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

Anti-German sentiment, actually, had a great deal to do with Prohibition in the U.S. (1920-1933, check out the Anti-Saloon League).Protestant religious hysteria also played a part: there were people out there having fun, and they had to be stopped. Demagoguery can readily capture a temporary majority. Fortunately, dry reality checks by far more than 2% saved the day. The prevalence of speakeasies, bathtub gin, and Kennedy whiskey mocked prohibition into its grave.Prohibit in haste, thirst at leisure, I say.AbE: Oh yeah--the fact that most Americans ignored the law and thereby empowered a vast criminal enterprise was also relevant.Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

The idea of democracy is that the public interest is best served by reaching some kind of consensus based on individual self-interest. My focus in this thread is on how that consensus is reached. Do we change laws by peaceful means? By violent revolution? By passive resistance? Do we change speed limits by speeding?We have laws to prevent some individuals from infringing on the rights of other individuals. If those laws are not upheld, it is the rights of the individual that suffer. I asked a question. So I need to know the answer before I ask a question? Tough rules. I was given American examples. If American examples are all you have, does it occur to you that the American experience might not be the only facet of the subject? So, discuss the flaws in the principle istead of harping on situations where the principle doesn't apply.

---

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.

We change laws by peaceful means if possible. Peaceful means can also include breaking laws. But note that the option of violence is always open.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

I was going to bring that up, actually.On the one hand, we have a lot of Americans rather benignly ignoring a bad law. On the other hand, we have a few gangsters rather viciously taking advantage of a bad law for their own gain. We have a very similar situation with drug laws today.Granted that a law is bad, is the risk of having your resistance co-opted worth the consequences? How bad does a law have to be?

---

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 agree completely (although my threshold for violence might be different from yours).Edited by Ringo, : Added quote.

---

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 opened the thread with a vague enough concept that we could use any law, and not the one that sort of generated this whole debate. Since you have raised an interesting concept (one I had not really considered) about unjust vs disagreeable laws, perhaps we could use that law as an example... though I would like you to expand your position on this with perhaps more explicit defs of both, or some examples. On that particular law I would definitely have to disagree. Elevating a fetus to the status of personhood, such that its termination is equivalent to "murder", does not simply confer rights to the fetus.With that definition, a woman's rights would most definitely become limited in reaction to the fetus's elevated state. Honestly, to me saying that a fetus is as equal a person as a full human being, is an injustice to other human beings.Further, ranking its termination as murder certainly does take away someone's rights. All of them. Murder is a huge deal. In fact if it is a state with capital punishment, the person might very well be killed.I am intrigued by and can probably accept that there are unjust vs disagreeable laws, but when any law deals with another person's very life, that seems to cross a line where I have to call it unjust. Actually I believe that has happened, the lower speed limit became too dangerous and impractical so they raised it. But I understand your point it doesn't have to translate to defiance. I'm not passing those laws, other people are. A democracy does not guarantee intelligent voters, unbiased voters, or power grabs beyond the hands of the voters. I admit the US has had a lot of shitty laws and continues to have them. That does not mean I am the one passing them. And this fact begs the very question, what is a person to do when others have passed shitty laws?You say in a later post that you don't want to have to deal with Americocentric issues, and that is understandable. However, we are a democracy and these things can happen in a democracy. So what we are discussing is not hypothetical, even if it isn't happening in Canada.You can't appeal to the sanity of Canadians, and Canadian laws, when people who are oppressed in another nation ask... what do we do now? That was a sweet shot. However, isn't choosing not to arrest, or charge someone the same thing as commuting a sentence, only further down the ladder? Enforcing the laws is ALWAYS at the discretion of the officer on site, and then the prosecutor who chooses to take a case forward. That is within the law. So then is enforcing the same as upholding? Hmmmm. Another nice shot, but it sort of misses my point. While you are right everyone knows they can change, precedence is held very widely as a means of testing the validity of a law. Thus one which is not openly challenged, and keeps getting upheld, tends to be viewed as "just" and not worthy for reconsideration.In fact I'd have to throw a hot potato back at you. The precedence of upholding Roe V Wade (I know not a law but a decision which effects law) is used to argue for its merits. And many conservatives use your very argument to say there is no reason for it to continue.I'm sorry I don't know enough Canadian law to think of a similar example for you, but this is an example of the power of precedence.Likewise laws which have gone unenforced (not upheld) for ages are often considered either unjust or useless. Yes, a repeated point, but valid. Again I would mention (though you only have to answer it once) that police may choose not to press charges and prosecutors may choose not to try a case. That is also within the law.I would argue that the defiance of slave laws did a lot to bring about abolitionist policies in the US. It set examples, and gave stories from escaped slaves which helped motivate others. If it had been shut down and viewed as validly illegal, then there might not have been as much traction. That said, we can leave that example aside as you have a point that there was a lot of tension in the air anyway. Actually it wasn't consensus, as people have already mentioned. But we can say for sake of argument that it was, being that it was enacted in many states, and eventually voted on by reps of the people.Yes, the change in consensus was caused rather definitively by defiance of the law. People were not happy upholding it and chose not to. This meant crime grew, again aided by you wily Canadians. As the gov't tried to crack down, violence grew. Popular culture which at first supported the Gmen and gangbusters, began to find the criminals as heroes. All they were doing was defying "unjust" (what would you label them as?) laws. There was much graft among the police and local communities which decided to not uphold the laws... resulting in further backlashes.Eventually people in charge, and those who were supportive of the legislation, realized drinking was not as bad as the solution of trying to stop everyone from drinking.Isn't this similar to what has resulted in Canadian laws changing regarding drugs (specifically MJ)? Maybe I'm wrong but I thought I'd try to make this more relevant to you.

