Do you advocate someone not obeying laws they disagree with?

[martybegan]

Does this apply to marijuana? How about sodomy?

The more laws there are, the more people will start disobeying the law.

Its not just quantity of laws, its quality.

There is a dividing line between laws people break that they see as stupid, and those they know are legitamate and break them anyway.

Unless the person is a sociopath, an armed robbery knows what he is doing is wrong, and knows he is injuring another party, he just doesnt care. The law broken is designed to protect other people specificly, namely the robbery victim

A person buying a dime bag on the other hand, is breaking a law designed to protect "society" and the person buying the dimebag themself, as the government has decided that people cannot handle pot responsibly. There is no concrete victim of the crime. This type of law is more abstract than ones we can all agree on (theft, murder, etc).

To go with the OP's line of reasoning, you dont see people protesting for the right to randomly murder and rape people. Laws people protest are often the laws that seek to protect society and the individual from themselves.

 

[PaulS1950]

I don't own any illegal firearms.
I will not just turn them in to make some people feel safer.
I will not turn them in without resisting that unlawful confiscation.
(hypothetically speaking - there are no such laws in place now)

 

[Desperado]

1. How many here have never broken the speed limit?
2. How many here feel that the speed limit is for reference only?

I sure that if answered honestly question 2 would have many more positive responses.

 

[Uncensored2008]

For example, if some disagree with taxation, do you think they are correct if they don't pay them. Whatever law it may be, if you disagree with it, should you violate it or respect it because it is the law?

Take the white folks who provided education to some slaves, against the law, should they not have done that because the law is the law, or is it the duty of someone to not follow laws they find immoral ?

It depends.

If a law violates the constitution, or clear human rights, or is created to punitively focus on a group for religious, political, or racial reason - then it is not just acceptable, but the duty of reasonable people to violate said laws.

Taxes, speed limits, building codes, etc.? Sorry, a civil society has laws and it is the duty of citizens to obey them. Those who don't pay taxes do so because they are greedy. If you don't like taxes, join the Tea Party and seek to reduce them, but until they are legally reduced, it is our civic duty to pay them. But since we still have some minor freedoms, you're free to BITCH all you like.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It depends on the law.

The laws against marijuana, for one example, are an abomination. There is no good reason for them. I have absolutely no problem with adults ignoring the marijuana laws.

(Just don't get caught.)

I support drug legalization, but frankly MikeK, you are a valid argument for outlawing pot....

 

[Uncensored2008]

You mean civil disobedience? There is honor in it sometimes. You have to be prepared to accept the consequences, though. Stockpiling illegal weapons doesn't count as civil disobedience

Because you say so? What if one does not detest liberty the way you do?

I've already stated that should the rulers violate the 2nd, in any way, I will not comply.

A call to surrender high capacity magazines will be ignored. A ban on ammunition will be circumvented in any and every way I can think of.

 

[Clementine]

If laws are constitutional, we have to follow them. Period. If not, we should disobey and stand against those who trample our rights.

Federal law requires that illegal aliens be detained, then deported. Obama himself, among many on both sides, arbitrarily chose to ignore our immigration laws, yet have the nerve to insist that we follow the new laws he made that were passed in the misrepresented bill for health care. He is currently picking and choosing which laws to follow and even sued Arizona for not joining him in his disregard for those laws.

California flaunts the fact that they disobey immigration laws and have illegal sanctuary cities. The liberals applaud them. Now some states say they will adhere to the constitution and retain our rights and Holder will probably file more lawsuits.

They want to pass gun control legislation, which is only the beginning. If not constitutional, it should be ignored because they've no right to go against the constitution and our rights. No one gave them that kind of power.

It's bad enough that they tax us for things they shouldn't, like the billions in aid to countries with a grudge against us and more goodies for their dependent voters. Buying people phones and handing them enough extra spending money to get themselves manicures, tattoos and gambling sprees just isn't right. They use their EBT cards for that, so we are funding that. Is that even legal for government to steal from us so people can blow our money on stupid crap?

The federal reserve is illegal because our constitution put that responsibility on our government.

Just because some laws have been ignored doesn't mean that the elected and appointment officials have the authority to pick and choose which ones to follow based on their whims. Just because some have gotten away with breaking laws and creating unconstitution ones so far doesn't mean a precedent has been set granting them carte blanche to do as they please.

 

[Uncensored2008]

so what you really wanna say is that youre okay with it if it fits your agenda but if not you disagree with it?

Exactly. Jillian substitutes the agenda of the party for principles, as do most goose-stepping democrats.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I don't own any illegal firearms.
I will not just turn them in to make some people feel safer.
I will not turn them in without resisting that unlawful confiscation.
(hypothetically speaking - there are no such laws in place now)

In 3 to 6 months, many of the firearms you legally own today, may well be illegal. That is the Feinstein, Obama goal.

 

[DiamondDave]

Should you obey the law?? Yes... And you should fight to change the law if you are that against it
If it is completely against every fiber of you r being, you are free to break the law if you believe it to be unjust... but be prepared to pay the piper if caught... you don't get the defense of 'it just is not right'

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

For example, if some disagree with taxation, do you think they are correct if they don't pay them. Whatever law it may be, if you disagree with it, should you violate it or respect it because it is the law?

