Something being "the law" or "against the law" doesn't make it right or wrong.

[AnarVol]

The statement in the title seems obvious to many, as it should. After all, there are always debates and disagreements as to which laws are "working" or not, which laws should be passed or not, which ones should be repealed etc. Humans are imperfect, and as such, will advocate for and pass imperfect or even dangerous laws. Despite this fact, a lot of people tend to view and refer to the individual laws passed wherever they live as "the law", suggesting that it is legitimate to enforce all laws solely because they are enacted as law.

In Nazi Germany, it was "against the law" to murder. It was also "against the law" to aid a Jew in hiding trying to escape persecution. Both of these laws are lumped together in the term "the law", yet one makes sense and the other is immoral and oppressive. This example is just one of many that demonstrates how "the law" can be either good or bad, which means that someone isn't necessarily a bad person for disobeying bad laws or a good person for following or enforcing unjust laws. Those in Nazi Germany who broke "the law" to give shelter to Jews avoiding persecution were good people for protecting them against unspeakable evil, and those "law-abiding citizens" who obeyed the government and turned over Jews to the authorities were complicit in helping the Nazis commit inhumane atrocities.

While many current governments do not resemble Nazi Germany, the nature and concept of law has stayed consistent throughout its inception; one of the key principles being that whatever is law must be obeyed, regardless of any valid criticism or arguments against specific laws embodied in "the law". However, if some laws are imperfect and even result in negative consequences because the humans who write them are imperfect, why must every law be respected and obeyed? The phrase "It's the law" or "It's against the law" in regards to why someone should or shouldn't do something is not an argument, since it would imply that everything that is "the law" is good, and everything that is against "the law" is bad. In short, answering the question of why someone has to or can't do something with "It's the law" or "It's against the law" is the same as saying "Because the politicians who passed the law say so". Even a young child is usually unsatisfied with the response "Because I/We/They etc. say so", as it is easy to realize there is no actual substance, reason(s), argument or answer in that reply.

Inevitably, after reading the above, some people will ask "How could you believe the law means nothing? You don't think it should be illegal to murder, steal and assault?" The point I am trying to make is that murder, theft and assault are immoral irrespective of whether or not it is against "the law" (Obviously there are more actions and behaviors that are immoral; I am just using these three as examples). Politicians are just people, and the laws they write can't determine truth or morality any more than they can determine what 1+1 equals. In other words, 1+1=2 because 1+1=2, not because any particular person or group of people (obviously including politicians) understand, claim or agree that 1+1=2. Again, the same holds true for morality: murder, theft and assault are immoral because of the harm those actions cause to others, not because politicians, you or I personally believe that those actions are immoral (which I do). Our beliefs and understanding of reality don't create or shape reality, it is the other way around: reality shapes our perceptions and understanding of it.

To conclude, "the law" should not be seen or used as an indicator, guide or determinant as to what is right or wrong and how people should act and behave. People shouldn't attack others because it's immoral, not necessarily just because some politicians write down that it's "illegal", and people have the right to defend themselves from aggressors regardless of what "the law" says. In addition, people have the right and moral duty to disobey any law that is immoral (such as oppressive laws like The Fugitive Slave Act in the 1800's in the U.S. and laws restricting Jews' social participation in Nazi Germany), rendering the law's perceived authority useless, as no one has the right to enforce laws that are immoral.

Please share your thoughts and mention anything you feel I should clarify!

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: Something being "the law" or "against the law" doesn't make it right or wrong.

When people say "because its the law" or some other variant of it that phrase it's because they support that law that they are talking about. Such a statement is a subjective statement.

There are some of course that say it despite them being opposed to the law being talked about. Those people normally are for fighting the law in courtrooms and in the political sphere.

Either way there is no problem with either stance.

 

[fmw]

Re: Something being "the law" or "against the law" doesn't make it right or wrong.

The statement in the title seems obvious to many, as it should. After all, there are always debates and disagreements as to which laws are "working" or not, which laws should be passed or not, which ones should be repealed etc. Humans are imperfect, and as such, will advocate for and pass imperfect or even dangerous laws. Despite this fact, a lot of people tend to view and refer to the individual laws passed wherever they live as "the law", suggesting that it is legitimate to enforce all laws solely because they are enacted as law.

