jump to last post 1-16 of 16 discussions (154 posts)

The Law

  1. innersmiff profile image69
    innersmiffposted 5 years ago

    On what basis should laws be made?

    If laws are based in morality, is it immoral to break the law?

    If laws are based in morality, all bound by a universal 'should', should not the enforcers of the law be subject to the same standards as others?

    If they should, and one believes that killing another human being is wrong, does the death penalty have moral justification?

    If they should, and one believes that stealing another humans property is wrong, do taxes have moral justification?

    If they should, and one believes that the enslavement of another human being is wrong, does the military draft have moral justification?

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The only consistent basis for laws is the following:

      You have a right to do with your property as you see fit, so long as it does not interfere with someone else's right to do the same.

      1. Pcunix profile image88
        Pcunixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        What makes it your property, Evan?

        1. innersmiff profile image69
          innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          A product of one's labour.

          1. Pcunix profile image88
            Pcunixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            No.  Law makes it your property.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Absolutely incorrect. Government is - AT BEST - the protector of god-given (whatever deity you worship, or, for atheists, a right granted from birth) property rights.

              I am going to THOROUGHLY hound you on this point -- it might end up being troll-tastic the way I demand this point -- until you cede this point.

              -----------

              By your logic, no caveman could ever own anything because they didn't have governments.

              By your logic, a somali person could never own anything.

              By your logic, Tom Hanks couldn't have owned the fish he caught, nor did he own the fish.

              Property is not dished out by government. Your argument is easily proved incorrect by simply saying "what about situations where there are no government? Do people still own things?"

              The answer is clearly "yes".
              ---------------

              There was a commercial where some astronauts were chilling on the moon, and while they were out finding moon-rocks (or something) some aliens stole their rover's hubcaps.

              Everyone watching the commercial knew that theft had occurred, yet there is no government on the moon, there are not inter-specie / inter-planetary governments in the world.
              ----------------

              Property is a gift of life, and governments are - AT BEST - the stewards of god-given property rights.

              Take a dead gazelle from a lion pack and see what their views on property are. Their law-enforcement agencies are a bit more Draconian (Leonian?) than humans' are.
              ----

              You can't win this argument, Pcunix, because if we both washed ashore of a deserted island with our current property, you would still be pissed off if I took your car.

              You know - maybe not with your brain, but with your heart - that property is a god given right.

              1. Pcunix profile image88
                Pcunixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                So, so wrong.

                And that's why your reasoning is so screwy everywhere else.  You misunderstand this, you misunderstand everything.

                Ownership is a legal construct.  Period.  Law determines ownership and is quite complex - it's not the simplistic Libertarian view.

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
                  Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Utter nonsense. You're confusing the enforcement of a right with the right itself. Perhaps this is why you are still a liberal.

                  If everyone in DC died, then I could steal your car?

                  Good to know.

                2. Evan G Rogers profile image78
                  Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  If your argument is true, then slavery is a valid practice so long as the law agrees.

                  If my argument is true, then it is inherently evil.

                  Which is it, Pcunix?

                  You have already told me that you would kill me if I were to secede from your government, will you now tell me that slavery is OK if the government allows it?

                  1. Pcunix profile image88
                    Pcunixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Obviously it's OK.  That doesn't mean that I'd condone it.  This country has many laws and practices even today that I don't agree with.

                    Morality and law are too different things.  Again, your simplistic view betrays you.

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image78
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Homesteading.

          If I come across a plot of land, and begin to use it, then I own it.

    2. Hollie Thomas profile image59
      Hollie Thomasposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Therein lies the problem. Morality is interpreted differently by different people. There is no agreed universal definition.  I can see the double standards in the examples you've used and therefore, understand why you have used them. However, I think that by using the term morality we are on treading on dangerous ground.

      1. innersmiff profile image69
        innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        So, do you accept that if you agree with taxes, you are in favour of stealing?

        1. Hollie Thomas profile image59
          Hollie Thomasposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          No, because I will have voted, along with many others, for a government that I know would impose taxes. To steal is take without the owners consent. I imagine that you may come back with the argument defending those who did not vote in favour of taxation. And I agree that is a problem, but I believe that argument is pertinent  to why we should have a more representative electoral system.

