The harm never existed. They were never valid laws. What was considered is irrelevant.
It is still a violation of the law.
The law is against murder. Murder is unjust killing. Self-defense is not unjust killing. Ergo self-defense is not murder. Ergo self-defense is not a violation of the law. Self-defense is not an "exception" to the law against murder, it is simply not-murder, the same way drinking a soda is not-murder.
Do you really believe that we should blindly follow the law till the Govt decides to change it despite the financial powers that do not wish such reforms?
No, but you seem to be willfully ignoring what I am saying, so I don't see the point in repeating myself again.
Benign doesn't mean "it happens a lot" it means "there is no harm." If you can't see the harm in sloshing excrement in public places, in walking infront of traffic who may not see or expect you, or in casual violence, then I don't have the energy to continue a discussion with you.
laws are written by religious zealots or those with a monetary interest
Those are invalid laws because they do not guard against a valid harm. Please read what I' saying before you decide to argue an unrelated point against me.
In this specific case the margin of error on a speedometer could very well be 1 MPH or more.
Now you're arguing whether you actually broke the law or not. Or are you arguing that you broke the law out of carelessness? In either case I do not see why it's meaningful: you are a danger.
You're apparently incapable of seeing a law as being anything other than what it is intended to do.
You are misinterpretting me. A law is invalid unless it protects against a real harm. If a speed limit, for instance, is set at 25mph not because 26mph is dangerous but because the city needs more money, that (25mph on this road) is an invalid law and should be rectified. But it is not rectified by ignoring it.
No. I am saying that the answer to invalid laws is the judicial mechanism, not simply ignoring the laws. I feel I've said that a half-dozen times now.
The danger of a thing is either real or not. If it is real, and law against it is valid. If it is not real, and law against it is invalid. The validity of a law has nothing to do with the assertions of lawmakers and everything to do with the basic facts of the validity of the danger.
But in order to prevent anarchy and utter lawlessness, you can not simply violate the laws and call it benign. that erodes confidence in valid laws and the whole of the governmental mechanism. This is WHY, in great part, we have the courts. If a law is invalid because there is no harm the courts will identify this and it will be corrected. But the notion of "benign" violation short-circuits that, to our ruin.
As I've said before: there either is danger or there is not. It is a basic fact. If there is not danger, regardless of what is proposed by the lawmakers at the time of the laws passage, then it is an invalid law. And invalid laws are overturned by the judicial mechanism.
I feel like I'm repeating myself, but I assume it's merely because my words are ineffective rather than a failure of your intellect. The correct response to an invalid law is to let the mechanism of government correct itself; simply violating the law erodes the respect of valid laws, does nothing to correct deficient laws, and leads to anarchy.
And your solution is better? Violating a law because it's "dumb" produces no judicial mechanism to rectify the invalid law. Instead everyone everywhere merely dismisses the law. This erodes the rule of law and the respect for valid laws. What makes a law dumb? Who decides? The individual! Whatever the individual feels is his right, or should be his right, determines which laws he disregards. He defines benign by hiw own whims, not based on the harms involved. The judicial mechanism may cost time and money but the same can be said of all things which constitute civilization. The alternative is anarchy.
Laws against homosexuality were always invalid, unless you can show to me the harm they're intended to prevent? I submit that no such harm exists now nor ever did exist, and any proposed harm is not true harm. Do you dispute it?
Killing in self-defense is not murder. If you commit such a killing an investigation and prosecution will commence not because you're a murderer but to establish the facts of the case so that murder can not masquerade as self-defense. Do you dispute it?
Copyright as we currently concieve of t is an invalid law: what harm does it prevent? By virtue of the fact that it would, if enforced, negate it's own proposed purpose - to promote progress in the useful arts - it should be plain for all to see that it is invalid. Do you dispute it?
What you cite are invalid laws that were invalid from the beginning; the solution to invalid laws can not be violation but prosecution and judicial overturn, as intended by the Constitution. Merely violating laws that are "dumb" erodes the rule of law and the respect of valid laws. To repeat myself from above:
Laws are either valid or invalid. Their validity is based on the harm which they are intended to prevent; their effectiveness is based on how well they prevent that law. If a law is invalid then it should not be a law, and the courts were put in place to identify and rectify this situation. If it is merely ineffective then a better law should replace it, should a better law exist. In the absense of a better law a valid but ineffective law is better than no law at all.
In any case there is no such thing as a benign violation of the law. Violation of an invalid law, and the resulting justicial mechanism, is what protects us from the fallibility and corruption you cite. Violation of a valid law is, obviously, not benign.
Laws are either valid or invalid. Their validity is based on the harm which they are intended to prevent; their effectiveness is based on how well they prevent that law. If a law is invalid then it should not be a law, and the courts were put in place to identify and rectify this situation. If it is merely ineffective then a better law should replace it, should a better law exist. In the absense of a better law a valid but ineffective law is better than no law at all.
In any case there is no such thing as a benign violation of the law. Violation of an invalid law, and the resulting justicial mechanism, is what protects us from the fallibility and corruption you cite. Violation of a valid law is, obviously, not benign.