In Nazi Germany, it was "against the law" to murder. It was also "against the law" to aid a Jew in hiding trying to escape persecution. Both of these laws are lumped together in the term "the law", yet one makes sense and the other is immoral and oppressive. This example is just one of many that demonstrates how "the law" can be either good or bad, which means that someone isn't necessarily a bad person for disobeying bad laws or a good person for following or enforcing unjust laws. Those in Nazi Germany who broke "the law" to give shelter to Jews avoiding persecution were good people for protecting them against unspeakable evil, and those "law-abiding citizens" who obeyed the government and turned over Jews to the authorities were complicit in helping the Nazis commit inhumane atrocities.

While many current governments do not resemble Nazi Germany, the nature and concept of law has stayed consistent throughout its inception; one of the key principles being that whatever is law must be obeyed, regardless of any valid criticism or arguments against specific laws embodied in "the law". However, if some laws are imperfect and even result in negative consequences because the humans who write them are imperfect, why must every law be respected and obeyed? The phrase "It's the law" or "It's against the law" in regards to why someone should or shouldn't do something is not an argument, since it would imply that everything that is "the law" is good, and everything that is against "the law" is bad. In short, answering the question of why someone has to or can't do something with "It's the law" or "It's against the law" is the same as saying "Because the politicians who passed the law say so". Even a young child is usually unsatisfied with the response "Because I/We/They etc. say so", as it is easy to realize there is no actual substance, reason(s), argument or answer in that reply.

Inevitably, after reading the above, some people will ask "How could you believe the law means nothing? You don't think it should be illegal to murder, steal and assault?" The point I am trying to make is that murder, theft and assault are immoral irrespective of whether or not it is against "the law" (Obviously there are more actions and behaviors that are immoral; I am just using these three as examples). Politicians are just people, and the laws they write can't determine truth or morality any more than they can determine what 1+1 equals. In other words, 1+1=2 because 1+1=2, not because any particular person or group of people (obviously including politicians) understand, claim or agree that 1+1=2. Again, the same holds true for morality: murder, theft and assault are immoral because of the harm those actions cause to others, not because politicians, you or I personally believe that those actions are immoral (which I do). Our beliefs and understanding of reality don't create or shape reality, it is the other way around: reality shapes our perceptions and understanding of it.

To conclude, "the law" should not be seen or used as an indicator, guide or determinant as to what is right or wrong and how people should act and behave. People shouldn't attack others because it's immoral, not necessarily just because some politicians write down that it's "illegal", and people have the right to defend themselves from aggressors regardless of what "the law" says. In addition, people have the right and moral duty to disobey any law that is immoral (such as oppressive laws like The Fugitive Slave Act in the 1800's in the U.S. and laws restricting Jews' social participation in Nazi Germany), rendering the law's perceived authority useless, as no one has the right to enforce laws that are immoral.

Please share your thoughts and mention anything you feel I should clarify!

What you failed to entertain is the obvious notion that law is objective while right and wrong are subjective. Or, more accurately, law is more objective since it is analyzed and interpreted constantly.

 

[AnarVol]

Re: Something being "the law" or "against the law" doesn't make it right or wrong.

When people say "because its the law" or some other variant of that phrase, it's because they support that law that they are talking about.

Except when they say "the law", they are referencing "the law" in general, not that specific "law". Saying "because it's the law" is equivalent to saying "because some politicians decided it should be so", without actually arguing why whatever is "the law" should be prohibited or allowed. In fact, the belief in government, authority and "the law" is exactly that: the belief that certain actions should be prohibited or taken simply because some group of people in "authority" deem it so and that's it. Even if the majority of people agree with certain "laws", that's irrelevant, as they are not enforced until the group of people in "authority" pass them as "law".

Such a statement is a subjective statement.

I agree.

There are some of course that say it despite them being opposed to the law being talked about. Those people normally are for fighting the law in courtrooms and in the political sphere.

These people are misguided, as they believe "the law" passed by those in "authority" is legitimate just because it's said it is. If a "law" is wrong, there is no reason why it should have to be fought in a courtroom instead of just being disobeyed from the start. Trying to change a bad "law" through the system only gives it credibility and legitimacy when it has none.

Either way there is no problem with either stance.