          1. innersmiff profile image69
            innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            So would you be in favour of some people giving up their vote, and all of their public services, so that they could be without taxes?

            1. Hollie Thomas profile image59
              Hollie Thomasposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              I have no idea how you've managed to come up with that scenario based on my response, so I'll explain further.  I believe the electoral system is inherently flawed and serves the interests of a few (the largest minority) The point I was making is that even if a majority of people voted against taxation, it would make no difference as the system is geared to serve the interests of a minority.

              1. innersmiff profile image69
                innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                I have no issue with that, I agree. Apologies for being vague.

                I'm saying that, in your ideal system where everything is representational, would you have a problem with a minority giving up their services in order to avoid taxes? Would you have a problem with others opting out?

                1. PrettyPanther profile image84
                  PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  You can opt out any time you like.  You can live off the grid, and you can work for cash only.  Your choice.  Go for it.

                  Edited to add:  You could work for cash and goods only.  I recently read about a woman who has lived without money for over 15 years.

                  Libertarians crack me up.  They say they don't like taxes, but they are unwilling to give up the comforts provided by those taxes.  You have free will.  You and Evan can live your philosophical ideals any time you want.  You just don't really want to, do you?

                  1. Pcunix profile image88
                    Pcunixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Some of them try this stupidity, too:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement

                  2. innersmiff profile image69
                    innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    I'd really like to, but unfortunately I get put in prison if I don't pay my taxes, so your system sounds cool to me!

                  3. Reality Bytes profile image90
                    Reality Bytesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Freeman on the Land.  I have been living this lifestyle quite happily for the past five years.  I do not even need the cash at all. I will work for nothing.  All I ask is that if I need something, the person I have worked for to provide it.

                  4. Evan G Rogers profile image78
                    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Actually, no we can't: Pcunix said he'd kill me if I left the union.

                2. Hollie Thomas profile image59
                  Hollie Thomasposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  No, I wouldn't have a problem with that, providing that completely accepted that they could not take advantage of any public services, or any services that would subsidised by the government. That would be fine by me and a much more equitable system.

                  You really don't need to apologise for being vague. I often read my own posts back to myself and realise I have not expressed myself properly. I guess that's what happens when we feel passionate about something.

  2. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    Ideally they should be made to produce the greatest cohesiveness for the all. However in corrupt society they are made for the benefit of the few as being more deserving.

    1. innersmiff profile image69
      innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      On what do you base cohesiveness?

  3. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    Friction free. Most law is unwritten convention. I walk to the right. Most people walk to the left of me.
    But there is always those few who insist on walking or running on my side creating friction. With driving it is mandated law for obvious reasons.

  4. Evan G Rogers profile image78
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    Here is Bastiat's "The Law"

    http://mises.org/books/thelaw.pdf

  5. innersmiff profile image69
    innersmiffposted 5 years ago

    A great book.

  6. Charles James profile image80
    Charles Jamesposted 5 years ago

    There is a whole field of legal study called "Jurisprudence" which discusses what  the state can properly legislate for.

    Did you know that in response to the Tibet problem the Chinese have passed a law that it is forbidden to reincarnate without a licence? Presumably one applies for a licence during the current lifetime. But what happens if one finds one has reincarnated without a licence? Does one apply for a licence retrospectively, and what happens if it is refused? What is the penalty? And if one believes in reincarnation how frightening is the death sentence?

    1. Davesworld profile image60
      Davesworldposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      If you reincarnate without a license then your life is forfeit to the state and you will be killed.  Then you will reincarnate again, and as before, without a licences, your life is forfeit to the state and you will be killed.  Then you will reincarnate again ...  It's obvious when you think about it.

  7. Reality Bytes profile image90
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    Common Law:

    Do no harm to others.

    Do no harm to others property.

    Do not commit fraud in a contract.


    The problem with the Law is when those that make the laws do not follow their own creations. IMO this nullifies the law itself.  For if it is not being enforced at the highest levels then what is the point.

    Insider trading for example....

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Well, if you're Pcunix, it's an easy problem to solve:

      Just declare a new law that allows you to rape people... then it's OK.

      ... Wow.

  8. Pcunix profile image88
    Pcunixposted 5 years ago

    I'm done responding to Evan.  I think it should be rather obvious why.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Because your arguments are clearly atrocious?

