Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2010 16:24:45 GMT -5
DO we have a duty to obey the law just because it IS the law? ARE there natural human rights which stand above the law and which may NOT be violated by the authorities? Do the people have a right to civil disobedience, or even to carry out acts of sabotage, terrorism, murder and rebellion?
In authoritarian societies, the answer to the first question is 'yes, always' and to the second and third ones, 'no, never.' Every OTHER model of societal organisation would return (in varying degrees) a NEGATIVE answer to the first question and a qualified 'yes' to the second and third.
It is fairly generally agreed, even in most authoritian societies, that the right to life should NOT be denied to people by government, except in clearly defined situations (such as executions or military discipline.) Any ARBITRARY killing by the state makes it impossible for citizens to feel any kind of loyalty towards it or trust in it. At best they tolerate it out of fear and at worst consciously strive for its overthrow.
In any event, what GIVES the law such a uniquely privileged position? Its officials are allowed to commit acts which, if performed by ordinary citizens, would be AGAINST the law. Law is nothing more than a subtler expression of physical violence.
Most nation states arose as the result of military conquest. Alien laws were imposed upon them by brute force.
If one believes that the MINIMUM basis for government should be a degree of tacit consent by the governed, authoritarian societies and those whose laws rest on an ARBITRARY basis are clearly illegitimage. Instead of any element of at least tacit consent, they rely entirely on fear and intimidation.
History shows that authoritarian societies invariably collapse, either through military defeat or because the rulers stop believing in the myths that are essential to any authoritarian regime. Ultimately, freedom and justice always win out over tyranny and oppression. It seems as if the human mind instinctively rebels against the likes of Carranza, Conrad of Marburg and Savonarola, to say nothing of their even more destructive twentieth-century acolytes like Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jul 12, 2010 2:54:17 GMT -5
the law should never be blindly obeyed... the law should serve the people rather than the people serve the law just as government should serve the people and taxes of a country should benefit the people of that country civil disobedience is fair enough when the institutions formed to protect the people abdicated or ignore their responsibilities
|
|
Erasmus
Moderatorz
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Erasmus on Jul 12, 2010 16:05:28 GMT -5
On the whole, people obey the law because they agree with it and see how it protects them as well as protecting others from them. Where the law has little respect and violence can rule, it often does so regardless of what the law says. That may look obvious but it means that most people are not obeying the law just because they are afraid of it, or gangsterism would be far more widespread than it is. Even the average mass demonstration rarely turns into the kind of full-blown riot that can erupt in India. There's nothing that police can do against a few thousand people smashing the town up.
Where we get a problem are with popular repressive laws, even if their long-term effect is counter-productive. It's very likely (particularly in the USA) that if the law went by plebiscite, it would be little changed from 100 years ago. This is how authoritarian regimes come to populist power; they always repress people who by common agreement deserve to be repressed. And they make the trains run on time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2010 16:38:13 GMT -5
Mouse, I always enjoy your posts. Although you have your occasional blind spot and prejudices (as do most of us, and I do not except myself from that criticism) on the whole you are a splendid example of open-mindedness and the ability genuinely to consider viewpoints other than your own, even if they are somewhat unorthodox.
In my opinion all law is inherently repressive and in essence an attempt to mask the naked brutality of physical force behind a veneer of civilisation.
Even so, that some laws simply ARE inherently wrong (such as the Nuremberg Laws that stripped Jews of their civil rights, the anti-Kulak legislation of Stalin, and the mad mullahs of Iran and Somalia with their twisted belief that adultery by a woman should mean a death sentence for her).
The totally amoral silliness of Joseph's views that no law imposed by a government - ANY government, no matter how repressive, how illegitimate its 'authority - can ever be regarded as being morally wrong beggars belief.
The logical conclusion of his views is - and I am NOT caricaturing his position; he has openly SPOKEN in these terms himself - that the actions of mass murderers like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao do NOT deserve punishment under the law whereas the behaviour of an outraged MVS like Marianne Bachmeier DO.
