|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Disagreeing with laws and upholding laws and arguing they should be upheld | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
For sake of avoiding extraneous debate, I'm starting this as its own topic (based on Ringo's suggestion) and we don't have to discuss exactly where it came from.
When a person disagrees with a law, must it be upheld, and must it be argued that it should be upheld just because it is on the books? I wholly disagree with the idea that a law must be upheld, and more importantly that one must argue it should be upheld by the state, when it is unjust. I personally do not understand such a thought process, or how laws become changed without both a refusal to carry out laws that are considered unjust, or arguing that they should not be carried out. Maybe I grew up listening to too many people arguing that it is a person's duty to challenge and defy unjust laws. In any case, if they are not defied and argued that they shouldn't be upheld, how then are they supposed to change? Why should a person be trapped in a position of demanding the upholding of something one feels is so directly unjust? As an example... If I were in Salem, I would have argued that laws against witches were unjust, and helped such suspects escape with their lives (thus I would not have upheld the law). If caught, I would have argued with the police not to uphold the law. If sent to court, I would have argued that the court should not uphold the unjust law. To agree that they should be upheld is a tacit agreement they are correct, at the very least their legitimacy as a tool in society. If I believe they are incorrect I cannot believe they are legitimate even as such a tool. Edited by Silent H, : not h "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
SilentH writes: I wholly disagree with the idea that a law must be upheld, and more importantly that one must argue it should be upheld by the state, when it is unjust. As far as I know, nobody's arguing for upholding unjust laws, so this might be a very short thread.
I personally do not understand such a thought process, or how laws become changed without both a refusal to carry out laws that are considered unjust, or arguing that they should not be carried out. Do you know anything about Canadian history? We managed to come to roughly the same place in democracy and freedom as the U.S. without major disruptions in law-abiding. It is possible to uphold laws while you're in the process of changing them.
In any case, if they are not defied and argued that they should be upheld, how then are they supposed to change? What does defying a law accomplish in changing it? Defiance is more likely to polarize people against the defiant than to build a consensus that can be used in a democratic process. Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. the people, and their elected legislators have a responsibility to alter or abolish unjust laws. but. law-enforcement personel have the responsibility to enforce all laws currently in use. lawlessness helps no one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
As far as I know, nobody's arguing for upholding unjust laws, so this might be a very short thread.
Okay, I was using unjust laws to include laws one disagrees with. I saw in the other thread that you (in a post to brenna) distinguished between the two. If you want to expand the difference between unjust laws and ones you disagree with please feel free to do so. You can riff off my Salem example for a comparison if you want. (on a side note: this was generated from a person arguing that a law I would call unjust (and I assume she would) should be upheld.)
Do you know anything about Canadian history?
Very little. Would love to know more. I realize that it is possible to uphold laws while they are being changed. But I find that an absurdity unless there is a practical necessity to do so. For example, laws regarding traffic would be something that needs to be maintained, because otherwise there could be severe problems in the mean time. Perhaps Canada has not had such absurd laws as the US. Witch trials (well okay not the US but its in our borders), Prohibition, anti-abortion, anti-gay... I see no reason to uphold them while they are being changed. My own state suspended capital punishment, though it is the law and people were slated for execution, while the laws and practices were investigated.
What does defying a law accomplish in changing it? Defiance is more likely to polarize people against the defiant than to build a consensus that can be used in a democratic process.
Well the first thing it does is it stops any further problems happening because of the law. It stops precedent for its activity, its necessity, while providing a precedent that laws can be changed... even at the lowest levels. I'm not sure if you know about US law, but we originally had a concept that juries were to be informed of their right to stop a law's execution if they felt it was wrong. They were not simply supposed to vote on whether a law was broken. I can see what you mean by having a polarizing effect. But that is sometimes advantageous as it breaks complacency that would otherwise be the norm. I don't think the people helping slaves escape polarized the community in a way against the anti-slavery movement. Likewise all the people beating Prohibition (with the help of yon Kanucks) certainly didn't polarize the nation... it built consensus. h "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
What does defying a law accomplish in changing it?
