SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: TimF who wrote (45247)2/24/2006 11:03:17 AM
From: Solon  Read Replies (1) of 90947
 
Society is knit together by rules and regulations. To the extent that these rules are disregarded, that structure is thereby undermined--or attacked, if you prefer. You can say over and over again that breaking rules does not break rules but it is really a ridiculous argument and a tiresome one.

"Another, less common justification is similar to "the divine right of kings"

Government of, for, and by the people has nothing to do with the Divine Right of Kings. The point of obeying laws is simply this: Laws do not make a lawful society in and of themselves. Adherence to laws and accountability for the disobedience of laws is what makes a society lawful. When you are contemptuous of laws, you contribute to lawlessness. You undermine the lawfulness of your society. Whether you are attacking a good law or a bad law is beside the point of our discussion. By placing yourself above the law (or above any particular law) you insult those of us whom desire to maintain a lawful society based on laws and the voluntary adherence to right principles of conduct as standardized in law.

Here is an example: the other day, I wanted to turn right on a street and I was consequently in the right lane. This right lane was a "right lane MUST turn right" lane. The jerk in front of me decided that he was going to go straight. Therefore, he sat through the right turn arrow and held up approximately 20 vehicles behind him for several minutes. I think he was an inconsiderate and immoral ass. MORAL: "conforming to a standard of right behavior". If you disagree with me, then you disagree with a lot of people.

Laws are standards of right behavior as legitimately codified through the democratic process. When you violate these standards of right behavior you are (by definition) acting immorally.

Now, there are laws that I break as a matter of personal safety. The seatbelt law is one of them. But I recognize that in the eyes of society I am indeed attacking the lawful structure of that society. My society has determined that wearing a seatbelt is a standard of right behaviour. Therefore, from that perspective I am both a lawbreaker and I am immoral to a degree.

Your assertion that you are not party to the agreements made by your representatives to govern social interaction is absurd. The law DOES hold you accountable for agreements entered into on your behalf. You cannot argue that the laws do not apply to you because you did not personally sign them into being. That is ridiculous. You ARE obligated by the law regardless that you did not personally write the law.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News