A value system in which Bachmeier would be executed for killing the murderer of her child and yet in which Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao would be given a free pass is not simply about as morally topsy-turvy and reprehensible as it is possible to imagine.
It also makes a mockery of his claim that anyone who does not want to punish ALL murderers is somehow a contemptible hypocrite.
Since that is EXACTLY what he and those who think as he does believe SHOULD happen, which one of us is the hypocrite, Joseph?
You want to let mass murderers walk free and only execute little people.
I don't want to execute ANYONE.
Government, nine times out of ten, is the PROBLEM rather than the SOLUTION.
|
|
Mo-DAWG
Affiliate
I don't turn heads.. I f-ing break necks
Posts: 59
|
Post by Mo-DAWG on Jul 12, 2010 17:13:56 GMT -5
laws are made by those who have an advantage of it .. I don't give a fuck for laws or so called "ethics and morals"(by whose measures by the way???) unless I personally agree with these laws ... other than that I live by my own rules which are quite easy: " Everything goes as long as none gets hurt"...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2010 17:24:34 GMT -5
I broadly agree with you about laws, Mo-Dawg. However, I part company with you when it comes to the issue of ethics.
In essence, it is obvious to me (as it has been to many people - even some philosophers!) that kindness, compassion, love, call it what you will, is the GOOD and cruelty, callousness and indifference are evil.
Since laws in general are biased in favour of cruelty, increasing human suffering and allowing the exploitation and repression of people to take place more easily rather than (as they OUGHT to be) biased in favour of kindness, decreasing human suffering and preventing the exploitation and repression of people, the law is, in essence, the enemy of every citizen.
Citizens' justice is something I applaud because it comes from the heart.
Law comes from a cold place that is at best a mere simulacrum of a heart and has no place within a truly civilised society.
|
|
Erasmus
Moderatorz
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Erasmus on Jul 12, 2010 19:32:58 GMT -5
Do you really want citizens' justice? Mob rule by prejudice like the Middle Ages? Remember how much citizens' outcry there was in the the USA in the 1960s against equal rights for 'black' citizens and still is against equal pay for men and women doing the same job, and against equal rights for people with a prejudice against their other sex.
If we had citizens' justice we would still be drowning suspected witches, watching public executions and condemning the insane - or anything else that Rupert Murdoch commands. The ancient Athenians knew, and dictators have shown it time after time, that direct democracy is the greatest dictatorship of all because the mob is always swayed by appeal to its basest instincts, while elected representatives with no other considerations stand some chance of looking deeper.
|
|
|
Post by liberaljoe on Jul 13, 2010 0:38:34 GMT -5
I broadly agree with you about laws, Mo-Dawg. However, I part company with you when it comes to the issue of ethics. In essence, it is obvious to me (as it has been to many people - even some philosophers!) that kindness, compassion, love, call it what you will, is the GOOD and cruelty, callousness and indifference are evil. Since laws in general are biased in favour of cruelty, increasing human suffering and allowing the exploitation and repression of people to take place more easily rather than (as they OUGHT to be) biased in favour of kindness, decreasing human suffering and preventing the exploitation and repression of people, the law is, in essence, the enemy of every citizen. Citizens' justice is something I applaud because it comes from the heart. Law comes from a cold place that is at best a mere simulacrum of a heart and has no place within a truly civilised society. It is rare to read such overblown nonsense. Laws are , to me, the codification of inter-relationships between individuals in a community. All communities , without exception , have laws. Go to the Women's Institute and they wil have 'laws' governing conduct. As communities grow larger and become societies and nations, then laws become abstracted, but they are neverthelss there to govern acceptable behaviour within a society In some communities that are are ruled by bullying and lawlessness, the 'laws' are simply a means of imposing the will of the despotic upon the weak and hence apparently have no legitimacy. In properly-run societies (such as democracies) the law is a mainstay, a pillar of such societies and is essential to maintaining a civilsed society But what about 'democratic' societies that are run by bullies? Zimbabwe, where the despotic leader has been re-elected many times. Countries such as Nazi Germany had elected fascist government