  9. PrettyPanther profile image84
    PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago

    The intentionally dense strike again.  roll

    1. Pcunix profile image88
      Pcunixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Tell me about it..

      I'm in no mood for this level of ridiculous incomprehension today.

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image78
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Who's being dense here?

      I asked Pcunix, "If your argument is true, then slavery is a valid practice so long as the law agrees."

      He responded: "Obviously it's OK."

      I don't see how I'm being dense by applying his statements to real life situations.

      Then, to go EVEN FURTHER: Pcunix openly rails against Romney for "hating poor people", when Romney clearly said "I'm concerned about Americans. I'm not concerned about 'the poor'; there's a safety net there. If it needs repair I'll fix it"

      I must admit, that the dense heads are not on my end of the discussion.

  10. innersmiff profile image69
    innersmiffposted 5 years ago

    @Pcunix

    You said it would be OK, which for me, registers in the positive range in the spectrum.

    All you're doing is laying down the party line and implying that the traditional view on this is correct because it is self-evident, when we are trying to challenge that same traditional view. So is the answer to actually tackle the points raised, including the original questions, or refuse to talk to us? If we are wrong, you need to explain why we are otherwise your actions are admission of defeat.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for helping the fight against tyranny.

      I've learned a lot about my fellow hubbers these past few weeks.

      Ralph Deeds openly declared that might makes right when he said that "the civil war settled the argument of secession"

      Pcunix said he WOULD kill me for trying to secede. And then said that slavery would be OK if it were still legal.

      I've learned a lot.

      1. innersmiff profile image69
        innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I think it's called 'cognitive dissonace'!

        1. Pcunix profile image88
          Pcunixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          It's not worth getting banned for the pleasure it would give me to accurately describe what I think of both of you, but believe me, I am sorely tempted.

          1. innersmiff profile image69
            innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            What's with the hate brother?

            1. Pcunix profile image88
              Pcunixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Hate?

              No.  Bewilderment, astonishment, outbursts of "WTF!" and the sensation that I must be in some alternate reality where people can say anything at all no matter how senseless it is.. 

              Are you working on your trust fund filings yet?

              1. innersmiff profile image69
                innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Hey, we're just trying to be morally consistent here. Is there a flaw in our logic?

                1. Pcunix profile image88
                  Pcunixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Logic???

                  Oh, we do so need better icons!

                  You are pulling our legs, right?

          2. Evan G Rogers profile image78
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            The feeling's mutual, buddy.

            Please don't kill me for fighting against Federal Tyranny. You already said you would.

            1. Pcunix profile image88
              Pcunixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Evan, why do you continue to lie?  Is this a common trait of Libertarians?

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
                Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                What lie? I can dig up your quote easily...

                Here, give me 3 minutes....

                Quote #1:
                "And you seriously think we'd just let them secede. ...Evan, that Reality phone is still ringing.."

                Quote #2:
                I asked Pcunix: "Pcunix: Show me your will to actually kill someone who does not want to be a member to this Constitution, and I'll take your argument seriously."

                Then he responded: "As to taking up arms, I'm a bit too old, but if the United States had to engage the army to put down insurrection in Ohio or anywhere else, yes, I woud support that action."

                1. PrettyPanther profile image84
                  PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  I still would like to see a link, for the context.

                  "Opting out" as an individual, which is what we were talking about in this thread, is not the same as organizing an insurrection, though, is it?

                  1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
                    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Go check out the quote  in the "nullification states rights" forum. It's 3 clicks away

                    That's exactly what he said.

                    Deal with it.

                    I'm not "dense", I'm "quoting him".

  11. Pcunix profile image88
    Pcunixposted 5 years ago

    Evan should work for Fox News.  He's even better than they are at lying by pulling things out of context.

  12. PrettyPanther profile image84
    PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago

    Here is how I interpret PC's position; he can correct me if I'm wrong.

    We have laws. Laws may or may not be moral. Some laws are viewed as moral by some and as immoral by others. Right now, in some states in the US, it is "okay" to kill a man or woman.  Why?  Because the law says it is appropriate punishment for certain crimes.  Does that make it moral?  Not necessarily, but it is still "okay."

    Get it?

    1. Pcunix profile image88
      Pcunixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      No, he won't get it.

      That's a guarantee.