---

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

It is possible things have changed since I was going through processing. I think that really depends on the situation. Technically dutch peace keeping troops were following orders by not protecting the people they were assigned to in Bosnia. But they should have. And an entire gov't fell for that mistake which cost many people's lives.The "front lines" are always risky business, and the obligations of duty definitely get tested against obligations of compassion... and rights.I hope you get your commission and don't have to face such horrible situations.I do get restrictions on public disapproval. I view that as different than disobedience. My point was not clear. I was saying that image was stirring, but the real important factor was not seen in that image. The guy had steel balls that's for sure, but it took the soldiers in the tanks to choose to defy their orders to make that scene happen. How many people got plowed through in the square? This guy wouldn't have been anything but a red smear amongst all the others if the soldiers had obeyed.I think they were right, but I wonder where they are now. Actually I do understand your point here. Chain of command is important, and sometimes local "injustices" have to be carried out (or allowed for) within an overall action at mass scale. But this does not undermine my point... it only qualifies it.A civil servant better have some serious convictions, and understand the consequences very well, before engaging in disobedience.Then again, it is really not that tough for a street cop, or a prosecutor, on an average day of business. They not only have more freedom (discretion) to choose which laws they have to uphold, they nearly always do pick and choose. Subbie pointed out the practical reality which forces that situation, but sometimes there are ideological realities as well. If they feel something will be very unpopular, or result in a backlash they often choose not to enforce something.In fact sometimes if just unpopular with the police themselves, they sometimes choose not to enforce... despite the problems that causes in the community.

---

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

naturally. but that's very different than purposely not enforcing certain laws in direct opposition to vocal political turmoil. you know how they had to call in the national guard to escort students into school against the will of the people and the local authorities? yeah. that's a bit different than "you know what? let's not bug all teenagers' bedrooms to see if they're having under-age sex."

actually, yes. you need to understand the system you're going to deride before you do so. i didn't give you any examples. i was responding to the discussion at hand.

arresting a man stealing water and turning thousands of people over to a genocidal mob after lying to them and telling them they were being taken to safety are entirely different things. i don't anticipate much trouble speaking only english and french and being a political analyst. i don't. i quite agree. it's nasty territory considering i have serious problems with authority. i know when to do my job. but i know it won't be easy.

It wasn't really a definition. I was just trying to draw a distinction between taking away rights and giving rights. I mentioned in another post that a tradeoff in rights is sometimes/often necessary. My right to drive is infringed by your right to drive in the same lane at the same time. First, let me clarify that I haven't stated a position on the injustice of fetal-homicide laws. I've said that they're stupid, and that should be reason enough to repeal them.In the specific case, the question is whether or not the state should uphold the law, not whether or not any individual should uphold the law. Frankly, your views or mine on the injustice of the law are irrelevant. Neither of us has any say in the decision of what charges are laid.What I thought molbiogirl was saying, and what I was agreeing with, was that the state is justified in upholding the law by laying a fetal-homicide-type charge. Even if MBG leaves me out in the cold ( ), I stand by that position: The state has a responsibility to uphold the law. The citizens have a responsibility to challenge unjust laws, by appropriate means, but that doesn't impinge directly on the specific case. My father used to say that democracy isn't about counting noses. The essence of democracy isn't making sure your voice is heard and your vote counted. The essence of democracy is the willingness to subordinate some of your individuality to the welfare of the group, to recognize that group decisions have value, to not start a guerrilla war every time a vote doesn't go in your favour.The essence of democracy is to uphold the will of the majority (through it's laws) while protecting the rights of the minority and the individual - a tricky balance at times. Let's not overemphasize Canadian sanity. We have our share of idiots too.I think the different levels of injustice - if they are indeed different - might be caused by the very attitude that I'm seeing in this thread. In Canada, if a bad law is passed, people might say, "I'm going to do something about this! I'm going to write an angry email to my Member of Parliament! ... Well, maybe I'll just give him a piece of my mind at election time! ... Well, anyway, I'm going to mention it to the guys at coffee tomorrow." And when enough people are talking about it at coffee, the politicians get an inkling.In the U.S., you seem to be saying it's, "I'm not going to obey that @#$%ing law. Let 'em come and get me!" And the really bad nuts start building bombs in the basement.Now, 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. It's just that Canadians are , at least, a little embarassed about breaking a bad law. You guys seem to revel in it. The way I use the word "upholding", it means doing whatever is within the law. Failure to arrest might be a dereliction of a police officer's duty, but it isn't a violation of the law. Pressing a different charge might be a bad judgement call on the prosecuter's part, but it isn't a violation of the law.Again, I'm not saying that prosecutors "should" ever implement fetal-homicide laws just because they're on the books. I'm just saying that they have a duty to uphold the laws on the books as long as they're on the books - and as they see fit. That applies in court. It applies to how a law is enforced. If a judge admitted DNA evidence in another jurisdiction last week, another judge is more likely to admit DNA evidence this week and another judge next week and eventually DNA evidence will be universally acceptable.But I'm not sure it applies to changing the law at the legislative level. Politicians aren't more likely to repeal a law if people are breaking it. They're more likely to put more "teeth" into it. (Do you use that expression in the U.S.?) The question isn't whether or not the Roe v. Wade decision had an impact on subsequent lawmaking. The question is whether or not the Roe v. Wade decision was influenced by defiance of existing laws. Was it? (I've just told you just about all I know about Roe v. Wade.) (Notice how I deftly quote-mined the part that applies to today's drug laws as well as Prohibition? )If Prohibition and its repeal were the norm instead of an anomaly, can we expect to see a similar repeal of current drug laws any time soon? If not, I would question how effective the law-breaking strategy is. My impression is that loosening of Canadian drug laws had a lot to do with medical use of marijuana (and a little to do with getting Americans' goats) and not much to do with law-breaking protests. Locally, we had a fellow who was legally entitled to use medicinal marijuana arrested repeatedly for smoking it on the courthouse steps. His protest for even looser laws was supported by smokers but had little sympathy from non-smokers and none from law enforcement or legislature.Edited by Ringo, : Missspelled "Canadian".