You're trying to argue that it's OK to break the law if you just break it *a little bit*, and that can't be a reasonable argument. If +1mph is ok, what about +2mph? If +2, why not +3? If you think +3mph is the point where it's no longer benign, shouldn't that be the legal limit? But once we 'reset' the law to what you consider reasonable, we're back to the +1mph question. Surely +1mph can't be bad, right?
Why is there a speed limit? Because at some point the conditions of the road and the realities of human capabilities (senses, reaction time, etc) make excessive speed dangerous. If the law says that the point where speed becomes dangerous is 36mph then yes, +1mph is not benign, by definition.
On the post: Yes, You've Got Something To Hide
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Yes, You've Got Something To Hide
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The harm never existed. They were never valid laws. What was considered is irrelevant.
It is still a violation of the law.
The law is against murder. Murder is unjust killing. Self-defense is not unjust killing. Ergo self-defense is not murder. Ergo self-defense is not a violation of the law. Self-defense is not an "exception" to the law against murder, it is simply not-murder, the same way drinking a soda is not-murder.
Do you really believe that we should blindly follow the law till the Govt decides to change it despite the financial powers that do not wish such reforms?
No, but you seem to be willfully ignoring what I am saying, so I don't see the point in repeating myself again.
On the post: Yes, You've Got Something To Hide
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Yes, You've Got Something To Hide
Re: Re: Re:
Those are invalid laws because they do not guard against a valid harm. Please read what I' saying before you decide to argue an unrelated point against me.
On the post: Yes, You've Got Something To Hide
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now you're arguing whether you actually broke the law or not. Or are you arguing that you broke the law out of carelessness? In either case I do not see why it's meaningful: you are a danger.
You're apparently incapable of seeing a law as being anything other than what it is intended to do.
You are misinterpretting me. A law is invalid unless it protects against a real harm. If a speed limit, for instance, is set at 25mph not because 26mph is dangerous but because the city needs more money, that (25mph on this road) is an invalid law and should be rectified. But it is not rectified by ignoring it.
On the post: Yes, You've Got Something To Hide
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The danger of a thing is either real or not. If it is real, and law against it is valid. If it is not real, and law against it is invalid. The validity of a law has nothing to do with the assertions of lawmakers and everything to do with the basic facts of the validity of the danger.
But in order to prevent anarchy and utter lawlessness, you can not simply violate the laws and call it benign. that erodes confidence in valid laws and the whole of the governmental mechanism. This is WHY, in great part, we have the courts. If a law is invalid because there is no harm the courts will identify this and it will be corrected. But the notion of "benign" violation short-circuits that, to our ruin.
On the post: Yes, You've Got Something To Hide
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I feel like I'm repeating myself, but I assume it's merely because my words are ineffective rather than a failure of your intellect. The correct response to an invalid law is to let the mechanism of government correct itself; simply violating the law erodes the respect of valid laws, does nothing to correct deficient laws, and leads to anarchy.
On the post: Yes, You've Got Something To Hide
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Yes, You've Got Something To Hide
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Killing in self-defense is not murder. If you commit such a killing an investigation and prosecution will commence not because you're a murderer but to establish the facts of the case so that murder can not masquerade as self-defense. Do you dispute it?
Copyright as we currently concieve of t is an invalid law: what harm does it prevent? By virtue of the fact that it would, if enforced, negate it's own proposed purpose - to promote progress in the useful arts - it should be plain for all to see that it is invalid. Do you dispute it?
There is no benign violation of the law.
On the post: Yes, You've Got Something To Hide
Re: Re: Re:
Laws are either valid or invalid. Their validity is based on the harm which they are intended to prevent; their effectiveness is based on how well they prevent that law. If a law is invalid then it should not be a law, and the courts were put in place to identify and rectify this situation. If it is merely ineffective then a better law should replace it, should a better law exist. In the absense of a better law a valid but ineffective law is better than no law at all.
In any case there is no such thing as a benign violation of the law. Violation of an invalid law, and the resulting justicial mechanism, is what protects us from the fallibility and corruption you cite. Violation of a valid law is, obviously, not benign.
On the post: Yes, You've Got Something To Hide
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I agree: the law declares them to be dangerous because they are, in fact, dangerous. You are arguing nonsense if you reverse that flow.
On the post: Yes, You've Got Something To Hide
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Yes, You've Got Something To Hide
Re: Re: Re:
In any case there is no such thing as a benign violation of the law. Violation of an invalid law, and the resulting justicial mechanism, is what protects us from the fallibility and corruption you cite. Violation of a valid law is, obviously, not benign.
On the post: Yes, You've Got Something To Hide
Re: Re: Re:
Why is there a speed limit? Because at some point the conditions of the road and the realities of human capabilities (senses, reaction time, etc) make excessive speed dangerous. If the law says that the point where speed becomes dangerous is 36mph then yes, +1mph is not benign, by definition.
On the post: Yes, You've Got Something To Hide
Re:
Next >>