Ignoring or having indifference to written laws and law enforcement?

I understand the need for laws within any society and the need to uphold them; however my question is that once laws become completely burdensome and restrictive to the population and enforced with officials who themselves justify breaking laws in order to uphold the law, is it justifiable for the citizens to thumb their nose at the laws and those who enforce them (Police, courts etc)?

People who don’t respect laws or abide by them but rather follow what they believe internally to be their own definition of “right” and “Wrong”, are these people any more dangerous than the law enforcement officials that justify their illegal means to uphold laws and their actions?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The first thing that you have to understand or grasp is that the law is NOT the corrupt people who might be abusing it. The law is something that should be completely non-bias, non-prejudicial, etc. A few corrupt officials acting outside of the laws does NOT represent the law ...they're criminals!

Thumb their noses at the laws? No, never - once a society has transformed itself into a society of laws, ignoring those same laws is criminal behavior (and that goes for the officials as well as citizens).

You're trying to quantify criminal behavior? Which is worse? They're both bad, why bother with making it a contest?

People who make and uphold their own law are called vigilantes, or worse, mobs. Muslim extremists come quickly to mind as present-day examples of vigilantes and/or mob rule.

That neighbor's party is too loud for me ....so I'll load up my guns and kill 'em all. That should lessen the noise so I can read in peace. No problem-o, right?

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"The law is for the guidance of wise men, and the instruction of fools"
But I can't remember who said it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of course there is a need for law. However, the government monopolizes law and violently forces people to obey ITS law.

In an anarchist society, laws would arise from voluntary association of free individuals.

Absolutely. It's a monopoly.

People want the biggest aggressor, the biggest murderer, the biggest thief of all (the government) to protect them from assault, to protect their lives, and to protect their property. It's rather idiotic.

The government initiates aggression (against foreign and domestic)
The government commits genocides and starts wars
The government steals (eminent domain and taxation)
The government enslaves (the draft)


People like George W. Bush, who should be charged with mass murder and justly given the death penalty, are instead allowed to go free; why?

Because the police are too busy giving you a ticket for having vegetation in your pocket or going a mile over the speed limit to go after mass murderers.

Nope.

 

What if that law is that you have to turn in your guns even against guarantees of the 2nd Amendment that says the people have the right to have and bear arms without this guarantee being infringed, then some stupid law is passed that says in a time of emergency or martial law this is alright?
Would that be a god law and one you would listen to and abide by?

Well if you asked them nicely twice and explained you had a baby sleeping then warned them that things might get out of hand. If the authorities did nothing then yea I would say cap their asses if all other avenues were exhausted without a reasonable resolution.

It wasn’t me; does that help narrow it down?

 

Here’s an argument,

Remember John Gotti the Mobster? In order to “Get” him the government gave amnesty to “Sammy the Bull”, yet Sammy boy had killed or participated in numerous murders that could easily classify him as a serial killer, yet they gave him immunity in exchange for his testimony in double cross scheme that they (The Government) set up.


Not only did the government lie and use trickery, they gave a serial killer a free pass and government protection in the form of relocation in the witness protection program. And yet the same government makes a 14 year old girl register as a sex offender for taking nude pictures of herself and charging her with production and distribution of child pornography for and sending those pictures to a friend.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29912729/

 

aint the same govt, pal
individual mindsets, customs, local jurisdictions, whatnot; have to be factored in

 

you!!

 

Oh sex registries and such laws are not federally mandated? Hmmm

 

alright
aint exactly the same govt

 

Well they still operate the same, but we are splitting hairs

 

Those who make the laws are often making them to protect themselves so they can get away with what they want. They even make "loopholes" in laws so they can get a good lawyer to set them free of any wrong doings.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Quite a way off-subject, but the Algerian writer Franz Fanon said that the most efficient revolutionaries are the criminal class--they've got no morality, no fear of violence (either using or having it used against them, because they're so used to it)--and no respect for authority.

 

the prospect of a never ending cycle is not appealing. it isnt even normal.

 

Damn it! I just bought fresh ammo.

 

Oh I see what you mean, the individual shouldn’t complain because giving up his gun is for the greater good of society so others aren’t shooting each other and this is the overall reason, not the individual’s rights is acceptable.

I guess Hitler had this same thinking in Germany that killing Jews in the gas chambers was for the greater good of the society although the individual Jews were probably arguing the point of individual rights but this was a mute point since after all it was for the greater good or the German Society.

Ok I see now

 

You missed the whole point of my post, didn't you?? ...LOL!

It's a matter of perspective, that's all. Laws are basically for the society as a whole ....and many of those same laws are actually infringements on individual freedoms. Perspective, that's all.

Whine and complain all you want about whatever you want, but you should at least understand the principles of what you're complaining about.

Baron Max

 

Well I guess I could have missed the point as I am not the sharpest tool in the tool box but you seem to dance around the issue as well IMHO. Maybe we are taking about two different things.

Ok police officers who break the law in order to uphold law is an issue of its own. Back to the laws that become so burdensome and restrictive or ethically wrong, the indifference to them and the authorities that try to enforce them by the people who think this way about the laws.

Would it be wrong if the President issues an order that you had to surrender your guns for the greater good of the country to make it safer, or leave your house because the government felt your neighborhood was better used for a staging area or new military base but didn’t leave you an option but you don’t want to sell and when you refused to leave they demolish your home and then you have to fight to get any money for them if they pay at all.

If I am still missing the point please explain

 

But the President of the USA can't issue such an order! And that's just exactly the point that you seem to be missing. The pres is NOT a king or dictator, he can't just issue any fuckin' law he wants ....there are laws against him doing just that.

Laws are enacted in US society by following legal procedures that have been laid out in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Baron Max