Where do you draw the line? "But, it's the law!"

[Cerridwen]

Poll question: Where do you draw the line? "But, it's the law!"

There is a noticeable contingent, here and elsewhere, who uses this as their justification for many things I (and perhaps you) would find objectionable.

"But, it's the law!!!!!"

I imagine these people as having avoided the "Boston Tea Party" because it was against THE LAW!!!!!! Well, at least we'd be using the metric system.

I picture these very people as having turned in escaped slaves because "it's the law!!!!!"

I imagine them following "Jim Crow" laws because "it's the law!!!!"

These people would, if questioned, report those who stepped outside the lines of THE LAW during various times in US history and justified their actions as, "it's the law!!!"

You want to know how dictators and others who use THE LAW to keep the masses in line? Look for these people.

I think of them as: lacking imagination, lacking the ability to think (much less color) outside the lines of "respectability," mean ("I have to obey so you do, TOO!"), simple ("I follow the laws, why can't/don't you?"), pathetic (all the previous combined).

Those who perform acts of civil disobedience would be rotting in jails if these people were the leaders because, "it's the law!!!" Civil rights, women's rights, LGBTQ rights, "non-white/dominant society" rights;" "worker's rights," any other-than-"status quo" objections, lost due to breaking THE LAW.


Where are you on this spectrum?

edit because DU won't hold my damned subject line.

[aquart]

1. Oh, don't be so silly.

[Cerridwen]

2. Me? Silly?! Shirley you jest.

I'm a no-sense-of-humor feminist.

Did that rhyme - kinda?

:evilgrin:

[timeforpeace]

3. I want Bush and Cheney prosecuted cuz it's the law.

[Cerridwen]

4. Ahhh, you just reminded me of an option I forgot.

"THE LAW applies to 'them,' but not to 'us.'"

[BlooInBloo]

5. I don't have a hang-up about breaking the law - especially if the law is intrinsically immoral...

or something like that. Civil disobedience is a proven way to repeal laws which are intrinsically unjust.

More broadly, I also don't have a big problem with people who break a law because their *cause* is just but the broken law is itself neutral or benign (trespassing to protest unfair business practices, for example). I don't think this type of law-breaker has much reason to complain, however, when/if they get arrested for breaking the type law described.

[defendandprotect]

6. Presume we all noticed Bush/Cheney had no respect for the law ....

Meanwhile, we have many laws on the books now which I certainly don't respect --

capital punishment -- military laws barring conscience -- Patriot Act crap --

Homeland Security -- lots of the right wing stuff --

[Warren DeMontague]

7. I make a distinction between laws pertaining to inter-personal conduct

and laws that serve no purpose other than to tell a consenting adult what he or she may do with his own mind or body when that conduct directly affects no one's life other than the consenting adult(s) involved.

In the first category, I would put things like laws against harming others, theft, driving drunk, etc.

In the second I would put laws against things like free speech, consensual adult gay sex, pot smoking, etc.

I'm not saying laws of the second category are ALWAYS illegitimate or morally dubious, but I think the bar is much higher for that type.

[Kievan Rus]

14. Very true...and sad examples sometimes

There have been cases where people convicted for victimless crimes get far stiffer sentences than most do for some very heinous acts. For example, it's not uncommon for somebody convicted on marijuana possession to get a much longer sentence than somebody convicted of rape or sexual assault.

I will never understand why the government cares so much about consenting adults putting certain substances in their own bodies while terrorists, murderers, rapists and child molesters are running around.

[appamado amata padam]

8. I picked "time and place"

Seemed closest to my opinion:

I think that most of the time, yes, you just have to follow the Law, and try to change by accepted procedures when you think necessary.

Sometimes laws can be so wrong, though, that yes, they should be broken. However, one should know the possible consequences, and decide if they are prepared to accept those consequences.

Flauting the Law was something we hated about the last administration; we wanted to return to being a "nation of laws."

OK; we are getting our chance.

[ohheckyeah]

9. If it's not against the law

it ain't no fun.

[notesdev]

10. I see two parts to this

One part is that the law is supposed to be the execution of the sovereign will of the people, and that as such it must be respected.

However, when the system is hopelessly corrupt, and the law bears no resemblance to the will of the people, it is totally invalid, regardless of whether or not it is enforced.

Is a law against murder the will of the people? I would say it is. But what about a law that lets Ben Bernanke print money, and be unaccountable?

[TxRider]

11. Laws are to be followed, if you break them do so willing to take full consequence

That is civil disobedience.

And is it taking responsibility for your actions.

[marybourg]

17. That sums it up for me too. nt.

[ZombieHorde]

12. "edit because DU won't hold my damned subject line."

If you wish to use quotes in your poll subject line or your poll options use the single quotes; 'quote'.

"Where are you on this spectrum?"

Laws should be taken with a grain of salt.

[Cerridwen]

21. Thank you for the tech note.

I, obviously, was not aware of that little 'feature.'

