4 ms·

lex iniusta non est lex. We've philosophically explored that idea for millenia. It's time to act on it.

Barrin92 4y ago
An unjust in that context is one that was passed without rightful authority or does not apply equally to all. It's not a shorthand for "I don't like the law". Throughout the millenia I can assure you the idea of an unjust law has very little to do with the bitcoin mentality of "I like cash and I don't like high taxes, therefore I will evade state authority".
- kragen 4y ago
  It sounds like your reading hasn't actually ranged through the "millenia". Sure, you can find people arguing what you're arguing (though mostly since the Renaissance) but you can also find plenty of people arguing the opposite.
  - Barrin92 4y ago
    In The West (and certainly much more so in many Eastern traditions) the guiding principle has always roughly centered around what Tertuillian summed up as "render the image of Caesar, which is on the coin, to Caesar, and the image of God, which is on man, to God; so as to render to Caesar indeed money, to God yourself." This idea to arbitrarily opt-out of the earthly authorities is a figment of internet anarchism. I'd honestly like to hear which historical thinker or regime suggests otherwise.
    - kragen 4y ago
      Plato relates that everyone expected Socrates to evade state authority because he wouldn't like being sentenced to death; his Socrates is a daring rebel against conventional thinking by accepting his death sentence, not merely an expositor of that conventional thinking. None of the characters of the Iliad would have recognized your idea that a law must apply equally to all to be legitimate; when Odysseus goes and smacks down the mutinous soldiers, he isn't appealing to some kind of abstract notion of equality before the law, but to inequality: namely, the superiority of kings like Agamemnon and himself over commoners, which rests on their martial virtue. Similar value systems can be found in Scandinavian sagas. You don't find the idea of legal egalitarianism that is your sine qua non of legal legitimacy until after the Renaissance; until then it was taken for granted that some people naturally had more rights than others. Slaves, women, foreigners, veterans, nobles, and royalty were categories to which the law generally did not apply equally. Though, in some times and places, some of them were exempted from the special treatment that applied generally, that was the exception rather than the rule. Today usually only so-called "illegals", children, and felons find themselves outside the boundaries of legal egalitarianism. (Though any black person in the US who's visited white suburbs can tell you that sometimes equality before the law is only theoretical.) Switzerland, more egalitarian in most ways than the rest of Europe, didn't grant women the vote until 01959–71. Tertullian and the whole Christian worldview to which he belonged were, like Socrates, rebels, against what they saw as the corrupt selfishness of the society around them—he wasn't just restating the conventional wisdom either. At the same time, though, Christianity was founded in lawlessness (Jesus casting the moneychangers out of the Temple was definitely not authorized by the authorities, and whether it happened or not it was evidently the sort of thing the early Christians approved of) and existed in open defiance of Roman law for over a century before Tertullian and another century after him, regardless of the fact that the laws they were breaking (against deprecating the Roman state religion) applied equally to all. Modern Christian sects have commonly preached disobedience to laws, including but not limited to laws requiring loyalty oaths, laws forbidding polygamy, conscription laws, laws establishing slavery, and, obviously, laws establishing state religions. So, while many Christian sects do preach obedience, I think it makes more sense to read Tertullian as preaching poverty. History is replete with tales of people rebelling against authority because they suffered under it, and just as replete with poets and philosophers glorifying and justifying their deeds. William Tell is the national hero of Switzerland, and Robin Hood was the national hero of England, for just such acts of rebellion. Today we have narcocorridos and gangsta rap. Sometimes philosophers argue against the legitimacy of particular forms of government or government in general (Proudhon, Marx, Bakunin, Goldman, Rorty's student Sartwell) and sometimes they argue for it. Sartwell's Against the State is, I think, the most convincing modern argument I've read on the anarchist side of the aisle. Usually the ones who argued for the legitimacy of the current form of government were the ones who got a position at court instead of living out their years in poverty and toil to survive, so we hear from them more. In the modern context, Thoreau's and Gandhi's concept of civil disobedience, rooted profoundly in self-denial, is that your obligation to the law only extends so far as accepting the punishment the law metes out, as Socrates did; while they are not advocating "arbitrarily opting out of earthly authorities", they also definitely are not limiting their advocacy of civil disobedience to laws that are "passed without rightful authority or do[] not apply equally to all". Outside of philosophy, though, you'll find that most people break the law without a second thought when they're sure they won't get caught. They don't worry about whether the speed limit was constituted by rightful authority or whether the US's Schedule I classification of marijuana applies equally to everyone; they worry about whether they'll get punished, and if so, how badly. And this has evidently been the case as long as there have been laws. Of course most people don't go around robbing and cheating just because they can get away with it, but that's not because it's illegal; it's because they think it's bad, somewhat independently of what the law says. They think the law should punish actions that are bad; they don't think that actions become bad because someone has passed a law against them.