I disagree, because it is problematic when people believe that immoral "laws" should and have to be obeyed simply because they are written on paper and called "law".

What you failed to entertain is the obvious notion that law is objective while right and wrong are subjective. Or, more accurately, law is more objective since it is analyzed and interpreted constantly.

All humans have opinions, even politicians, and they use their opinions when considering what should be "the law" or not. When the tax rate is 25% instead of 35% and vice versa, how is that objective? When some state governments in the same country ban or allow certain things via "law" that other state governments in the same country don't, how is "the law" objective?

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: Something being "the law" or "against the law" doesn't make it right or wrong.

Except when they say "the law", they are referencing "the law" in general, not that specific "law". Saying "because it's the law" is equivalent to saying "because some politicians decided it should be so", without actually arguing why whatever is "the law" should be prohibited or allowed. In fact, the belief in government, authority and "the law" is exactly that: the belief that certain actions should be prohibited or taken simply because some group of people in "authority" deem it so and that's it. Even if the majority of people agree with certain "laws", that's irrelevant, as they are not enforced until the group of people in "authority" pass them as "law".

I agree.

These people are misguided, as they believe "the law" passed by those in "authority" is legitimate just because it's said it is. If a "law" is wrong, there is no reason why it should have to be fought in a courtroom instead of just being disobeyed from the start. Trying to change a bad "law" through the system only gives it credibility and legitimacy when it has none.

I disagree, because it is problematic when people believe that immoral "laws" should and have to be obeyed simply because they are written on paper and called "law".

That's the way society works. :shrug: In any society that isn't hive minded there will always be laws which some people object to and laws which some people would support. As Lincoln once said: "You can please some of the people some of the time, all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you can never please all of the people all of the time."

 

[AnarVol]

Re: Something being "the law" or "against the law" doesn't make it right or wrong.

That's the way society works. :shrug: In any society that isn't hive minded there will always be laws which some people object to and laws which some people would support. As Lincoln once said: "You can please some of the people some of the time, all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you can never please all of the people all of the time."

Society would be better off not believing that those in "authority" have extra rights that the rest don't, such as stealing (taxation) and murdering (droning, ordering soldiers to wreak havoc during war etc.).

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: Something being "the law" or "against the law" doesn't make it right or wrong.

Society would be better off not believing that those in "authority" have extra rights that the rest don't, such as stealing (taxation) and murdering (droning, ordering soldiers to wreak havoc during war etc.).

They don't have extra Rights. No one actually believes otherwise. At least in America. What those in authority do have is societies permission to make laws. We The People give them the authority to make laws. That is not a Right. But an endowed power which can be taken away any time that We The People deem it necessary.

And if it wasn't for taxation the government would not be able to function. It is the price that we all pay to be a part of society. If you do not want to be taxed then move to an area that does not have a government or society.

As far as "murdering" with drones and in wars goes, if you want it stopped then you will have to convince We The People to elect you into a position of power that can stop it. That's the way that our society works.

 

[AnarVol]

Re: Something being "the law" or "against the law" doesn't make it right or wrong.

They don't have extra Rights. No one actually believes otherwise.

I do, and I know plenty of others who believe the same. You can't speak for everyone.

At least in America. What those in authority do have is societies permission to make laws. We The People give them the authority to make laws.

And as long as the majority of society supposedly gives some people the power to create "laws", everyone in that society has to obey whatever these "laws" are, no matter what they are. It's a bogus and ridiculous system.

That is not a right, but an endowed power which can be taken away any time that We The People deem it necessary.

It is a right, the right to create laws. Also, the only way to prevent people from abusing power is to never give it to them by realizing that no one should have power in the first place.

And if it wasn't for taxation the government would not be able to function. It is the price that we all pay to be a part of society. If you do not want to be taxed then move to an area that does not have a government or society.

If you believe that people should be forced to pay others for services you consider vital, then why shouldn't we be forced to pay farmers that provide food, or companies that sell water? If you don't want to be forced to pay, then you can move to some place without food or water.

As far as "murdering" with drones and in wars goes, if you want it stopped then you will have to convince We The People to elect you into a position of power that can stop it.

Why is the word "murdering" in quotes? The military undeniably commits murder with drone strikes. Also, I am not going to run for a position of power, because I have no desire to control people.

