Disagreeing with laws and upholding laws and arguing they should be upheld

I've said before in other threads that when somebody pretends to be an honest fool, I take him at his word, even if he might very well be a smart crook instead.But I am not going to repeat this in every @#$%ing post, so please bookmark this one:In the case we are discussing, only the prosecutors are capable of upholding the law. It is in no way comparable with protecting Jews from Nazis, which any citizen can do. (Also be aware that protecting Jews from Nazis is not done for the purpose of overturning any law.)Please understand that and stop wasting my time with the same inane question over and over again. Another question which I've answered several times. They can use their own judgement as to which laws will keep peace and security in particular situations. That's not the same as picking and choosing according to their own sense of justice and injustice. Their job is to enforce the law in an effective manner, not a biased one.

---

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.

I think you misunderstood my point... unless you are playing the honest fool? Heheheh. The question then, being given to you (though I guess I could have been more explicit), is if you were a police officer, or if you were a prosecutor in that time and place... would you have upheld the law against Jews or not? This was a situation many non-Nazi police and prosecutors (and judges) found themselves in. Thankfully some did not uphold the law.And while I agree that protecting Jews from Nazis was not done simply to overturn the law, and we can agree for argument that it never was, you are ignoring what I and at least one other said upthread. It is about stopping damage being done from unjust laws.There are really two levels to the problem of errant laws... how to get them overturned, and how to prevent the damage they will do until they are overturned.To the first point, I might add that laws are not just applicable to law enforcement. Laws against aiding and abetting fugitives or criminals puts the onus of enforcement on every citizen. There is a degree you are enlisted into the system, and breaking that duty is to not uphold the law. We can ignore this part if you want, and stick with the points above, but I think it is a valid point I am making. Yes, and no. You said they were stupid, but now you analogized their use on stem cell researchers and abortionists to "good laws used for bad reasons" or something like that. That logically changes the context of how useful or "good" they are. If a law is always stupid then there is no "good reason" to use it. If a cop sees that a woman in the front seat of the bus is violating the law (simply by being there), and reasons that the injustice of that law is itself disturbing the peace and security of people in that community, then he may of course decline to pursue charging the woman.They can judge the utility of the law, and their justness. This is not of course to say that they may not find themselves feeling heat over that decision. If they lose, then they lose their job (or benefits). If they win, then they have set a precedent which helps to reshape laws and perhaps attitudes of the public regarding those laws.Yes, on average you (or at least I) want cops upholding laws more than rejecting them on their own "biases". But to have essentially mindless thugs obeying orders, whatever they are, is not desirable. I hope they could be reasoned with, and selective in their decision making.

---

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

That's what I've been saying all along: as a general principle, all government officials and all citizens should uphold the law. I have never said that unjust laws should not be resisted.Whenever I say that, I keep getting arguments from you to the effect that laws would never change without defiance, that you'd still have that pesky queen on your backs if it wasn't for a good bloodbath now and then. We can "prevent damage" by not turning Jews over to the Nazis, but how does not prosecuting a law "prevent damage"? If a man is convicted of assaulting a fetus instead of the woman carrying it, that might be an injustice of sorts. But in practical terms, in jail is in jail. What difference does it make (in terms of damage prevention) which charge got him there?

---

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.

Now now, that is not what I said. I said defiance CAN be changed based on defiance, not that that is the only way. The closest that I might come to saying that is that some laws WILL require defiance. If not to get them changed, then to prevent the damage they are doing.The Queen might be a good example. We attempted to drop that bag(gage) by peaceful legal routes, the Royalty first punished us with taxes and duties, and then with force of arms. Some laws are defended with very big teeth and the only way out, because their propagators want them so badly, is to defy them... with blood.Granted, it was a King at the time and not a Queen. Nice try, but no dice. What "damage" does it prevent from not turning over a Jew who happens to be a thief? A jail is a jail, right?The charge brought against the man in question was unnecessary, it was an ADDITIONAL charge. What damage did it do? Well it adds a hell of a lot of years to his sentence, for no real reason... just like the thief who gets many additional years just for being a Jew.That's what makes it unjust. And it is applicable to other cases, which is what makes it even more dangerous.

---

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

And yet Canada - along with the rest of the empire - got out from under those laws without the same defiance. Go figger. No. A gas chamber is not a jail. If a man is jailed for assault, I fail to see how a longer sentence can be called "damage". You really can not be that clueless. There's no such charge as "being a Jew". They didn't get longer jail terms for being Jews.

