4 ms·

Regardless of whether or not I agree with a law, I as an individual, should not have the right to decide whether I should obey it. In the case of a law that I

Regardless of whether or not I agree with a law, I as an individual, should not have the right to decide whether I should obey it. In the case of a law that I vehemently disagree with on moral grounds, the proper form of protest is in the context of group; e.g. organize group protests, petitions, etc. The difference here is individual vs group. If a critical mass of people think a law is wrong, there's a good chance there's something to that. A group context offers accountability and helps filter bad thinking/decisions, etc. I'm operating under the assumption of a working democracy here (working but far from perfect). If tomorrow, the government passes a law commanding everyone to kill children, I will not obey it. Why? Because it's wrong and I'll know it's wrong because there's going to be a heck of a lot of people agreeing with me. Letting individuals alone decide leads to undesirable results. A cook thinks the requirement to wash his hands after using the bathroom is ridiculous. So he concludes it is immoral for the government to impose on his freedom to choose when to wash his hands and he disobeys this law. Yuck! This example is not far fetched as many cooks are immigrants from countries that don't hold to that practice legally or culturally. If we leave it up to the individual to choose which laws to obey or not obey with impunity, then law becomes meaningless. They are not laws, but nice suggestions.

icelancer 10y ago
OK then. Let's get to work on executing all those laws, such as: Washington: It's illegal to walk around in public while sick with the common cold or anything you can transmit through the air. Anyone who is sick can no longer leave the house. It's also illegal to buy meat on Sundays. Texas: Illegal to own six or more dildos. North Carolina: Oral sex is a crime, so get on jailing them. etc, etc.
- theonething 10y ago
  We both agree that there exists stupid laws. That is beyond a doubt. Our disagreement revolves around what to do about the fact that there are stupid laws. Your argument is individuals should be allowed to decide which laws are stupid and obey/disobey accordingly. But I'm not sure what your premise is. My problem with your argument is that it renders the concept of law meaningless. Then, for example, doctors are free to decide whether they want to follow certain required safety procedures based on their own opinion, etc. My argument is an individual should not be allowed to decide which laws should and should not be obeyed. Instead, that decision should be made in a group context, whether than be Congress, referendum, organized protest, etc. My argument is based on the premise that letting groups decide what is a good law is better and safer than letting an individual decide. A group context (in general) is self-correcting. I'd rather put up with the hassle/ potential injustice of having to obey stupid laws (with the option of trying to change those laws and in the case of egregious injustice, the option of group civil disobedience) than risk the possibility of a biomedical company skipping some important tests because they think they're frivolous and know that they won't be held accountable. So again, I'd apply this group decision making principle to the laws you just listed. Btw, I don't have time to research all your examples, but in the case of the law against walking around with a cold, I believe you are referring to this law[0]. I see it as you can't purposely sneeze on someone or donate tainted blood, etc. But that's beside the point. Well, I think that's all I have to say on this topic. You have your opinions on it and I have mine. Although, to be honest, I'm not clear on your arguments and premise. You just list examples of stupid laws. The implication is why should anyone have to obey these stupid laws? My answer is they shouldn't if a critical mass of people decide they are stupid/unjust etc. Thanks for the discourse. Also, I need to apologize to you for my uncharitable first comment. [0] http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=70.54.050 http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=70.54.050

icelancer 10y ago

OK then. Let's get to work on executing all those laws, such as: Washington: It's illegal to walk around in public while sick with the common cold or anything you can transmit through the air. Anyone who is sick can no longer leave the house. It's also illegal to buy meat on Sundays. Texas: Illegal to own six or more dildos. North Carolina: Oral sex is a crime, so get on jailing them. etc, etc.

theonething 10y ago
We both agree that there exists stupid laws. That is beyond a doubt. Our disagreement revolves around what to do about the fact that there are stupid laws. Your argument is individuals should be allowed to decide which laws are stupid and obey/disobey accordingly. But I'm not sure what your premise is. My problem with your argument is that it renders the concept of law meaningless. Then, for example, doctors are free to decide whether they want to follow certain required safety procedures based on their own opinion, etc. My argument is an individual should not be allowed to decide which laws should and should not be obeyed. Instead, that decision should be made in a group context, whether than be Congress, referendum, organized protest, etc. My argument is based on the premise that letting groups decide what is a good law is better and safer than letting an individual decide. A group context (in general) is self-correcting. I'd rather put up with the hassle/ potential injustice of having to obey stupid laws (with the option of trying to change those laws and in the case of egregious injustice, the option of group civil disobedience) than risk the possibility of a biomedical company skipping some important tests because they think they're frivolous and know that they won't be held accountable. So again, I'd apply this group decision making principle to the laws you just listed. Btw, I don't have time to research all your examples, but in the case of the law against walking around with a cold, I believe you are referring to this law[0]. I see it as you can't purposely sneeze on someone or donate tainted blood, etc. But that's beside the point. Well, I think that's all I have to say on this topic. You have your opinions on it and I have mine. Although, to be honest, I'm not clear on your arguments and premise. You just list examples of stupid laws. The implication is why should anyone have to obey these stupid laws? My answer is they shouldn't if a critical mass of people decide they are stupid/unjust etc. Thanks for the discourse. Also, I need to apologize to you for my uncharitable first comment. [0] http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=70.54.050 http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=70.54.050