An unjust in that context is one that was passed without rightful authority or does not apply equally to all. It's not a shorthand for "I don't like the law". Throughout the millenia I can assure you the idea of an unjust law has very little to do with the bitcoin mentality of "I like cash and I don't like high taxes, therefore I will evade state authority".

kragen 4y ago
It sounds like your reading hasn't actually ranged through the "millenia". Sure, you can find people arguing what you're arguing (though mostly since the Renaissance) but you can also find plenty of people arguing the opposite.
- Barrin92 4y ago
  In The West (and certainly much more so in many Eastern traditions) the guiding principle has always roughly centered around what Tertuillian summed up as "render the image of Caesar, which is on the coin, to Caesar, and the image of God, which is on man, to God; so as to render to Caesar indeed money, to God yourself." This idea to arbitrarily opt-out of the earthly authorities is a figment of internet anarchism. I'd honestly like to hear which historical thinker or regime suggests otherwise.
  - kragen 4y ago
    Plato relates that everyone expected Socrates to evade state authority because he wouldn't like being sentenced to death; his Socrates is a daring rebel against conventional thinking by accepting his death sentence, not merely an expositor of that conventional thinking. None of the characters of the Iliad would have recognized your idea that a law must apply equally to all to be legitimate; when Odysseus goes and smacks down the mutinous soldiers, he isn't appealing to some kind of abstract notion of equality before the law, but to inequality: namely, the superiority of kings like Agamemnon and himself over commoners, which rests on their martial virtue. Similar value systems can be found in Scandinavian sagas. You don't find the idea of legal egalitarianism that is your sine qua non of legal legitimacy until after the Renaissance; until then it was taken for granted that some people naturally had more rights than others. Slaves, women, foreigners, veterans, nobles, and royalty were categories to which the law generally did not apply equally. Though, in some times and places, some of them were exempted from the special treatment that applied generally, that was the exception rather than the rule. Today usually only so-called "illegals", children, and felons find themselves outside the boundaries of legal egalitarianism. (Though any black person in the US who's visited white suburbs can tell you that sometimes equality before the law is only theoretical.) Switzerland, more egalitarian in most ways than the rest of Europe, didn't grant women the vote until 01959–71. Tertullian and the whole Christian worldview to which he belonged were, like Socrates, rebels, against what they saw as the corrupt selfishness of the society around them—he wasn't just restating the conventional wisdom either. At the same time, though, Christianity was founded in lawlessness (Jesus casting the moneychangers out of the Temple was definitely not authorized by the authorities, and whether it happened or not it was evidently the sort of thing the early Christians approved of) and existed in open defiance of Roman law for over a century before Tertullian and another century after him, regardless of the fact that the laws they were breaking (against deprecating the Roman state religion) applied equally to all. Modern Christian sects have commonly preached disobedience to laws, including but not limited to laws requiring loyalty oaths, laws forbidding polygamy, conscription laws, laws establishing slavery, and, obviously, laws establishing state religions. So, while many Christian sects do preach obedience, I think it makes more sense to read Tertullian as preaching poverty. History is replete with tales of people rebelling against authority because they suffered under it, and just as replete with poets and philosophers glorifying and justifying their deeds. William Tell is the national hero of Switzerland, and Robin Hood was the national hero of England, for just such acts of rebellion. Today we have narcocorridos and gangsta rap. Sometimes philosophers argue against the legitimacy of particular forms of government or government in general (Proudhon, Marx, Bakunin, Goldman, Rorty's student Sartwell) and sometimes they argue for it. Sartwell's Against the State is, I think, the most convincing modern argument I've read on the anarchist side of the aisle. Usually the ones who argued for the legitimacy of the current form of government were the ones who got a position at court instead of living out their years in poverty and toil to survive, so we hear from them more. In the modern context, Thoreau's and Gandhi's concept of civil disobedience, rooted profoundly in self-denial, is that your obligation to the law only extends so far as accepting the punishment the law metes out, as Socrates did; while they are not advocating "arbitrarily opting out of earthly authorities", they also definitely are not limiting their advocacy of civil disobedience to laws that are "passed without rightful authority or do[] not apply equally to all". Outside of philosophy, though, you'll find that most people break the law without a second thought when they're sure they won't get caught. They don't worry about whether the speed limit was constituted by rightful authority or whether the US's Schedule I classification of marijuana applies equally to everyone; they worry about whether they'll get punished, and if so, how badly. And this has evidently been the case as long as there have been laws. Of course most people don't go around robbing and cheating just because they can get away with it, but that's not because it's illegal; it's because they think it's bad, somewhat independently of what the law says. They think the law should punish actions that are bad; they don't think that actions become bad because someone has passed a law against them.