---

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.

You seem angry today. Perhaps because the crown was not going to attempt again what it did to us, given the precedent. Take your losses and run with it.As it is you still are technically subordinate to the monarchy right? I could be very wrong about that. Fill me in. Murder can net people the gas chamber in the US. And people in Germany were not necessarily aware Jews were going to gas chambers. They were going to prisons, concentration camps (as we had for Japanese). So if you'd normally serve a sentence of one year in jail for tax fraud, you would see no problem (no additional "damage") in spending 60 years if they added another charge with no merit?Time in jail is supposed to be for a reason, it is considered punishment. Additional time is additional punishment. If it is unwarranted (based on some legal fiction) it is... to my mind... extra damaging and unjust. Actually I believe there was, in practice any way. Jews were required to do X, or forbidden to do X, and if they broke the law they were criminal. That no one else was required or forbidden by law to do X, it made Judaism the base of the crime.I'm not sure how indefinite sentences were not longer jail terms.And could I not argue that these laws were simply good laws applied badly?

---

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

That's pretty weak. That's pretty weak too.You rebelled, we didn't. Arguably, we're no more oppressed than you are today. Arguably, you're behind us in social issues like abortion and gay marriage.Where's your argument that rebellion is beneficial? I see no "damage" at all in the length of the sentence. Do the crime, do the time. And whether you think the additional charge has any merit isn't an issue. That doesn't mean that "being Jewish" was illegal, it means there were separate laws for Jews. Your example of a thief getting an extra sentence for "being Jewish" is nonsense. An Aryan thief would go to Aryan jail and a Jewish thief would go to Jewish jail. It was different sentencing (based on blood, not reliogion), not extended sentencing. I don't know how you could argue that laws applying only to a specific ethnic group were "good".And even if you could, I don't see what it has to do with the topic.

---

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.

Actually I think that's pretty weak, even if I agree. Who knows how oppressed everyone would be if we had not rebelled? We were the first people to overthrow a monarchy and institute democracy. It created a dynamic in favor of democratic power. And indeed it helped create the French revolution which also removed a monarchy.With the tide changed against Monarchy as a power, without question, it has arguably gotten less potent and oppressive. Well the above would be the first part, and then I would add India (not sure about Pakistan). Their success is pretty commonly ascribed to the combined efforts of passive and violent resistance. And I suppose I could throw on the rebellion of Afghans against Soviet occupation. And what about French resistance against the Vichy? I sincerely believe you do not mean that, and I suspect you would not be saying that if an absurd law added undue years to a sentence you or someone you cared about had to serve. Time in jail is punishment and damages people's lives.However, if you sincerely believe the above, then it is just a difference of opinion.Of course it does beg the question... did someone really commit the crime? If a law is unjust (or as we would call it Unconstitutional) then no crime was done, it was the law which was in error. Hence the additional charges were not time for the crime, and damaging.I also don't know why you said whether I think the additional charge has merit is not an issue. That is entirely the issue in a democracy, particularly one where you have a bill of rights.I mean given your argument, renouncing habeas corpus and tapping everyone's phones is just fine, and whether I like it or not is not an issue. I just said that for PRACTICAL PURPOSES it made being Jewish illegal. And you are wrong about it just being different sentencing. Normally legal acts for nonJews, were made illegal for Jews to do. They were stripped en masse of their civil rights. So a Jewish thief could have additional charges piled on top.If you wish a link on these laws I can get one.But we can dispense with this sidetrack. Fine lets just remove the Nazi example for sake of argument. There were laws against witches and atheists. How about them? Neither do I. I also have no idea how you can argue instituting a law which elevates fetuses to the level of human beings, and so punishing human beings based on their interaction, are "good". I cannot think of any "good" way they can be applied.As my example above does not include ethnic groups, but rather groups whose activities were thought to injure people (who do not exist), or use mechanisms (which do not exist), that would pretty much be in line with the fetal-homicide law. There is no such thing as a person who can murder a fetus, because a fetus is not a person. That is as fictional as injuring God, or the community through hexation.

