That's how all authority works whether it's written down or not.
Then why make any pretense about it being some kind of law. Just say, "I'm not listening to what the government says if I think it's not right," and leave it at that?
That's exactly what the British government would have said to the Declartion of Independence which appealed to self-evident principles above any codified system of legal code.
They did say that by sending over troops. Do you have a Continental army ready to defend your position?
Law is founded in authority. And when authority is unjustly wielded it is null. Would it change your willingness to exercise liberties if the code book said otherwise?
Yes, the problem isn't the theory. The problem is who has the authority to decide what is just and unjust? If it's every individual for himself, then there is no rule of law.
"I'm not listening to what the government says if I think it's not right," and leave it at that?
Because that's not at all what I said. The obligation to obey authority is null if the authority operates outside it's jurisdiction. That's self-evident. It has nothing to do with "if I think" anything.
Do you have a Continental army ready to defend your position?
Obviously not. But what's your point? We know that an unjust authority will use any means within it's reach to maintain itself. Does that mean it is still to be obeyed or that it's proclamations still carry moral force when it operates outside it's jurisdiction?
The problem is who has the authority to decide what is just and unjust? If it's every individual for himself, then there is no rule of law.
It is self-evident that it is morally right or just for an authority to operate only within it's granted scope. Every individual should have the mental capacity to recognize that authority operating outside it's jurisdiction is unjust, false and to be disregarded. That's not an overthrow of the rule of law. In such a case the authority is the one who is attempting to overthrow and sidestep the rule of law. Those disregarding the unjust authority are attempting to return to the just rule of law.
Obviously not. But what's your point?
My point is that even if you are right, you will still be convicted and imprisoned. You can be sit in your prison cell and think about how right you are for a long time.
That's not an overthrow of the rule of law
Saying it doesn't make it true. Laws mean nothing if they are merely optional and each person is free to choose whether they feel those laws apply to themselves or not.
My point is that even if you are right, you will still be convicted and imprisoned. You can be sit in your prison cell and think about how right you are for a long time.
Of course. But as with the Declaration of Independence, some of us feel that moral justification for disregarding tyranny is important. I do want to be right when I exercise my liberties to whatever extent I'm able.
Saying it doesn't make it true. Laws mean nothing if they are merely optional and each person is free to choose whether they feel those laws apply to themselves or not.
You are conflating law and legal code. The difference is pertinent to this discussion. Laws mean nothing if they are passed outside the scope of the authority attempting to pass them, at that point they are not law at all, but just legal code meant to imprison you. It's not a matter of subjective opinion. It can be objectively determined if an authority is operating within it's originally granted scope and therefore if it's rulings carry the weight of law and are to be obeyed. Nothing about this is left up to each person to pick and choose separately what they will and will not obey? What is making you think that?
(post is archived)