Cons BTFO!!!
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (36)
sorted by:
Yes, police should only be upholding laws that you like. We don't want no stinkin' rule of law, we want anarchy.
unjust laws shouldn't be enforced.
How do you determine what law is 'unjust'? Should they call you, or should it be up to each individual police officer?
In America we are already functioning with a kind of anarchy/lawlessness due to selective enforcement of existing law at all levels; from individual officers up to the 'President', from municipal resolutions up to our very Constitution. The ATF is virtually entirely built on laws in direct contradiction to our Constitution. So if an individual officer is given an order (direct or standing) in contradiction to the Constitution, they should decide (individually, if necessary, but hopefully as a force) to ignore/reject that order (unless you believe that "I was just following orders" is a valid legal defense.)
Now, all that has only touched on written law, but virtually everyone is going to agree that there are certain principles which supersede written laws. In a well functioning society, everyone broadly agrees on what these principles are and they either form the basis for the written laws, or the written laws aren't needed because people follow the same core principles. But in a poorly functioning society (virtually every modern western nation) written laws exist as an attempt to enforce some homogeneity, based on (at best) 'compromise' core principles, or (more often) the core principles of the group holding the most power, or (even worse) don't exist at all/aren't enforced and everything is up to the whims of the group with the most power.
So to actually answer your question, at a functional level, society determines which laws are 'unjust', based on its core principles. In America those core principles were codified in our Constitution and other founding documents, along with commentaries from the authors and signatories of those founding documents. Unfortunately, those core principles are no longer held in common by either the government or the people, and thus are regular ignored to implement and enforce unjust laws.
(I could give an argument for inherent/natural/divine law, but from a practical perspective these either exist as the core principles on which a society is founded, or are enforced without any input from society, so I didn't feel it was worth covering when there are so many others which have already covered these concepts in more detail.)
EDIT: Also, as a further post-scriptum, the founders also gave the solution to society disagreeing on core principles, but as yet there doesn't appear to be a willingness to go down that path.
But the arbiter of what is in accordance with the Constitution is not the individual officer. That would be anarchy (and I agree that you already have that in practice, because the last year has not made your country look good), and it's also even more undemocratic than the current system.
If we're on valid legal defenses: "I believed that law is unjust" most certainly is not a valid legal defense.
You got this absolutely right. All western countries have devolved into a form of oligarchy where there is a small group of people with a certain ideology that wields power without any regard for the rest of us.
I don't disagree with your diagnosis, only with your solution.
The right of revolution exists not when there laws that you consider unjust (that will be true in every country, anywhere), but when peaceful means of changing that are closed off to you. Imagine if 40% of a country believes that some laws are 'unjust' and a violent attempt to overthrow the popular government is therefore justified. That's madness, right?
Slavery is an unjust law. Taking property from law abiding citizens is an unjust law. Demanding people talk and think a certain way or be punished is an unjust law. Treating grown adults like children who need to be controlled by a nanny state is an unjust law. It's not rocket science. Morality is not relative.
I agree that morality is not relative, but by what standard should that be determined?
Oh come on, you sound like Antifa.
You did not specify any standard for what makes a law 'unjust'. Or why it should be your conception of what an 'unjust law' is that they should not enforce. Perhaps if your anarchistic worldview prevails, they'll stop enforcing some of the laws that you do like as 'unjust'.
Like those persecuting black bodies for seizing reparations from local stores.
Of course you need to. If you're saying that police officers should ignore some laws, you need to specify by what standard it should be determined that these laws are to be ignored.
By not specifying a standard, that's exactly what you did.
No, just logical consequence of what you advocate.
You're not getting that it's satire, even though I called looting 'reparations'?