7 ms·

> you would be morally obliged to disobey In days of yore my CS law module was taught by a QC - that's a high ranking barrister in the UK - who explained the w

> you would be morally obliged to disobey In days of yore my CS law module was taught by a QC - that's a high ranking barrister in the UK - who explained the world of difference between the "The Rule of Law" and "the law" in a class called "jurisprudence". Rule of Law (capitalised conceptual) is there as permanent ground truth in contrast to the ephemeral du-jure laws. At times I still struggle with that profound counter-intuitive idea; that if one deeply, passionately believes in the necessity of The Law and all of society's institutions, one must with equal passion break laws and throw rocks at the police when they are tools of tyrants, idiots and dumb laws. Indeed today I think that opposition to technological tyranny has become the mark of the true conservative, and that defenders of common sense and simple human dignity are forced to assume the "radical" position. High ideals are very expensive.

uoaei 3y ago
Some may wince at the use of the word conservative given its connotations. But small-c conservative tendencies are what temper small-p progressive initiatives from quickly entering dangerous waters, just as progressive tendencies counter conservative initiatives when they are sinking us deeper into harmful ruts.
qsort 3y ago
> if one deeply, passionately believes in the necessity of The Law and all of society's institutions, one must with equal passion break laws "-- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
- dylan604 3y ago
  [dead]
crazygringo 3y ago
Of course, the idea that there is any kind of "permanent ground truth" around morals/laws is very much up for debate. Some philosophers think it exists (usually called "natural law" [1]), while many others think it's nonsense. I would guess that most anthropologists, for instance, would say it's rubbish -- people who have studied the exceedingly wide variation in what is considered moral or immoral across cultures. A duty in one community may very well be a prohibition in another. But you don't need to believe in any kind of "permanent ground truth" law in order to "break laws and throw rocks at the police". You merely have to believe that the current laws/administration are acting unjustly according to the local morals of the time and place. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
- pmarreck 3y ago
  I think the Law of Power (basically, "might makes right") will run circles around any other "law" concept. Whether even this conforms to some "natural law" underneath, is secondary IMHO.
  - lazide 3y ago
    Yup. And underlying ‘might makes right’ is another even more basic one, ‘they who survive and reproduce wins’. Everything else gets layered on top, with more and more sophistication. Ethics and morals are attempts to encode various ideas of long term successful strategies for that longer term goal, to help counteract many of the shorter term incentives. But, like most ‘shoulds’, they are often just wishes by those disconnected from the actual reality on the ground or from those that have no ability to make them actually make sense. Local vs Global maxima perhaps? Or ideal vs reality? Or protective delusions? Or wisdom of the ages? Or tools to direct the median? Or longer term goals? For someone wiser than me to decide, I imagine.
    - danbruc 3y ago
      The most basic law is the only law that can not be broken, the laws of physics. That is what might makes right is backed by, surviving and reproducing is what you get as the result of being able to inflict more violence on the other side than they can on you.
simonebrunozzi 3y ago
I think you meant: du-jure -> de jure
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  Thankyou. And that's why I got a C minus for law.
- baal80spam 3y ago
  I think you meant: de jure -> de iure
  - simonebrunozzi 3y ago
    Oh my, you're right! Thanks for telling me.
  - raverbashing 3y ago
    "de jure" is fine even if the letter 'j' was invented after the term was invented
johngossman 3y ago
Lots of ethical systems justify opposition to unjust laws. Utilitarians would say you should disobey a law if it causes more harm than good (while accounting for the good that comes from general order when people do obey the laws). This isn’t just a conservative position
comte7092 3y ago
Defining Rule of Law as “a permanent ground truth” is likely part of the confusion, as that definition doesn’t really encapsulate the concept. I find it much easier when it is defined in contrast with “not rule of law” or “arbitrary rule by men” as it is traditionally described. The point being that it is not about the laws themselves, but rather the manner in which power is exercised. Laws may exist, but if some people are not be bound by them, and are able to wield the laws however they wish (we call these people tyrants), then you don’t truly have rule by law, you are rule by arbitrary will. In order to have rule by law, the law must be the source of power itself, and must apply to all people equally. This is where resistance to unjust laws or unjust authorities comes in. When people use their authority to put themselves above the law or excised use the law in an unjust/unequal manner, then we are stepping outside the bounds of the rule of law itself. The law is reduced to a mere tool of oppression rather than a source of legitimate authority. A corollary to this, as mentioned by another commenter, is the concept of so called “natural law”, that is law that exists as an antecedent to human law or is given by god/some other non human source. Note that rule of law is not the same as nor is it dependent on a concept of natural law. The concept of “The Rule of Law” is much older than that of “natural law”.
kardianos 3y ago
This feel like Utopian thinking. I believe that there are better and worse ways of living and thus better and worse laws. Most ways of living and laws come with trade-offs, others appear to be materially better or worse all around. In other words, there *is* a type of ground truth we can move towards and not everything is relative. However, we are humans and thinking that "we have arrived" and "I know Utopia" is full of pride and not humble. Rule of Law is a *process*, that is, it should (ideally) be procedurally symmetrical to all people it applies to based on each person's applicable merit or demerit. So long as you live in a republic, you should try to follow the Rule of Law. No, you are not obligated to throw rocks at police, even when they are tools. You fight tyrants where it matters to them, in the courts, voting box, and make the rule of law apply to them. Tyrants won't care if you injure an officer, in fact, they will use that against you (see rules for radicals, they want your reaction). You find the real battle and fight there.
nvy 3y ago
>Rule of Law (capitalised conceptual) is there as permanent ground truth in contrast to the ephemeral du-jure laws. That's a strange way of articulating it. The Rule of Law is simply the concept that a society is ruled (hence the name) by the body of law that it passes. That, quite literally, the ruler of the land is the Law. It's that simple!