    2. innersmiff profile image69
      innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      We're not debating whether it is legal or not, of course it is legal, is it moral? Is it moral for the government to deign to offer us property? Is the death penalty moral?

      1. PrettyPanther profile image84
        PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Didn't I answer that?

        "Laws may or may not be moral. Some laws are viewed as moral by some and as immoral by others."

        1. innersmiff profile image69
          innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Specifically, is the death penalty moral, if killing people is immoral?

          Are taxes moral, if stealing is immoral?

          Is the military draft moral, if slavery is immoral?

          1. PrettyPanther profile image84
            PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Just the nature of these questions reveals the simplicity of your thinking.

            "Specifically, is the death penalty moral, if killing people is immoral?"  Killing can be moral, depending upon the circumstances.  If I kill you in self-defense, that is moral, TO ME.  There are people who believe killing, even in self-defense is immoral, so I imagine they would believe the death penalty is immoral.

            "Are taxes moral, if stealing is immoral?"  I do not believe taxes are stealing.  We, as a society, have agreed that we will collect taxes to provide for certain services.  Evan believes taxes are theft, so I imagine he believes taxes to be immoral.

            1. innersmiff profile image69
              innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Okay, so we are clear, you believe killing to be moral? I believe that in certain circumstances one HAS to kill. It still doesn't make it moral.

              Is the death penalty moral or immoral, and on what basis, if killing is moral?

              And as far as taxes are concerned,  would you mind me opting out of the services so I don't pay the taxes?

              1. Pcunix profile image88
                Pcunixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Yes, please do.  Go join the sovereign citizens movement.  You'd be a perfect fit.

              2. PrettyPanther profile image84
                PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Didn't I answer your question about opting out?

                "You can opt out any time you like.  You can live off the grid, and you can work for cash only.  Your choice.  Go for it."

                Why haven't you done it?

                As for the rest, I'm not sure why you care what I personally think is moral or immoral but here goes.  Killing can be moral under certain circumstances, such as assisted suicide.  I am opposed to the death penalty because there is another option, life without parole, that solves the problem equally as well and allows for a reversal of sentence.  The morality of it doesn't interest me, but I do care about whether it makes sense.  I don't think it does.

                1. innersmiff profile image69
                  innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  I answered above: "I'd really like to, but unfortunately I get put in prison if I don't pay my taxes, so your system sounds cool to me!"

                  'Killing can be moral' Okay, got you. I'm asking just so we are on the same page. You wouldn't be opposed to killing if it 'made sense'. That sounds vaugley dangerous to me yikes

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image84
                    PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    LOL, really?  It makes sense for us to have a military, doesn't it?  I'm still morally opposed to wars, but I understand the necessity to engage in them once in awhile.

            2. Evan G Rogers profile image78
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              I never agreed to the income tax.

              ... so... yeah, they're theft.

  13. innersmiff profile image69
    innersmiffposted 5 years ago

    @PrettyPanther
    So man has no right to complain about his exploitation as long as he is benefitting from his bad wage? He can find a way to get a better job, right? And to ascribe 'benefitting' to this system is taking a rather large step.

    @Pcunix
    Do your morals not apply to everyone and at all times? If not, they're not really morals, but fair enough.

    1. Pcunix profile image88
      Pcunixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Oh, so my morals don't count?  Only yours?   

      So typical of the Right.

      1. innersmiff profile image69
        innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        It's just my opinion that if you have one set of morals for some people and another set for another group of people, they are not very good ones. It kind of reflects the point of this thread - if we are not allowed to steal, why is the state allowed? If we are not allowed to kill, why is the state allowed? etc.

        And the sooner you get out of this 'right/left' rubbish the better you'll be.

    2. PrettyPanther profile image84
      PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Of course you have a right to complain.  Keep on complaining.  You also have a right to opt out, but you don't because you think it's too hard. 

      If you don't think you're benefiting from the services and infrastructure provided by taxes, then it should make your decision to opt out quite easy.