That's the way that our society works.

It's an insane way that can be changed for the better by people not imagining they have to obey the gang that calls itself "government".

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: Something being "the law" or "against the law" doesn't make it right or wrong.

I do, and I know plenty of others who believe the same. You can't speak for everyone.

And as long as the majority of society supposedly gives some people the power to create "laws", everyone in that society has to obey whatever these "laws" are, no matter what they are. It's a bogus and ridiculous system.

It is a right, the right to create laws. Also, the only way to prevent people from abusing power is to never give it to them by realizing that no one should have power in the first place.

If you believe that people should be forced to pay others for services you consider vital, then why shouldn't we be forced to pay farmers that provide food, or companies that sell water? If you don't want to be forced to pay, then you can move to some place without food or water.

Why is the word "murdering" in quotes? The military undeniably commits murder with drone strikes. Also, I am not going to run for a position of power, because I have no desire to control people.

It's an insane way that can be changed for the better by people not imagining they have to obey the gang that calls itself "government".

So what you're advocating for is anarchy. Which is a society which is based on might makes right. Without government, without We The People giving politicians the power to make and enforce law, that is what we have. Anarchy. Human nature won't allow that.

 

[Mycroft]

Re: Something being "the law" or "against the law" doesn't make it right or wrong.

~snipped some of your post to save space~

To conclude, "the law" should not be seen or used as an indicator, guide or determinant as to what is right or wrong and how people should act and behave. People shouldn't attack others because it's immoral, not necessarily just because some politicians write down that it's "illegal", and people have the right to defend themselves from aggressors regardless of what "the law" says. In addition, people have the right and moral duty to disobey any law that is immoral (such as oppressive laws like The Fugitive Slave Act in the 1800's in the U.S. and laws restricting Jews' social participation in Nazi Germany), rendering the law's perceived authority useless, as no one has the right to enforce laws that are immoral.

Please share your thoughts and mention anything you feel I should clarify!

Your profile doesn't say much about you, but from your postings in this thread you strike me as an idealistic young person. This isn't meant as a slur...we were all young people at one time in our lives. But some of us are old enough to become a bit more wise and a bit less idealistic.

Yes...some laws are not good laws.

In any case, when you run into a law that you disagree with, you really only have a number of options:

1. Disobey the law and face the consequences.

2. Obey the law and face no consequences.

Your choice...

Now...you also have other options if you see a law you disagree with:

1. Try to convince the legislature to change the law.

2. Don't try to convince the legislature to change the law.

You also have the opportunity to remove legislators who won't change the law and replace them with someone who will. In any case, changing the law will require a lot of public/government support to be successful.

If you are not willing to do any of that in regard to an unjust or immoral law, then you are wasting your time and you might as well just obey the thing.

btw, military action is not murder...though murder can happen in association to military action. When it does, it is almost always found out about and the perpetrators punished. The President ordering military action is NOT the President committing murder.

 

[Slingshot Bob]

Re: Something being "the law" or "against the law" doesn't make it right or wrong.

If a law is immoral, ignore it, I do every day!

 

[AnarVol]

Re: Something being "the law" or "against the law" doesn't make it right or wrong.

So what you're advocating for is anarchy.

What I'm advocating for is a society which interacts voluntarily and only uses force in self-defense.

Which is a society which is based on might makes right.

Actually, the concept of "authority" and "government" operate under this principle, since the only excuses offered for enforcing immoral laws are "It's the law", "I'm just doing my job", "The government has the power to do so", etc., which aren't actual arguments or justifications.

Without government, without We The People giving politicians the power to make and enforce laws, that is what we have.

The institution of "government" is inherently violent, as its function is to use force to control society via "law", not just to protect those in society. There is a difference between hiring someone to protect you and someone forcing you to obey all of his or her commands. Without "government", there will be less violence.

 

[AnarVol]

Re: Something being "the law" or "against the law" doesn't make it right or wrong.

Your profile doesn't say much about you, but from your postings in this thread you strike me as an idealistic young person. This isn't meant as a slur...we were all young people at one time in our lives. But some of us are old enough to become a bit more wise and a bit less idealistic.

What have I said that is idealistic?

Yes...some laws are not good laws.