uoaei 3y ago

Some may wince at the use of the word conservative given its connotations. But small-c conservative tendencies are what temper small-p progressive initiatives from quickly entering dangerous waters, just as progressive tendencies counter conservative initiatives when they are sinking us deeper into harmful ruts.

qsort 3y ago

> if one deeply, passionately believes in the necessity of The Law and all of society's institutions, one must with equal passion break laws "-- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

dylan604 3y ago
[dead]

crazygringo 3y ago

Of course, the idea that there is any kind of "permanent ground truth" around morals/laws is very much up for debate. Some philosophers think it exists (usually called "natural law" [1]), while many others think it's nonsense. I would guess that most anthropologists, for instance, would say it's rubbish -- people who have studied the exceedingly wide variation in what is considered moral or immoral across cultures. A duty in one community may very well be a prohibition in another. But you don't need to believe in any kind of "permanent ground truth" law in order to "break laws and throw rocks at the police". You merely have to believe that the current laws/administration are acting unjustly according to the local morals of the time and place. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

pmarreck 3y ago
I think the Law of Power (basically, "might makes right") will run circles around any other "law" concept. Whether even this conforms to some "natural law" underneath, is secondary IMHO.
- lazide 3y ago
  Yup. And underlying ‘might makes right’ is another even more basic one, ‘they who survive and reproduce wins’. Everything else gets layered on top, with more and more sophistication. Ethics and morals are attempts to encode various ideas of long term successful strategies for that longer term goal, to help counteract many of the shorter term incentives. But, like most ‘shoulds’, they are often just wishes by those disconnected from the actual reality on the ground or from those that have no ability to make them actually make sense. Local vs Global maxima perhaps? Or ideal vs reality? Or protective delusions? Or wisdom of the ages? Or tools to direct the median? Or longer term goals? For someone wiser than me to decide, I imagine.
  - danbruc 3y ago
    The most basic law is the only law that can not be broken, the laws of physics. That is what might makes right is backed by, surviving and reproducing is what you get as the result of being able to inflict more violence on the other side than they can on you.

simonebrunozzi 3y ago

I think you meant: du-jure -> de jure

nonrandomstring 3y ago
Thankyou. And that's why I got a C minus for law.
baal80spam 3y ago
I think you meant: de jure -> de iure
- simonebrunozzi 3y ago
  Oh my, you're right! Thanks for telling me.
- raverbashing 3y ago
  "de jure" is fine even if the letter 'j' was invented after the term was invented

johngossman 3y ago

Lots of ethical systems justify opposition to unjust laws. Utilitarians would say you should disobey a law if it causes more harm than good (while accounting for the good that comes from general order when people do obey the laws). This isn’t just a conservative position

comte7092 3y ago

Defining Rule of Law as “a permanent ground truth” is likely part of the confusion, as that definition doesn’t really encapsulate the concept. I find it much easier when it is defined in contrast with “not rule of law” or “arbitrary rule by men” as it is traditionally described. The point being that it is not about the laws themselves, but rather the manner in which power is exercised. Laws may exist, but if some people are not be bound by them, and are able to wield the laws however they wish (we call these people tyrants), then you don’t truly have rule by law, you are rule by arbitrary will. In order to have rule by law, the law must be the source of power itself, and must apply to all people equally. This is where resistance to unjust laws or unjust authorities comes in. When people use their authority to put themselves above the law or excised use the law in an unjust/unequal manner, then we are stepping outside the bounds of the rule of law itself. The law is reduced to a mere tool of oppression rather than a source of legitimate authority. A corollary to this, as mentioned by another commenter, is the concept of so called “natural law”, that is law that exists as an antecedent to human law or is given by god/some other non human source. Note that rule of law is not the same as nor is it dependent on a concept of natural law. The concept of “The Rule of Law” is much older than that of “natural law”.

kardianos 3y ago

This feel like Utopian thinking. I believe that there are better and worse ways of living and thus better and worse laws. Most ways of living and laws come with trade-offs, others appear to be materially better or worse all around. In other words, there *is* a type of ground truth we can move towards and not everything is relative. However, we are humans and thinking that "we have arrived" and "I know Utopia" is full of pride and not humble. Rule of Law is a *process*, that is, it should (ideally) be procedurally symmetrical to all people it applies to based on each person's applicable merit or demerit. So long as you live in a republic, you should try to follow the Rule of Law. No, you are not obligated to throw rocks at police, even when they are tools. You fight tyrants where it matters to them, in the courts, voting box, and make the rule of law apply to them. Tyrants won't care if you injure an officer, in fact, they will use that against you (see rules for radicals, they want your reaction). You find the real battle and fight there.

nvy 3y ago

>Rule of Law (capitalised conceptual) is there as permanent ground truth in contrast to the ephemeral du-jure laws. That's a strange way of articulating it. The Rule of Law is simply the concept that a society is ruled (hence the name) by the body of law that it passes. That, quite literally, the ruler of the land is the Law. It's that simple!