Nonsense. Unjust laws are not even laws, they are simply dictates, public notices of the government’s policy stance towards its subject population. Nothing more. Prudence is the only watchword.
Nonsense. Unjust laws are not even laws, they are simply dictates, public notices of the government’s policy stance towards its subject population. Nothing more. Prudence is the only watchword.
This concept fascinates me. Your observation highlights people’s misconception that modern legislatures actually pass “laws” when they do nothing of the sort. They are regulatory agencies which constantly redefine the nature of the “contract” between citizen and state, setting up the state itself as a victim when said regulations are not respected.
A law is a law precisely because it prevents harm to another individual or his property; as such there is no need to “pass” a decree against such actions and historically this had been the case. In Europe, legislative bodies simply did not exist prior to the early modern era; parlements were essentially councils which served to protect the rights of property owners. If I’m not mistaken it was not until the early 16th century that English Parliament actually expressed any legislative authority at all and it did so because by that time the nobility had been successfully brought under Crown influence by the Tudor monarchs.
Legislatures are bodies which are antagonistic towards property and legal positivism is the mindset of a slave.
Precisely. Law never was the dictates of an individual or organization until the “enlightened” modern era and the idea that such dictates are law is the mindset of a slave. I deny that anything which does not emerge as a precedent from the resolution of real disputes between individuals is law at all. The monopolization of law by the state greatly reduces the quality of precedents that emerge by reducing competition in the production of dispute resolution to nil. But statutes never rise to the level of being “law”, they are just “prior notice” given of the conflicts the State intends to initiate against its subjects under certain circumstances.
Exactly how easy is to enforce every single law? Remember that when most laws are written there’s little expectation they will followed to their fullest. Take IP on films and music. Sure, once in a while there’s some high pubblicity case with a teenager being dragged to court and condemend to pay tens of thousands of dollars in compensantion, but that’s just for show. Apart from self deluded media tycoons desperate to stop their own decline and a handful of bureaucrats nobody thinks it’s possible to stem the tide. It’s the same thing as Diocletian’s edict to fix the price of bread: sure, a few poor sods were beheaded among much cerimony but the edict itself withered away because it would have been impossible to enforce to its fullest. Shrewd tyrants know they should not push things too far because when usually subdued people start a revolution a lot of blood flows: just ask the people of former Jugoslavia about Marshall Tito.
People take their chances at “breaking laws” because they know that statistically speaking they have a good chance of getting away with it: just don’t overdo it, keep a low profile and be on your guard. It has been this way sing Grog, the high priest-king, forbade people to have extra-marital relationships on pain of death.
Of course there’s an issue: in all ages there have been self-deluded ruling classes thinking they could really change things by hammering their subjects into submission. Be them authorative bishops trying to stamp out “paganism”, bigoted Byzantine emperors tring to push Iconoclasty or well-dressed, affluent Elitists trying to force “low carbon standards” on the rest of the world, it’s the same old story. It’s these we should fight in the earnest, not idiotic laws not even their creators expect to be followed to the letter.
Yea, this is a subject I haven’t reconciled fully for myself (theoretically, at least…in practice, currently my favorite law to break is anti-marijuana laws, and I’m sure there’s a couple more).
I mean, “justice” is something each person has his/her own innate sense about. On the one hand, who is anyone to interfere with an individual’s personal pursuit of justice/righteousness?** On the other hand, the nature of our society is such that law and order require a certain minimum respect for the rule of law.
I believe in the (U)universe/the Great Spirit/God. I believe there’s a universal morality that all humans can perceive. I’m tempted to conclude that, as long as one feels his/her choices are in accord with this universal wisdom/morality, then the question of whether these choices adhere to society’s specific dictates is of secondary importance. Of course, one remains legally responsible in society for his/her actions and choices, nonetheless.
But, like I said, I’m not 100% settled on this.
** maybe a better phrase would be “an individual’s personal pursuit of self-determined ends, according to one’s own conceptions of justice and righteousness”
I deny that anything which does not emerge as a precedent from the resolution of real disputes between individuals is law at all. The monopolization of law by the state greatly reduces the quality of precedents that emerge by reducing competition in the production of dispute resolution to nil. But statutes never rise to the level of being “law”, they are just “prior notice” given of the conflicts the State intends to initiate against its subjects under certain circumstances.
I find this instructive. Thanks. Time to read Bastiat’s “The Law”.