In any case, when you run into a law that you disagree with, you really only have a number of options:

1. Disobey the law and face the consequences.

2. Obey the law and face no consequences.

Your choice...

I'm sure you're aware that just because a "law" can be and will be enforced at times doesn't make it a good "law", nor does it justify the enforcement of such a "law".

Now...you also have other options if you see a law you disagree with:

1. Try to convince the legislature to change the law.

2. Don't try to convince the legislature to change the law.

You also have the opportunity to remove legislators who won't change the law and replace them with someone who will. In any case, changing the law will require a lot of public/government support to be successful.

If you are not willing to do any of that in regard to an unjust or immoral law, then you are wasting your time and you might as well just obey the thing.

As I mentioned before in a reply to Kal'Stang, trying to change "the law" through the legal system only makes it seem legitimate, which is why I don't support that option. Imagine if you were a Jew in Nazi Germany being told that if you disagree with the oppressive laws, you should just wait until the next election to vote for someone who doesn't want you to wear the Star of David or send you to a concentration camp.

The real solution is for people to stop believing that every law has to be implemented just because some people in "authority" wrote it.

Btw, military action is not murder...though murder can happen in association to military action.

The example I used are drone strikes, and many have killed innocent civilians. It is murder.

When it does, it is almost always found out about and the perpetrators punished.

Have the people who operate the drones been brought to justice? Have the people who order the strikes been brought to justice?

The President ordering military action is NOT the President committing murder.

He may not be committing murder himself by ordering drone strikes, but he is ordering a murderous act to be carried out. That's just as bad.

 

[Mycroft]

Re: Something being "the law" or "against the law" doesn't make it right or wrong.

What have I said that is idealistic?

Everything that you've said gives me the sense that you are idealistic.

I'm sure you're aware that just because a "law" can be and will be enforced at times doesn't make it a good "law", nor does it justify the enforcement of such a "law".

I've already said that some laws are not good laws. However, that does not mean they should not be enforced. The public servants who's duty is to enforce law do not get to pick and chose which they want to enforce and which they don't. For you to suggest such a thing is for you to thumb your nose at the very bedrock of our society and government. As Kal'Stang said...anarchy.

As I mentioned before in a reply to Kal'Stang, trying to change "the law" through the legal system only makes it seem legitimate, which is why I don't support that option. Imagine if you were a Jew in Nazi Germany being told that if you disagree with the oppressive laws, you should just wait until the next election to vote for someone who doesn't want you to wear the Star of David or send you to a concentration camp.

The real solution is for people to stop believing that every law has to be implemented just because some people in "authority" wrote it.

We are not Nazi Germany. Our laws are not created and implemented by "some people in authority". They are created by people WE have selected to represent us. They are implemented by people WE have placed in the Executive position to implement them. And we also have a justice system where we all can go if we feel we are being oppressed by any laws.

In any case, until a law has been deemed illegitimate by a court or changed or removed by the legislature...it IS legitimate. That is...it IS legal. And, as I've said, if you don't like the law, one of your options is to work to get it changed.

The example I used are drone strikes, and many have killed innocent civilians. It is murder.

Have the people who operate the drones been brought to justice? Have the people who order the strikes been brought to justice?

He may not be committing murder himself by ordering drone strikes, but he is ordering a murderous act to be carried out. That's just as bad.

Innocent civilians killed in a war are NOT victims of murder. They are casualties of war. Regardless your contention, there is a distinction. Perhaps you should educate yourself on the definition of those two terms.

Now...we don't LIKE to see innocent civilians being killed in military actions and we go through great lengths to minimize such deaths....even to the point of placing our own soldiers in harms way to avoid civilian casualties. But the reality of war is that there can...and likely will...be innocent civilians killed.

The people who operated those drones you speak of and the people who order those drone strikes are not automatically guilty of murder just because innocent civilians died. But you can be sure if innocent civilians do die, we investigate the circumstances and if someone is suspected of committing murder, they will be brought to justice.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: Something being "the law" or "against the law" doesn't make it right or wrong.

What I'm advocating for is a society which interacts voluntarily and only uses force in self-defense.

Which is what government and laws are in the US. Pretty much every law in the US is based on self defense.