---

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

That seems like you're painting with an awfully big brush. I mean, yeah, there are those yahoo's in this country -- lots of them. But to insinuate that such things don't occur in Canada would be absurd.And yes, many, many Americans are uncouth, spoiled brats. But I'd bet that it seems as if more reside here simply by virtue of the exposure that America has in the rest of the world. No other country is more scrutinized than America. Not to mention that this is the third most populated country in the world.Perhaps if we were to break it down per capita, the disparity wouldn't be so glaring. Officer discretion is a tricky subject because it can easily go in either direction -- either too harsh, or too lenient. Or conversely, too harsh on one person, while too lenient with someone else for the same infraction.This is why there are the "spirit of the law" versus the "letter of the law" arguments. The law has to be written rigidly. But I think that it can flex without breaking in some instances. In some cases, yes. Perhaps even in most. The more drugs flow in to the country, the more the government steps up its effort to combat it rather than legalize it. But with others, like Prohibition, the government finally acquiesced to public demand. In some ways I think it was. After all, these kinds of cases only make it to the Supreme Court because of it controversiality. Other precedents tend to be struck down or upheld in lesser courts. I am neither in total agreement with you or Silent on this issue. I don't think you should break a law simply because you don't like it. (Imagine if someone tried that with murder, rape, or arson)? I happen to think that such things, as you said, are handled best through legislation and protest.Having said that, this certainly wouldn't apply to other things. It may have been the lawful duty of German Stormtroopers to carry out executions of Jews, just because they are Jews. Wouldn't you defy that law? Yeah... See, he was just being an ass by trying to thumb his nose at the Man instead of enjoying his small victory for being allowed to legally blaze up at all. So he thought he'd put on a big show for everyone. Once arrested, the joke was on him.

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

Just to be clear, I think with any law which is deemed incorrect the best and primary method would be legislative action and protests to such people to get their act together and change it.That said, to prevent damage from the law being done, I thing it is understandable for people to protect others from its reach. This would be defiance on a case by case basis. People have to pick and choose their battles wisely.This defiance can extend to members of the executive and judicial branches, and people can try to lobby their support in undercutting said law. Given their roles they have to be much more careful in choosing their battles than regular civilians. It can't be as easy for them to choose.And for those that fall under the law, while they should do anything they can to protect themselves, they should defy it. Not defying it just because it is illegal, but because their activity shouldn't be illegal and its something that they normally do. Its those people I feel the statement that one has a duty to defy unjust laws is particularly meant for. Do not bow, just because it is law.Some may choose open defiance but then they are choosing to be martyrs. Good for them for having the guts I guess. And that kind of rebellion, supported by more closeted rebellions, can lead to less harm from unjust laws until their is change.Murderers and rapists might like to continue their escapades, but its unlikely they'd find the support they need to get those laws overturned. Their actions are unjust as they violate the rights of others. Its hard to imagine the laws that restrict their activities would be found too repressive to the rest.

---

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

We can look to Latin America for examples. How well has overthrowing oppressors worked there? Even if the American Revolution is a valid example of "necessary lawbreaking", it seems to be an anomaly. And there are constitutional means for changing the laws. If laws are "in error" they will/should be struck down by the courts when they are challenged in the courts. There is no need for law-breaking initiatives. No it isn't. The collective opinion of the majority, through it's elected legislators, carries weight. Your individual opinion doesn't. Your Bill of Rights, as I understand it, protects the rights of individuals and minorities against oppression by the law. It doesn't give individual or minority opinions any legislative weight. I'm talking about lawmaking and upholding existing laws. I don't see how those examples apply. Whatever current laws against wiretapping you have, ought to be upheld. Habeas corpus ought to be upheld. You seem to be arguing against yourself. I didn't say it was "just different sentencing". I said it was different as opposed to "extended" sentencing. A Jewish thief wasn't treated as a thief who was also a Jew, he was treated as a Jew who was also a thief. He would be put in a camp with Jewish ditch-diggers and Jewish professors.If you're convicted of murder, you don't usually get a longer sentence for stealing the murder weapon. Similarly, Jews weren't killed any more dead if they also happened to be thieves. I haven't argued that. Again, that's just your opinion. Even if I agree with you, 37 states disagree.

---

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.

That's what I said. You even quoted me:

quote:

---

I'm not saying that there actually is a difference between Canada and the U.S in the way we approach a bad-law situation.

---

I've already answered that question more times than you've had hot dinners. Read the thread.If you're arguing against me, please come up with some substance. If you're on my side, please get off.