bu that government soon over-rode any lawful legitimacy. Isreal and a host of other African countries that are peuedo-democracies. Is Iran a democracy? Are the laws of those countries legitimate? I don't know All that I can say is that in such countries I find repressive laws repugnant, but if the people want such laws, (such as Sharia law in Moslem countries) then who am I to criticise them Not that I believe in moral or cultural relativsm; for my own country, I know almost precisely what I want And what of the entirely undemocratic pontificating of the EU on the death sentence? Is the US really to be condemned for having it when its people evidently, and democratically want it? In Europe we have a liberal elite with absolute contempt for democracy and an overweeninng arrigance in the rectitude of their own moral principles. So in democratic societies, laws are legitimate, no matter how abhorrent some may find them; anyone contesting their legitimacy is in fact contesting democracy. Just as the western nations are contesting democracy by outlawing Hamza in Gaza, have suppressed democracy in Algeria because they did not like it, and as the US in perticular has suppressed and overturned democracies in SAmerica because they did not like them (and supported dictatorships because they did like them).
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jul 13, 2010 1:32:22 GMT -5
Mouse, I always enjoy your posts. Although you have your occasional blind spot and prejudices (as do most of us, and I do not except myself from that criticism) on the whole you are a splendid example of open-mindedness and the ability genuinely to consider viewpoints other than your own, even if they are somewhat unorthodox. In my opinion all law is inherently repressive and in essence an attempt to mask the naked brutality of physical force behind a veneer of civilisation. Even so, that some laws simply ARE inherently wrong (such as the Nuremberg Laws that stripped Jews of their civil rights, the anti-Kulak legislation of Stalin, and the mad mullahs of Iran and Somalia with their twisted belief that adultery by a woman should mean a death sentence for her). . why thankyou Mike.... of course some laws are inherently wrong...but some laws are inherently right... the basic rules[laws[ of society are necessary for us to live in relative peace and safety within our communities..to live without stress and fear and can in no way be considered repressive whast is repressive about the rule which says you cannot go around killing..stealing.. what is repressive about the rule of traffic all moving in the same direction..what is repressive about paying ""tax"" for the common good about a common protection system...if we dont have rules the weakest go to the wall and the stroingest create anarchy or servitude it becomes opressive only when taken to extreemes or benefits only one section of the community rules and law work when applyed to all equally
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jul 13, 2010 1:41:17 GMT -5
laws are made by those who have an advantage of it .. I don't give a f**k for laws or so called "ethics and morals"(by whose measures by the way???) unless I personally agree with these laws ... other than that I live by my own rules which are quite easy: " Everything goes as long as none gets hurt"... the mesure of ethics and morals are in the results of applying those ethics and morals..they are mesured by whether they improve the lot of the majority and the individual if we all lived by our own rules we would have a very selfish and unstable society..and while YOU may think every thing goes as long as none get hurt..others may have a very different take on what constitutes hurt do we wish to live with anarchy and each pleasing them selves..it wouldnt be pleasant you say laws/rules are made by those who have advantage of it that is a weird thinking.....the BASIC rules/laws of a society are made so ALL can have advantage...benefit...in the first instance. the fact that some of the population may not like the rules is neither here or there.. then you have the despots who make self serving laws so when talking about laws there always has to movement of law/rules to get rid of the bad and unjust and to adapt to new situations..
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jul 13, 2010 2:01:49 GMT -5
If we had citizens' justice we would still be drowning suspected witches, watching public executions and condemning the insane . no we wouldnt...because it is citizens who have improved the justice system...law makers are just ordinary people...it is citizens who have implimented new laws..adapting to new needs and ways of thinking mob rule is a different situation altogether
|
|
|
Post by Wonder Woman on Jul 13, 2010 11:03:33 GMT -5
It's pretty much all overblown nonsense, IMO. It's Mike's attempt to put someone else's views into a box and then jab at the box.
