• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Do we hold a right to break the law?

mammador

mammador

Platinum Member
My gf and I were debating this the other day.

Isn't order simply something "sold to us" by the authorities?

Why is anarchy really "worse" than order? Who determines this? The PC media? Ancient governments?

I doubt we are actually social animals. I think it's just the beliefs of psychologists, anthropologists and sociologists to assert that.
 
Some argue that it is a moral obligation to disobey an unjust law.

Many great leaders made their bones by engaging in such civil disobedience. The important thing to realize, is that these leaders were great because they also understood the consequences of their actions, and accepted the punishment.

They also realized that the act of disobeying a law simply because it is a law is an entirely different thing.

Oh, am I missing something? some sort of related, recent, tomfoolery from OP?
 
mammador said:
My gf and I were debating this the other day.

Isn't order simply something "sold to us" by the authorities?

Why is anarchy really "worse" than order? Who determines this? The PC media? Ancient governments?

I doubt we are actually social animals. I think it's just the beliefs of psychologists, anthropologists and sociologists to assert that.
Click to expand...
Not social animals you say? Why the vocal chords and language, then? The very act of reproduction is techinically a social interaction, even in the case of caveman rape.
 
Humans can try to do whatever they like, whether or not they succeed is an entirely different matter.

Humans, and a lot of other primates are definitely social creatures. Why do you think solitary confinement is so horrible?
 
This would be an interesting topic if it were proposed by someone other than the OP, and on a site different than AT. The situation being what it is, I'd rather debate religion, tipping, or some other greatly important concept.
 
Pics of girlfriend?

To answer the question, you have a moral obligation to not uphold an unjust law.

Meaning, if you ever serve on a jury, your guilty or not-guilty vote should be a reflection if the law is a just or unjust law.

As a citizen you should follow the law.

As a juror, you should follow your conscience.
 
Last edited:
OP, read some history. We self-organized into social societies because it has the evolutionary benefit of letting us live longer and make more babies. It ain't that complicated.
 
People aren't social animals you say? Well then you should kindly ban yourself from this online social gathering.
 
Texashiker said:
Meaning, if you ever serve on a jury, your guilty or not-guilty vote should be a reflection if the law is a just or unjust law.
Click to expand...

Bullshit.

If a jury comes back with a verdict that is contrary to the law, the verdict is thrown out and a mistrial declared. Then the taxpayers have to cough up a bunch of money for a second trial.

A juror's sole responsibilities are to decide what the facts of the case are and to apply the law (regardless of the juror's opinion of the law) to the facts. Anything else gives you a mistrial and a bunch of wasted taxpayer money.

Frankly, jurors who try this whole "jury nullification" bullshit should be charged for the costs of the new trial instead of all the rest of us being forced to pay for the juror's quixotic and useless grandstanding.

If you want to change a law, work for it. Spend the time lobbying, craft good arguments, and get public support. Don't try to get away with being a lazy slacker on a jury. Even if jury nullification worked, it wouldn't change the law; you'd only be helping one person instead of changing the law for everyone.

ZV
 
Together we stand, divided we fall.
Society is infinitely more successful than individuals.
The only way to keep a successful society is if we all play by the same rules.
 
Zenmervolt said:
Bullshit.

If a jury comes back with a verdict that is contrary to the law, the verdict is thrown out and a mistrial declared. Then the taxpayers have to cough up a bunch of money for a second trial.

A juror's sole responsibilities are to decide what the facts of the case are and to apply the law (regardless of the juror's opinion of the law) to the facts. Anything else gives you a mistrial and a bunch of wasted taxpayer money.
Click to expand...

Benjamin Franklins uncle, who was a printer, printed an article that was critical of the king. The uncle was arrested and put on trial.

The defense argued that we have a GOD given right to freedom of speech.

The jury found the uncle not guilty. The judge threw out the verdict and then arrested the jury.

If a jury follows the instructions of the court, the juror is nothing more than a pawn to the government. We have a moral obligation not to uphold unjust laws. It is called jury nullification, and it is my right.

What do you think by the people, for the people means? The government is powerless to enforce its own laws without the consent of the people. That consent comes from the jury.

As for the second trial, that is why we have laws prohibiting double jeopardy.
 
Last edited:
Stopped reading at "gf".

You don't have a girlfriend. You're a mental degenerate, who can barely function in a forum environment, let alone around actual women.
You're not fooling anyone.
 
mammador said:
My gf and I were debating this the other day.

Isn't order simply something "sold to us" by the authorities?

Why is anarchy really "worse" than order? Who determines this? The PC media? Ancient governments?

I doubt we are actually social animals. I think it's just the beliefs of psychologists, anthropologists and sociologists to assert that.
Click to expand...

Drive in the US than try a place where no one really follows the rules. It should be apparent the advantages of maintaining order.
 
lxskllr said:
This would be an interesting topic if it were proposed by someone other than the OP, and on a site different than AT. The situation being what it is, I'd rather debate religion, tipping, or some other greatly important concept.
Click to expand...
<--- Discussion Club
 
mammador said:
My gf and I were debating this the other day.

Isn't order simply something "sold to us" by the authorities?

Why is anarchy really "worse" than order? Who determines this? The PC media? Ancient governments?

I doubt we are actually social animals. I think it's just the beliefs of psychologists, anthropologists and sociologists to assert that.
Click to expand...

If you question anarchy or order - please, visit Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, or maybe the Sudan. Order is when you don't expect widespread random acts of violence to threaten you. Anarchy is when roving bands of men with guns do whatever they want to you.

Oh, and P&N is <-- that way.

Jodell88 said:
<--- Discussion Club
Click to expand...

Heh... an optimist!
 
I may be an anarchist or think I am but looking at the far end of the scale, the good end, there are some laws you have to break for reasons of safety. The best example is making a right hand turn at a stop sign in your car. I believe many states have a law that makes it illegal to stop the car in the middle of your right turn. Once you've started the turn you have to keep moving by DMV law written to try to prevent collisions if you pull out too far then stop.

But people stop all the time midway or part way in order to see better beyond a parked car or curve blocking their view of oncoming traffic. I know that's on the extreme good end of the scale but it's still a decent example of context or low degree of severity of the crime.
 
PlanetJosh said:
I may be an anarchist or think I am but looking at the far end of the scale, the good end, there are some laws you have to break for reasons of safety. The best example is making a right hand turn at a stop sign in your car. I believe many states have a law that makes it illegal to stop the car in the middle of your right turn. Once you've started the turn you have to keep moving by DMV law written to try to prevent collisions if you pull out too far then stop.

But people stop all the time midway or part way in order to see better beyond a parked car or curve blocking their view of oncoming traffic. I know that's on the extreme good end of the scale but it's still a decent example of context or low degree of severity of the crime.
Click to expand...


Ok quote ANY state that has a law specifically saying this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top