---

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.

Okay, I would agree dependent upon what we are talking about. Obviously there is some disparity from it being lawful to wash your hands after you use the restroom if you are a food handler to it being illegal to slash somebodies throat because you thought they looked at you funny.My initial interpretation of the OP was that if you disagree with a law, you should just shirk it off. But is breaking several laws in the process, just to protest one law really the answer?

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

Yes, it seems Ringo had a similar impression, which is not what I meant. So I was apparently not conveying the full meaning of my position.My biggest problem is with arguments that one should uphold a law just because it is on the books. I don't believe that has any merit. There needs to be more to that position that a law's existence.When it fails those conditions, then we should be arguing that they not be upheld, trying to get them ignored in practice and overturned, and where applicable resisting them. I could not argue that someone SHOULD uphold a law just because it is such, if they disagree with the law.We can use your handwashing example. Assuming a person honestly disagreed with that law (let's say its against his religion) I would be trying to argue other reasons for them to comply with its dictates, because there ARE other reasons for its dictates. If the only reason a person can give me is that it IS a law, then their position is bankrupt (to my mind), and so is the law. That really is up to each individual to decide for their self on a case by case basis. That's why I was willing to agree with Ringo's concept of a spectrum. Each person will have their own criteria and so "justification" for defiance, on different parts of that spectrum.That said, people should choose honestly and wisely... even if they feel action is called for.My main purpose here is to argue for the justification of defiance should conditions arise, and that no law can find justification for its existence (or being upheld) by virtue of its existence.{AbE: By the way, I had read your earlier post and tend to agree with what you said in it, including the Pharisees/Jesus example which was fine for the thread. Spirit and letter are two different things. And I would add that even a spirit of a law, may conflict with the spirit of law enforcement (which can also be called peace keeping, or justice). When enforcement of laws is all that is seen as a priority, that profession has lost its spirit of being a member of the community, with interest in the community.}Edited by Silent H, : AbE

---

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

Well, you have a point, but that does not necessarily effect my argument. Just because something can be worthy, and necessary, does not mean that it will be successful in any individual instance, nor that all instances of similar action were worthy or necessary.I'm not sure one can argue many failures bankrupts the concept of trying. If that were true science would not exist. I can point to many failed experiments (and I am not just talking about failed theories). There have to be gobs more of those than successes... witness a chem 101 lab... that does not mean the attempts were not worthy, or necessary.If America is an anomaly, it is not a singular instance. Even if you don't give me India (though I might take it... heheheh), there is France (twice), there is the Czech Republic, there is Poland, there is Romania, and there were some successes (relative) within Latin America, even if many are not. Well it takes a law breaker to send it to a court, but has already been shown police and prosecutors can and do choose not to pursue cases, which also kill laws in a practical sense. You are creating an argument, where there is none. I get that a lone voice cannot change the legislative body's decision. That is not what I am arguing.I am saying that in a democracy, a single person's opinion does count as to whether an additional charge has merit. His or her opinion is not DIScounted because of the majority. They may disagree and may put support that disagreement through many different actions. It might just take one person and a new crew to generate enough media hype that a prosecutor, or judge, decides to drop the hot potato.Have you ever seen Miracle on 34th Street? By renouncing, I meant if by act of legislation habeas corpus were rescinded and wiretapping allowed. I should have been more clear. If that is done, which it can be, my opinion that it is wrong would count. You are now being selective. That may have been true at one point, but not throughout. And we can take examples from German occupied territories for that, if you won't grant me that for Germany itself.And as I mentioned, we can leave the Jews alone... what about witches and atheists? Uhhhhh... isn't that the exact kind of thing we are discussing with fetal-homicide? A person convicted of assault against a woman, will get a longer sentence for murdering a patch of cells within her... as opposed to other cells which he might have caused to be lost. If you say that the application of fetal homicide laws to stem cell researchers or abortionists, is a case of good laws being applied badly, with an example of laws against stabbing someone being applied to surgeons, how does that not logically require the premise that fetal homicide laws are otherwise good?You may not have explicitly argued that point, but it is a necessary premise... unless you have a work around? I'd like to see that unpacked. I am like 37 states, and 37 states like me. I am as large as 37 states, they are as small as I. They cannot above me, nor I beneath them be. Selatius, 17th Century. (paraphrased)

---

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