Defiance is more likely to polarize people against the defiant than to build a consensus that can be used in a democratic process. it's not about building consensus. it's about demonstrating the wrong that is being perpetrated. most unjust laws have been ignored prior to the disobedient action dealing with them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
it's about demonstrating the wrong that is being perpetrated. most unjust laws have been ignored prior to the disobedient action dealing with them. It's also about not perpetuating a wrong, whether through direct action or through inaction. It has become fashionable on the left and in Western Europe to compare the Bush administration to the Nazis. The comparison is not without some superficial merit. In both cases the government is run by a small gang of snickering, stupid thugs whose vision of paradise is full of explosions and beautifully designed prisons. -- Matt Taibbi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
that too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3977 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
Ringo writes: What does defying a law accomplish in changing it? I don't know much about Canadian history. You folks have always seemed like kinder, gentler Americans. I don't know how you got to that place. But I know that dramatic changes in U.S. laws came about in part because a nice black lady refused to give up her seat to a white man--in violation of the law. Black people were arrested for sitting down at white-only lunch counters--in violation of the law. Soon after, the world watched vicious dogs and rabid deputies attack black folks who marched for justice even though they had been denied permission to do so under the law. I'm with Thoreau (and Silent H) on this one:
quote: Civil disobedience is a fine and necessary tradition. One does then expect prosecution under the law, but one also expects the opportunity to argue that the law is unjust and should not be upheld.
Ringo writes: Defiance is more likely to polarize people against the defiant than to build a consensus that can be used in a democratic process. Sometimes the democratic consensus has to be whacked to get its attention. People who organize against injustice are often warned not to alienate the moderates, lest the extremists gain power. But moderates are not agents of change; watching the consequences of defying the law can force them to recognize the need for change. Democracy has virtues, but it is not virtuous: a privileged majority can natter on for decades (or centuries) and never come to a consensus to surrender their privilege. Sometimes it takes dramatic, polarizing action to effect change. Edited by Omnivorous, : subtitle got unjustly chopped off Real things always push back. -William James Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC! ---------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
We have agreement on the first part of your argument, and would only add the judiciary. but...
law-enforcement personel have the responsibility to enforce all laws currently in use. lawlessness helps no one.
I have to admit having a problem with this. Meaning it is tough for me to crack. Let me try... I understand what you are saying. Certainly a person who has donned the role of civil servant (I would include things beyond just law enforcement, including the military) have given up a certain level of autonomy. They have deliberately taken responsibility for upholding laws and instructions, regardless of their opinions of them. And if it were reduced to every man for himself, smooth functioning would likely break down. It has got to be true that not every civil servant likes every law or order they receive. They have to yield. However, I would argue, that responsibility must still be balanced with their commitment to the nation as a citizen. Indeed their oaths (in the US) are principally to the Constitution, not to any specific leader or set of laws. And for practical purposes in the course of their duties, often waive the letter of any law, in order to uphold the spirit which is to preserve peace and protect the citizens. It is usually not the case that every crime is stepped on, even when caught. So if there is that flexibility in practice, and some amount of responsibility to rights over laws, then I think there is space for civil servants to "rebel" as it were in those instances they feel are important cases. Obviously if a person were constantly rebelling they probably shouldn't be in the civil service. But once in a while as laws are felt to be useless or contradictory to peace, safety, or civil rights... I say defy! I think, someone can correct me, that right now Oregon or CA are defying the enforcement of federal laws (regarding drugs). This is not just a legislative overturn, but on the enforcement side. When I was being processed for the military (long ago and didn't finish) there was a point where I was being told that soldiers are allowed to defy their orders if they feel it conflicts with law (including the Constitution). They have that right... though they are likely to find themselves in the pokey until their case is reviewed. Sometimes it takes defiance by these members to make a difference. A stirring image was that lone man stopping a column of tanks in China. Honestly it wasn't that guy alone. The tanks could have easily run him over. He made them think and stop. They defied their orders. Too bad many others did not. I think once a civil servant is confronted with a law which is disagreeable to their concept of humanity and rights, they should defy it just as much as any other individual. h "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Sweet posts people, and I especially love this one by omni.