The fact is a great many people in power may have been, may be, seen as "mass murderers" but since they had/have the authority to kill, that made/makes the killing legal so by definition were/are not murderers.
Maybe 'wrong' is all a matter of perspective, just as 'moral' is.
Meanwhile, an MVS who chooses to kill their child's murderer is no less a murderer than the person she's killing, since she is acting outside the law ~ murder absolutely.
|
|
|
Post by Wonder Woman on Jul 13, 2010 11:07:49 GMT -5
If we had citizens' justice we would still be drowning suspected witches, watching public executions and condemning the insane . no we wouldnt...because it is citizens who have improved the justice system...law makers are just ordinary people...it is citizens who have implimented new laws..adapting to new needs and ways of thinking Of course we would. Erasmus is dead on. Those same citizens who have improved the system would be subject to the same 'citizen's justice' as the rest of society. If 'citizen's justice' were allowed, there would be chaos and lawlessness... and yes, mob mentality would surely prevail.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2010 17:02:19 GMT -5
It's an assumption whether or not citizens' justice WOULD lead to the kind of things which Erasmus claims. My gut feeling is that in some cases they might and in others they would not.
It is not inherently the case that the citizenry is reactionary by nature.
Many examples of genuinely popular uprisings against tyrannies show that if the MINIMUM standard - of tacit consent - is violated in TOO insensitive a manner the people will refuse to accept it.
There have been on the whole more instances of citizens acting on behalf of the INCREASE in liberty and humanity than against that.
I could say a great deal more but that will suffice on this topic for today! (From me, that is!)
|
|
Erasmus
Moderatorz
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Erasmus on Jul 13, 2010 18:04:54 GMT -5
Democracy suffers from the same flaw as its commercial equivalent The Market. Both are assumed to be as near as perfect given a liberal informed public to choose. But of course the public is never informed and rarely liberal.
Propaganda and belief that we will stick out as sore thumbs asking to be hit dictate The Market and they do so Democracy even more. 'We' are full of how Communism could not work while Capitalism and 'Democracy' work wonders - or would do given a few inevitable hitches and glitches. Those hitches and glitches are no different from the problems that made Communism imperfect: we are only saying (just as the Soviets did) that the System is perfect, it's the people that are the problem.
We put our money where the most successful commercial advertisers command. We put our vote where the most successful political advertisers command. We have no real other knowledge of which product is any better than another and in fact there is next to nothing to choose between them, and the less there is, the more we imagine there is.
Theocracies may have a point. They can at least claim an incontravertable source for their basic ethics. Others? The ultra-democratic Ancient Athenians who though election undemocratic compared to lottery (but not when it came to military leadership - if you want to see what nations really believe in, see how they appoint the military too important for their protection to play around with) could not resolve the problem of What is 'good' and why. The nearest they got was Plato's PoliteĆa (something like Community 'translated' into the Latin Republic [Res - activity, 'thing' - and in Scandinavia the Parliament is still called Thing or Ting, Publica - public, communal, popular] which amounts to a cross between Fascism and the Indian Caste system where music is under strict control because some melodic modes (especially the key of C) have undesirable effeminate effects. As today, this admirer of the Spartan militarized state believed in equality of the sexes - as long as it was the women who learnt to behave like men while the men remained as they ever were.
The Good was only settled by reference to a Supreme Deity of morality. That was good for its day where the pagan deities of natural forces and ideals were not because none had any greater real authority than another - Plato makes that explicit in a story about Socrates. It was not so good when 'God' could get reduced to a Zeus-like figure invoked to justify any tin-pot ruler of the day just as his predecessor Jehovah was held to justify imperialistic carnage by any King of Israel or Judah, just like Asshur in Assyria, Amun-Ra in Egypt or Huichtilopochtli in Mexico centuries later for that matter.
|
|