Cons BTFO!!!
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (36)
sorted by:
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?
Since we apparently agree on the core of this, I'll just address the couple points on which we disagree.
Each person is individually responsible for their own actions. If one believes they have been given an order in violation of some higher law/principle, they must choose which law they violate, and will face consequences in either case.
But "I believed the law was unconstitutional." is (provided you can get at least one judge/judiciary to agree with you.) I'll try and find the court ruling for this, but there is legal precedent for ignoring unconstitutional laws.
First, this completely misses/ignores what I said in in the post-scriptum. Second, there are non-violent means of dissolving political ties (though history shows that violent means are far more likely.) Third, it ignores the reality of the situation in America today.
If there are fundamental disagreements on core principles within a society (whether that be between the people and the law, or the people amongst themselves) it is necessary and (in my opinion) inevitable that a new government be formed (whether that 'new' government is an alteration of the existing one, or the formation of an entirely separate one alongside or to replace the existing one, will depend on the nature of the disagreement.)
Originally America was founded as a confederation, with an almost non-existent central government. Even after the adoption of the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights), the US was a collection of separate, independent, sovereign States who were free to govern affairs within their own borders as they chose. Were we still organized this way I doubt that formation of a new government would be necessary, as the separate States would be able to accommodate the majority of views held by the citizens of the Union.
Today, America is ruled by a strong central government that regularly enforces its will on the states. There exist irreconcilable differences in core beliefs between multiple significant groups within her borders. Something like 25-50 percent of the population believes the most recent election/government to be fraudulent, and has no reason to believe this fraud will be overturned, or prevented in the future.
America needs a new government (and probably more than one, unless some portion of the population no longer lives here) as the existing one is failing her people. The only other option is giving America a new people, and that option without question justifies violent revolution.
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?
Not particularly. When you propose that police officers start disregarding some of the laws, the least you can do is specify by what standard they should do that. Or do you expect to be on call 24/7 for them to ask you if they should enforce this or that law?
Don't you worry, I'm European.
No doubt it does, but it is not 'corruption' to enforce laws that you do not like.