  14. profile image56
    Luvmyposted 5 years ago

    Morality is relative to upbringing, context, culture, religion, etc. It is NOT set in stone, as they say... ironic, considering the Ten Commandments, right? My personal morality does NOT apply to everyone ALL the time. I cannot in good faith, apply my beliefs and judgements on others, who have the same right to their own beliefs. However, laws are (in theory) made to protect people from themselves and others. They're meant to discourage bad behavior, anarchy, and chaos. Lawmakers are subject to the same laws they write into being. The exceptions that you are mentioning are just that - and you are over-simplifying. Taxes are not based on morality, but on economics. The draft and death penalty are supposed to be extreme measures taken in times of extreme need. We have only used the military draft 3 times in over 200 years. And if you compare the statistics of the death penalty with incarceration... it's a small percentage. There are many factors and subtleties involved that broaden this particular argument's scope far beyond a black and white answer. Laws are based on morals and politics... both are subject to change, therefore so are the laws. Also, an individuals morals can change, depending on their circumstances. A person can live their life believing that stealing is wrong-immoral, but that same person, having lost their job, home, and income, can decide that stealing food from a grocery store is okay because they need to feed their children. Hunger and need trumps morality. Or... is it still even immoral in that case? ( I personally don't agree with the death penalty or the draft. I also don't agree with all laws, or all of the 'majority morality')

    1. innersmiff profile image69
      innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      They are not very good morals if they only apply to yourself. Do you willingly associate and support people who you find morally repugnant? Do you not draw a line, and on what scientific basis do you draw that line? Would a law legalising infanticide be just because 'they have the right to their own beliefs'?

      Sometimes people have to steal to feed themselves - sometimes you have to be immoral for survival. However, I'd much rather trust that person who admits that is wrong but does it anyway than someone who says that morality isn't an issue.

      The big question is: do you have morals at all? You must have some idea about the laws that are put in place at the moment and they must come from something. If you believe in taxes you do believe that it is RIGHT and MORAL to steal from others to pay others.

      "I personally don't agree with the death penalty or the draft. I also don't agree with all laws, or all of the 'majority morality'"
      ^ This is what I'm getting at. I want more of this, more personal morals, than generalised "well, some people have different ideas about what morality is". Well OBVIOUSLY. I want to find out on what justification they support things like taxes IF they believe stealing is immoral.

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        If you don't want to pay taxes just cease to use anything that taxes pay for.
        Don't get the bus to college because although they are privatised they are still subsidised by the tax payer, as are the roads they travel on. Don't buy any food, the transport to get it to the shops uses tax payer paid for roads and many farmers get subsides off the tax payer. Don't ever go to an NHS hospital, ever!

        I'm getting bored but thing of something you can do that is not supported in some way by taxes.

        1. innersmiff profile image69
          innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Well yeah, isn't that ridiculous? Are we not being forced to participate in something we find morally repugnant? Isn't that in itself morally repugnant?

          This is the point I am trying to make. I can participate in things I find immoral, but still call them out as immoral. There is the freeman on the land option. However, a completely legal camp in London that was putting this into place was ransacked and destroyed by police. It's not easy being free!

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            A completely legal camp!

            Whilst my sympathies are with the protesters, how can you say completely legal?
            Did they own the land?

            1. innersmiff profile image69
              innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Yes they did, and they weren't protesting, they were living there.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                They 9owned the land and had exclusive rights to it! Wow, I never knew.

  15. Pcunix profile image88
    Pcunixposted 5 years ago

    I sure hope you aren't drawing unemployment benefits, too?

    1. Reality Bytes profile image90
      Reality Bytesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Unemployment benefits?  What is that?

  16. Pcunix profile image88
    Pcunixposted 5 years ago

    So, no, I'm not going to turn you in.  If I knew for sure who your employer is, I'd turn him in.


    But I won't forget this.  Every time I see you make a Right Wing comment about Federal waste and so on, I'll have to remind you that you and your pal cheat on payroll taxes.

    1. Reality Bytes profile image90
      Reality Bytesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      To no avail.




      No payroll, no taxes, no cheating.

      1. Pcunix profile image88
        Pcunixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Your inability to read the law doesn't change reality.

        Your friend isn't "special" because he's your friend.  He's cheating.  Period.

        1. Reality Bytes profile image90
          Reality Bytesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          No, you're wrong.  lol

          1. Pcunix profile image88
            Pcunixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            That would be "you're wrong".

            Read the links.  I'm right.

            1. innersmiff profile image69
              innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Who is he hurting by what he is doing?

 
working