Actually, the concept of "authority" and "government" operate under this principle, since the only excuses offered for enforcing immoral laws are "It's the law", "I'm just doing my job", "The government has the power to do so", etc., which aren't actual arguments or justifications.

Except that in the US even the weakest can have just as much power as the strongest. So no, it doesn't operate under the same principle. In anarchy ONLY the strongest can have the power.

And no, "It's the law", "I'm just doing my job" is not the only excuses used. Point to a law and I can tell you reasons other than those that a law exists.

The institution of "government" is inherently violent, as its function is to use force to control society via "law", not just to protect those in society. There is a difference between hiring someone to protect you and someone forcing you to obey all of his or her commands. Without "government", there will be less violence.

Except no one is forced to obey the law. You have multiple options that you may take to avoid that law. Move. Change the law. Don't engage in activities that may cross that law. All of that is a choice that you may make.

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: Something being "the law" or "against the law" doesn't make it right or wrong.

An excellent thread topic!

One might say that this touches upon one of the reasons for juries and their ability to nullify bad laws. A jury has an obligation to nullify poor law, and there are more poor laws passed than there are good laws passed.

If all political power flows from The People, they have the power and the obligation to nullify poor law when presented with the opportunity to do so. Or to nullify an improper application of what might be a good law.

As St. Paul noted to the Corinthians, the letter of the law brings death, the spirit of the law brings life.

 

[Fletch]

Re: Something being "the law" or "against the law" doesn't make it right or wrong.

Which is what government and laws are in the US. Pretty much every law in the US is based on self defense.

Well, no. Not one welfare state law or program is based upon self defense; be it anything from Social Security or Obamacare to minimum wage laws. There are few things you can do that don't require permission of some sort from some state agency.

Except that in the US even the weakest can have just as much power as the strongest. So no, it doesn't operate under the same principle. In anarchy ONLY the strongest can have the power.

Yes, anarchy is not the solution.

And no, "It's the law", "I'm just doing my job" is not the only excuses used. Point to a law and I can tell you reasons other than those that a law exists.



Except no one is forced to obey the law. You have multiple options that you may take to avoid that law. Move. Change the law. Don't engage in activities that may cross that law. All of that is a choice that you may make.

Not to speak for the OP, but I believe his overall point is that many human laws are random, subjective and/or dictatorial. And people who agree with those laws don't defend the rational basis for those laws, but rather, pretend that law justifies itself--which it doesn't. Laws governing a free people should have a rational, objective basis which many of our laws do not.

 

[fmw]

Re: Something being "the law" or "against the law" doesn't make it right or wrong.

Except when they say "the law", they are referencing "the law" in general, not that specific "law". Saying "because it's the law" is equivalent to saying "because some politicians decided it should be so", without actually arguing why whatever is "the law" should be prohibited or allowed. In fact, the belief in government, authority and "the law" is exactly that: the belief that certain actions should be prohibited or taken simply because some group of people in "authority" deem it so and that's it. Even if the majority of people agree with certain "laws", that's irrelevant, as they are not enforced until the group of people in "authority" pass them as "law".

I agree.

These people are misguided, as they believe "the law" passed by those in "authority" is legitimate just because it's said it is. If a "law" is wrong, there is no reason why it should have to be fought in a courtroom instead of just being disobeyed from the start. Trying to change a bad "law" through the system only gives it credibility and legitimacy when it has none.

I disagree, because it is problematic when people believe that immoral "laws" should and have to be obeyed simply because they are written on paper and called "law".

All humans have opinions, even politicians, and they use their opinions when considering what should be "the law" or not. When the tax rate is 25% instead of 35% and vice versa, how is that objective? When some state governments in the same country ban or allow certain things via "law" that other state governments in the same country don't, how is "the law" objective?

It is objective when the rate is determined and written into law.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Something being "the law" or "against the law" doesn't make it right or wrong.

Except when they say "the law", they are referencing "the law" in general, not that specific "law". Saying "because it's the law" is equivalent to saying "because some politicians decided it should be so", without actually arguing why whatever is "the law" should be prohibited or allowed. In fact, the belief in government, authority and "the law" is exactly that: the belief that certain actions should be prohibited or taken simply because some group of people in "authority" deem it so and that's it. Even if the majority of people agree with certain "laws", that's irrelevant, as they are not enforced until the group of people in "authority" pass them as "law".