:hi:

[Greyhound]

29. Do you know how to get less than/greater than signs into a subject line? n/t

[ZombieHorde]

30. I have not tried, but I may try now that you have mentioned it. nt

[Greyhound]

32. Cool, please let me know. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

31. I have not tried, but I may try now that you have mentioned it. nt

[Kievan Rus]

13. The people who think the law is ALWAYS right

seem to lack any critical thinking skills of their own. After all, if the government says it's true, then it automatically must be right! More often than not (though not always) people that think like this are right-wingers.

In other times and places, they:

...would have called for George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and all of our other Founding Fathers to be hung from the highest tree in the years leading up to, and during the American Revolutionary War.

...would have supported legalized slavery before (and depending upon location) and also during the Civil War, and also the Fugitive Slave Act and Dredd Scott decision. They would have reported anybody hiding slaves.

...would have vociferously condemned the concept of women's suffrage and female equality.

...would have supported Jim Crow segregation and condemned people such as Martin Luther King Jr.

...would have supported denying gays and lesbians their civil rights, and would have roundly appluaded Stonewall in 1969.

...had they lived in Spain during the Inquisition, would have supported the efforts of Torquemada and his campaign against Protestants, Jews, Muslims and anyone he didn't agree with.

...had they lived in Cromwell's Britain, would have actively supported a theocratic dictatorship and the oppression of Jews, Roman Catholics and basically any Christian communion that Cromwell did not agree with.

...had they lived in Nazi Germany, would have actively supported the Nazi regime and probably would even inform the Gestapo of the whereabouts of hidden Jews and other groups that Hitler targeted.

...had they lived in the Soviet Union, would have actively supported Stalin and his homicidal purges, and would have been willing to turn in anybody that the paranoid Soviet government feared over to the NKVD.

...had they lived in South Africa during Apartheid, would have actively supported said system and the denial of rights to native blacks and forcing them to live on decrepit townships.

Most laws are good ones, but there some bad ones out there. Just because something is legal (i.e. the broken healthcare system that denies coverage to so many) does not mean that it is moral. Questioning authority, depending upon the time, place and context, is not always a bad thing. After all, if nobody ever questioned authority, we'd still be British.

[Cerridwen]

20. Thank you, Kievan Rus for taking the time to put that together.

You added good examples to what I was thinking about.

:hi:

[xchrom]

15. obviously -- robb is a ding bat and hitler. nt

[Greyhound]

16. Do as you will so long as you harm no other.

I don't know what is needed beyond that.
:kick: & R

[Cerridwen]

18. Kick for the morning crew.

:kick:

[el_bryanto]

19. I feel like reading a book about failed political/insurrectionist movements

Because it's not like stepping outside the law always works.

Bryant

[Greyhound]

22. Subservience and blind obedience, the principles upon which this nation was founded.

Why do you hate America, you feminista-anarcho-commie?
:rofl:

[rd_kent]

23. Our system allows for laws to be changed when/if needed.

Many are in DIRE need of updating or dismissing. Our system allows for the people to change them (legalizing pot, anyone?) when needed. until it changes, you run the risk of being punished for breaking it. Law, right or wrong, are what keep chaos from taking over.

There is another thread where a lady was allegedly hit on the head with a bat by a store owner for allegedly stealing a can of food. The law is simple, dont steal. Many have argued that stealing if you are hungry (was she hungry? We dont know) is justification for stealing. If that is the case, dont complain when I come to your house or business and take some food because I am hungry. If we need to make it ok to take food, then lets change the law to allow it. Otherwise, one is a criminal for stealing and should be punished. For the record, IMO, the store owner is liable for using too much force. That certainly was not necessary.

[Echo In Light]

25. Thus the need for various forms of propaganda supporting the 'need' for bad/inhumane laws

[The2ndWheel]

24. As arbitrary as anything else

Directions on a map, time, language, money, etc.

[Orsino]

26. I'm sure Rosa Parks heard a lot of that.

Injustice should be fought, and fought hardest when its enshrined in law. One bad statute invalidates the entire "but it's the law!" justification.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

27. Your poll options muddle obeying and changing the law.

I think that there are several different questions one can ask about a law: "should this law be changed?" "is it moral or immoral to obey this law while it remains law?" "is one is a police officer or a lawyer or a judge, should one enforce or ignore this law"?

I think that there are a lot of laws that should be changed.

I think that only a fraction of those laws are so bad that they should not be obeyed while they remain law (or even so bad that there is no moral imperative to obey them, as opposed to a moral imperative to disobey them).

I think that even for most of those laws, if you are involved in law enforcement you probably have a duty to enforce them.

[Greyhound]

28. One of the founders mistakes IMO was making it easier to pass a law than to repeal it.

In my years I've learned that most people really want to be told what to do. They get panicky when left to their own devices.
:kick:

[mdmc]

33. ..