Democracy has virtues, but it is not virtuous: a privileged majority can natter on for decades (or centuries) and never come to a consensus to surrender their privilege.
Indeed. I love that opening line... is it yours, or is it borrowed? I plan to borrow it so I thought I should ask. I'd also add that (on the flipside) an oppressed majority can also natter on and never realize they have a right not to be oppressed one day further. Today a majority of Americans have been hocking their rights for "security" and its taking defiance (including by law enforcement and military) to shake people from their "giving mood." h "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3977 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
Silent H writes: When I was being processed for the military (long ago and didn't finish) there was a point where I was being told that soldiers are allowed to defy their orders if they feel it conflicts with law (including the Constitution). They have that right... though they are likely to find themselves in the pokey until their case is reviewed. In fact, they have not only the right under military law to refuse unlawful orders but an obligation. Real things always push back. -William James Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC! ---------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3977 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
Silent H writes: Indeed. I love that opening line... is it yours, or is it borrowed? I plan to borrow it so I thought I should ask. I made it up while reflecting on why I both adore and distrust democracy. Feel free to use it. Real things always push back. -William James Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC! ---------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Feel free to use it.
[rubbing hands]... excellent...[/rubbing hands] h "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
SilentH writes: (on a side note: this was generated from a person arguing that a law I would call unjust (and I assume she would) should be upheld.) Are we talking about fetal-homicide laws? If so, I might call them stupid, but not necessarily unjust. I tend to think of an unjust law as one that takes rights away from somebody. Fetal-homicide laws give "rights" to an entity that doesn't/shouldn't intrinsically have any.
I realize that it is possible to uphold laws while they are being changed. But I find that an absurdity unless there is a practical necessity to do so. A "practical necessity" doesn't have to translate into defiance. When we raise the speed limit, for example, it's because road improvments (four-laning) and technological improvments (anti-lock brakes) have made higher speeds safer - not because people were defying the old speed limits. Chances are, the same people will defy the new speed limits anyway.
Perhaps Canada has not had such absurd laws as the US. Witch trials (well okay not the US but its in our borders), Prohibition, anti-abortion, anti-gay... I see no reason to uphold them while they are being changed. Don't you find it interesting that the nation that condones defiance of the law is the same nation that passes those stupid laws? Here's a tip: If you don't pass stupid laws, you won't have to defy them.
My own state suspended capital punishment, though it is the law and people were slated for execution, while the laws and practices were investigated. In Canada, capital punishment laws were "suspended" for fifteen years or so before they were finally abolished. But commuting a death sentence is still upholding the law.
It stops precedent for its activity, its necessity, while providing a precedent that laws can be changed... even at the lowest levels. There's no need for a precedent that laws can be changed. That's a fundamental principle of democracy.
... we originally had a concept that juries were to be informed of their right to stop a law's execution if they felt it was wrong. They were not simply supposed to vote on whether a law was broken. That seems like a good idea. But again, there's a difference between the judicial system upholding the law and the individual citizen upholding the law. If a jury can decide "right/wrong" as well as legal/illegal, that's still within the law. They aren't defying any law by saying that the law is wrong.
I don't think the people helping slaves escape polarized the community in a way against the anti-slavery movement. I don't think that's a fair example. The nation was already polarized enough to cause a civil war. And how much did the defiance of slave-catching laws, etc. contribute to the eventual freeing of the slaves?
Likewise all the people beating Prohibition (with the help of yon Kanucks) certainly didn't polarize the nation... it built consensus. Well, it was a consensus that brought Prohibition in in the first place. Was the change in consensus caused by defiance of the law? Why would people go out and defy a law that they just voted in? Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Omnivorous writes: People who organize against injustice are often warned not to alienate the moderates, lest the extremists gain power. Do I have to put it in my signature? I'm not talking about unjust laws. I agree with you about unjust laws. Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024