole ethereal nature of laws and I can't say I disagree with his premise.
But I'm afraid franxredhot's last two sentences hit the nail on the head. Yes, as usual, it's mostly about the money (power). And in true libertarian fashion, yes, f'm.
AT
Here is the article this reminded me of:
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/05/criminalizing-everyone/
Here is another with a good Jefferson quote:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113861,00.html
A great discussion here, BTW. Questioning and decrying government, with minimal chest-beating. A pleasure for me to read.
Now, how do we get this group of smart, articulate people to be mobilized enough to get some votes, and remove some stoopid laws? The problem is, the one thing that draws us together is our very individualism.
Well, Matt, we have the same problem that the grassroots antigun movement has: It's tough to sell a negative.
"We're not promising anything! No chickens in your pot! We're not going to get tough on your pet crime! We're just going to leave you alone!"
Compared to promises of no crime, trains running on time, security, and free stuff, it's a tough sell. What kid wants an empty box for Christmas?
That's funny, I almost got an empty ice box for Christmas. Well, it was a Coke drink chest. Same thing. Sorta.
If I can find a replacement thermostat, that is.
At some point it becomes impossible to even know all the laws and thus impossible to avoid breaking them.
Mike W.: we've passed that point a long time ago.
And I'd like to second Matt G; GREAT discussion!
"...we have the same problem that the grassroots antigun movement has: It's tough to sell a negative.
"
Oh, we have an even tougher PR problem than the anti's...because they are an actual "We", while libertarianism almost by definition is a cacophony of "I's".
As Matt recognizes above, a system based on pluralism is a little tough to navigate if your beliefs are all about individualism. That would be the fatal flaw I alluded to earlier.
AT
Sorry if this is a bit long, but it was necessary to make sure to get all the relevant parts.
Here's what the Mormon church position is, as taken from their Doctrine and Covenants, section 134 (note especially verse 5):
"1 We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.
2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.
3 We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.
4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.
5 We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.
...
11 We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded."
I wonder what level it would have to reach before we are officially at the point where the citizens are no longer "protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments".
The church is EXTREMELY well organized and, while it tends to be concentrated in western states, spread out fairly well all over the country. Its members are generally well prepared for difficult times and I'd dare say their percentage of gun ownership is significantly higher than the general populace.
If you want to read the whole section, go here http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/134
Post a Comment