I agree.

These people are misguided, as they believe "the law" passed by those in "authority" is legitimate just because it's said it is. If a "law" is wrong, there is no reason why it should have to be fought in a courtroom instead of just being disobeyed from the start. Trying to change a bad "law" through the system only gives it credibility and legitimacy when it has none.

I disagree, because it is problematic when people believe that immoral "laws" should and have to be obeyed simply because they are written on paper and called "law".

All humans have opinions, even politicians, and they use their opinions when considering what should be "the law" or not. When the tax rate is 25% instead of 35% and vice versa, how is that objective? When some state governments in the same country ban or allow certain things via "law" that other state governments in the same country don't, how is "the law" objective?

That (bolded above) assertion is simply inviting anarchy - everyone can obey the laws that they agree with (if any) and simply ignore (and violate?) the rest.

 

[Excon]

Re: Something being "the law" or "against the law" doesn't make it right or wrong.

A jury has an obligation to nullify poor law, ...

No such obligation exists.

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: Something being "the law" or "against the law" doesn't make it right or wrong.

No such obligation exists.

Spoken like a person completely ignorant of the jury system we have. You should try reading a bit, any of the books written over years about the jury power. You're probably not interested, but Clay S. Conrad wrote the book "Jury Nullification, the evolution of a doctrine" in 1998, published by Carolina Academic Press.

Some folks are allergic to it, but knowledge is a good thing.

In a true democracy, citizenship has serious obligations.

 

[Excon]

Re: Something being "the law" or "against the law" doesn't make it right or wrong.

Spoken like a person completely ignorant of the jury system we have.

Yes, you spoke just like that.
Glad you were able to recognize your own limitations here.
No such obligation exists.

You should try reading a bit, any of the books written over years about the jury power. You're probably not interested, but Clay S. Conrad wrote the book "Jury Nullification, the evolution of a doctrine" in 1998, published by Carolina Academic Press.

Some folks are allergic to it, but knowledge is a good thing.

In a true democracy, citizenship has serious obligations.

No such obligation exists.

Maybe you just do not know what the word "obligation" means? :shrug:

And just because some opinionated Attorney says it does, doesn't mean it actually does. Or don't you understand that? Which is a usual failure of those who are adamant supporters of jury nullification.
It is not a necessity, or an obligation. It is something that is available by the nature of the system we have. Nothing more.

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: Something being "the law" or "against the law" doesn't make it right or wrong.

Yes, you spoke just like that.
Glad you were able to recognize your own limitations here.
No such obligation exists.

No such obligation exists.

Maybe you just do not know what the word "obligation" means? :shrug:

And just because some opinionated Attorney says it does, doesn't mean it actually does. Or don't you understand that? Which is a usual failure of those who are adamant supporters of jury nullification.
It is not a necessity, or an obligation. It is something that is available by the nature of the system we have. Nothing more.

Just because an online poster named EXCON says it does not make it so either. Indeed, it has rather the opposite weight. Posters completely ignorant of the common law role of the jury in civil society claiming on the Bully Pulpit of the internet "this, that or the other" is only Sound & Fury Signifying Nothing But Ignorance.

Yes, that applies to me too as an anonymous internet poster, but I know I've read too many books from too many scholars on this subject that all agree that citizenship has obligations, and that the jury system is one of the best tools yet devised by man to keep government within its legal constraints.

 

[Excon]

Re: Something being "the law" or "against the law" doesn't make it right or wrong.

Just because an online poster named EXCON says it does not make it so either. Indeed, it has rather the opposite weight. Posters completely ignorant of the common law role of the jury in civil society claiming on the Bully Pulpit of the internet "this, that or the other" is only Sound & Fury Signifying Nothing But Ignorance.

Yes, that applies to me too as an anonymous internet poster, but I know I've read too many books from too many scholars on this subject that all agree that citizenship has obligations, and that the jury system is one of the best tools yet devised by man to keep government within its legal constraints.

You read too many books from those who you think are scholars. :lamo
No such obligations exists. You keep showing you do not understand what obligation means.

Additionally you assuming someone is ignorant of it is hilarious to an extreme.

Citizens can engage in nullification if they choose, as again "it is something that is available by the nature of the system we have. Nothing more."
It is not an obligation.