Take the white folks who provided education to some slaves, against the law, should they not have done that because the law is the law, or is it the duty of someone to not follow laws they find immoral ?

There is no excuse for not obeying laws, even if you disagree with them.

One either works in the political/legislative realm to have a law perceived ‘wrong’ repealed, or he fights the laws considered un-Constitutional in the courts.

With regard to your second paragraph, it could be argued you’re comparing two completely different examples, utterly unrelated to each other. It’s idiocy to suggest that ignorant conservatives and libertarians whining about paying taxes is in the same universe of wrongs as laws that once prohibited African Americans from learning to read. Particularly given the fact that Congress’ authority to tax has been thoroughly and comprehensively reviewed by the courts for over a century, where Congress’ authority to tax has been upheld as indeed Constitutional.

 

[Rct_Tsoul]

The concept is to break the law, suffer the punishment, and go right back out and do it again. Look at the civil rights movement in the South. They broke segregation laws, got arrested, paid the fine or did the jail time, and went back out right away to do it again.

The idea is that people will see your defiance, and hopefully begin to question the law that you are violating.

That being said this only works for laws that others in numbers would find to be "wrong"

This is exactly why people that break the law should be punished, to make an example of them, so that others will see the punishment is too harsh, and not follow there defiance.
This is why people should give up the guns, it creates an unnatural balance of power between leadership and followers that just does not work, it is just a very backward concept when you have the followers dictate policy to the leadership.

 

[JimH52]

The Virginia AG has NO PROBLEM with breaking the law, as long as it is one he does not support.

Virginia AG Advocates That Opponents of Federal Contraceptive Mandate Ignore Law, Go To Jail: DCist

 

[Cecilie1200]

For example, if some disagree with taxation, do you think they are correct if they don't pay them. Whatever law it may be, if you disagree with it, should you violate it or respect it because it is the law?

Take the white folks who provided education to some slaves, against the law, should they not have done that because the law is the law, or is it the duty of someone to not follow laws they find immoral ?

Are we talking about "Fuck da man, I'm gonna do whatever I want", or are we talking about conscientious civil disobedience as a protest to an unjust law?

 

[Cecilie1200]

For example, if some disagree with taxation, do you think they are correct if they don't pay them. Whatever law it may be, if you disagree with it, should you violate it or respect it because it is the law?

Take the white folks who provided education to some slaves, against the law, should they not have done that because the law is the law, or is it the duty of someone to not follow laws they find immoral ?

The concept is to break the law, suffer the punishment, and go right back out and do it again. Look at the civil rights movement in the South. They broke segregation laws, got arrested, paid the fine or did the jail time, and went back out right away to do it again.

The idea is that people will see your defiance, and hopefully begin to question the law that you are violating.

That being said this only works for laws that others in numbers would find to be "wrong"

True - so if you really think a law is wrong and you are in the minority in that opinion, you have a choice - obey the law you disagree with or spend a whole lotta time in jail.

If you really think that law is wrong, and you are a principled person, you will consider that to be time well-spent. And who knows? Just because the majority doesn't agree with you NOW doesn't mean that your sacrifice won't help to change their minds.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Does this apply to marijuana? How about sodomy?

The more laws there are, the more people will start disobeying the law.

I can see something like staging a Smokeout on the courthouse steps to protest marijuana laws. I think if you're just sitting on your couch, munching Cheetos and burning, muttering, "Nobody's business if I smoke", then you're just a pusbag criminal. Sorry.

 

[Doc91678]

The rule of law demands that all people are subject to the law, period. It is the most effective means we have to administer an orderly and fair society. However, the morality of an action is not based on the legality of the action. At least, it's not based on legality alone.

Then you disagree with the #OWS, and the anarchists that demomstrate at WTO meetings. You must also disagree with environmentalist groups like ELF. It must also include the demonstrations at the Republican and Democratic Party Conventions. Then why do you support their actions?

 

[Dr Grump]

I've already stated that should the rulers violate the 2nd, in any way, I will not comply.

And if the second is ever repealed?

 

[Avatar4321]

Does this apply to marijuana? How about sodomy?

The more laws there are, the more people will start disobeying the law.

Its not just quantity of laws, its quality.

There is a dividing line between laws people break that they see as stupid, and those they know are legitamate and break them anyway.

Unless the person is a sociopath, an armed robbery knows what he is doing is wrong, and knows he is injuring another party, he just doesnt care. The law broken is designed to protect other people specificly, namely the robbery victim

A person buying a dime bag on the other hand, is breaking a law designed to protect "society" and the person buying the dimebag themself, as the government has decided that people cannot handle pot responsibly. There is no concrete victim of the crime. This type of law is more abstract than ones we can all agree on (theft, murder, etc).

To go with the OP's line of reasoning, you dont see people protesting for the right to randomly murder and rape people. Laws people protest are often the laws that seek to protect society and the individual from themselves.

Actually, there are some nutjobs who protest incest/child sex crimes. They are very disturbing.

 

[Avatar4321]

I've already stated that should the rulers violate the 2nd, in any way, I will not comply.

And if the second is ever repealed?

It wont be. It's hard enough to amend the Constitution, let alone to amend it to repeal natural law.