4 ms·

And you're advocating blind subservience to authority. How can any authority be legitimate if the subordinates can't understand it?

mulmen 9y ago
I'm arguing for democratic rule of law.
- 8ytecoder 9y ago
  There's no democracy without civil disobedience - which includes going to jail for breaking the law. Almost every change in society has been brought about by someone "breaking" a law - escaping slavery, sitting in the front section of a bus, loving someone of the same sex,...etc. I can go on. Law plays catch-up with attitude changes and what we consider acceptable as a society. We may sometimes have to break the law first to fix it.
  - mulmen 9y ago
    Civil disobedience is only effective because we have checks and balances in place on the governments power. Without those all civil disobedience can be met with overwhelming oppressive force and all participants can be labelled as criminals and silenced. At that point no laws change nor does the status quo. While you are correct that civil disobedience has been a force for great change it does not work on its own. Laws were still changed within the system and that is because we have democratic representation in our lawmaking process. Civil disobedience made the case clear that we needed to employ these democratic mechanisms to change the law.
- leggomylibro 9y ago
  Well okay, fine, but I don't accept the premise of your argument; we don't have a democratic rule of law, we have appointed lawmakers writing laws. They themselves are elected, sure, but they dramatically and ostentatiously represent their own interests over those of their constituents. They also direct more attentions towards issues which affect them than issues which affect their constituents. That is especially true of Republicans, who can do literally anything and still enjoy substantial support from the people they keep in penurious thrall. But Democrats are then able to do the same thing by simply pointing at that distressing alternative to stay in office, so in reality we just have a bunch of corrupt egoists. And that's where our criminal justice system's laws come from as much as our financial and political ones. A system like that cannot hold moral authority.
- itsdabullies 9y ago
  so we appoint a free citizen, not a woman or slave, randomly out of a few thousand in an independent city state to serve for a short term like greeks did (read: not all, but it happened). or do we vote directly on issues. or do we not run for candidate at all and play "i was (not) in favour of who was going to play entertainer for the next four years whether I went to the ballot or not?" edit: to the point: what does my vote help if the chance is small that my educated opinion isn't honoured?

mulmen 9y ago

I'm arguing for democratic rule of law.

8ytecoder 9y ago
There's no democracy without civil disobedience - which includes going to jail for breaking the law. Almost every change in society has been brought about by someone "breaking" a law - escaping slavery, sitting in the front section of a bus, loving someone of the same sex,...etc. I can go on. Law plays catch-up with attitude changes and what we consider acceptable as a society. We may sometimes have to break the law first to fix it.
- mulmen 9y ago
  Civil disobedience is only effective because we have checks and balances in place on the governments power. Without those all civil disobedience can be met with overwhelming oppressive force and all participants can be labelled as criminals and silenced. At that point no laws change nor does the status quo. While you are correct that civil disobedience has been a force for great change it does not work on its own. Laws were still changed within the system and that is because we have democratic representation in our lawmaking process. Civil disobedience made the case clear that we needed to employ these democratic mechanisms to change the law.
leggomylibro 9y ago
Well okay, fine, but I don't accept the premise of your argument; we don't have a democratic rule of law, we have appointed lawmakers writing laws. They themselves are elected, sure, but they dramatically and ostentatiously represent their own interests over those of their constituents. They also direct more attentions towards issues which affect them than issues which affect their constituents. That is especially true of Republicans, who can do literally anything and still enjoy substantial support from the people they keep in penurious thrall. But Democrats are then able to do the same thing by simply pointing at that distressing alternative to stay in office, so in reality we just have a bunch of corrupt egoists. And that's where our criminal justice system's laws come from as much as our financial and political ones. A system like that cannot hold moral authority.
itsdabullies 9y ago
so we appoint a free citizen, not a woman or slave, randomly out of a few thousand in an independent city state to serve for a short term like greeks did (read: not all, but it happened). or do we vote directly on issues. or do we not run for candidate at all and play "i was (not) in favour of who was going to play entertainer for the next four years whether I went to the ballot or not?" edit: to the point: what does my vote help if the chance is small that my educated opinion isn't honoured?