---

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.

It is simple, although it isn't easy.We have much more to fear from complaisant civil servants than defiant ones.Weigh the lives lost by robotic, obedient civil servants in one hand, and those lost by defiant ones in the other: notice how the first hand is smashed and bloody while the second is nearly empty.

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

I haven't derided (deridden?) any system.I'm saying that the law should be upheld except in extreme circumstances.

---

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 kind of a tough question. I think in general that you should follow the laws of the land to keep cohesion, and to present yourself as blameless.Where it should be fought is through legislature.However, that doesn't account for atrocious laws, such as could be seen in Nazi Germany. I mean, if it became the law to kill someone just because of their race, or whatever, that would be egregious. And I would defy the authorities.But I think as a general rule of thumb, people must pick and choose their battles carefully.Suppose that you disliked the concept of stopping at red lights. And you just flat out decide that, gosh darn it, you aren't going to stop at them any more as a way to stick to the Man. Well, now you are just being dangerous and stupid.Perhaps a discussion like this can't glean any blanket answers collectively.This may be completely extraneous, but since it in many ways guides how I view things, I will throw it in for now. Feel free to object.When Jesus was condemning the Pharisees for their legalism, what was he arguing against? Surely it was not the Law he was arguing against. Rather, he said, "You neglect the weightier matters of the Law."What exactly does he mean?My interpretation of that whole verse is that the Pharisees became too bogged down on following the law to the letter. In so doing, they completely overlooked the meaning behind why the law was in place to begin with! One cannot look at the law in a mechanical way. The law must be viewed in spirit to get to the moral of it.No one can argue that the law is in and of itself a bad thing. But like most things, it can be manipulated to one's favor. The Chief Priests were notorious for doing this. And truth be told, THIS is exactly what some secularists have a problem with when it comes to fundamental Christianity.And in many cases, they have a point! Even amongst Christians, there is always talk of legalism -- who is being too rigid, too legalistic, and essentially missing the point altogether.I think it is a wise thing to do to understand why a law exists. Don't just usurp it because you don't want to live by it, but don't be follow it in robotic fashion either. Get to the weightier matter first, and then it might become that much clearer for you.That's my two cents.... Don't spend it all in one place.

---

“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

we were kind of founded by a bunch of lunatics who wore wild animal skins and didn't bathe for years at a time. it depends on what the "teeth" would result in, and what the disobedience has resulted in, and whether the law has a chance of actually accomplishing the social goal it's set out to fix and whether they've realized that the social goal they were attempting to achieve is better reached by some other means.lets talk about teen pregnancy.we have four possible ways to solve teen pregnancy:1. teach abstinence; pray for the best.
2. criminalize teen sex and enforce with draconian and perverse techniques.
3. mandate and enforce mass birth-control techniques among teens, violating their privacy and potentially their health.
4. teaching responsible sex-ed and ensuring that all birth-control measures are safe, affordable, and accessable regardless of age or marital status.all of these are "reasonable" methods or prevention. they could potentially reach the goal. but some are not efficient and the rest are... obscene. however, they have pretty much all been utilized in this country at various times and in various groups (though not necessarily for the cause of teen pregnancy).sometimes legislators make a choice and non-compliance demonstrates that they made the wrong one.