Re: ed senter - anarchist now?
On Aug 13, 10:33 pm, nat <esen...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In case you're going to try to quibble and say "I still have a LEGALSince malloy recanted his previous silly post,
obligation to obey the law, even if I have a MORAL obligation to obey
my own conscience," two questions:
In your dreams.
1) When the "law" violates your own MORAL OBLIGATION, which one
outranks the other (in other words, which one should YOU obey)?
2) Who has a DUTY/OBLIGATION to disobey the law when he believes it is
__a) only ed senter
malloy, Henry David Thoreau covered all of this 2 centuries ago.
And you learned nothing from it, although to be fair you haven't had
two centuries to think about it.
Why don't you simply answer th question?
There is a difference between a moral obligation and a legal obligation.
Yes. One OUTRANKS the other. Which one, ed?
If you violate the law, you have to be willing to suffer
the consequences. You may have to go to jail.
This brings up a particularly anti-human result of the state-
worshipper's philosophy. Do the murderers, politicians, and rapists
believe in an obligation to obey the “law”? Obviously not, since they
disobey it. They only fear the consequences of getting caught. So only
the generally good (albeit deluded) people really care if something is
“law.” And since the good people would already support justified
defensive force, the only thing the “law” changes is that otherwise
good people then also start to support unjust force.
I sometimes ask, “When the law is wrong, what should happen to those
who disobey it?” The authoritarian tries to avoid answering, at
first. He will say something irrelevant about writing to congress and
changing the law (as if individual citizens could actually change what
congress commands them to do. If the authoritarian respects the law
so much, and congress’ right to create it, why would he disagree with
it enough to want to change it in the first place?). When pressed, he
will say the absurd thing, out of his conditioned belief in the
inherent righteousness of the law. He will say, “They should suffer
the consequences.” That is, they should be put in jail. Instead of
pointing out how idiotic that is, I follow up with, “And what should
happen to those who enforce such a wrong law?” They almost always
So, from the authoritarian’s conditioned response we see in his
philosophy the absurd result that people who do the right thing should
be locked up, and people doing the wrong thing should run free --
which is why that so often happens in politics.
Do you have some moral opposition to certain laws, malloy?
Yes, I do.
Do you want to smoke weed although it is against the law?
No, I don't. I also don't have the RIGHT to break your door down
under the well-founded suspicion that you are on drugs. And I cannot
grant that right to politicians, either. How can I give someone ELSE
the right to break into YOUR home looking for dope if I don't have
that right myself?
Is that really a moral issue?
Yes, it is. What you do to yourself is NONE OF MY BUSINESS. It would
be IMMORAL for me to initiate DEADLY FORCE against you over something
that is NONE OF MY BUSINESS.
Maybe you want to relive the Vietnam War and the subject of dodging
the draft. In hindsight, do you wish you had gone to Canada?
What a marvelous example. The ONLY time I ever killed people was when
I believed in "government." Apparently you WANT me to go back to
doing that. Unless of course it is YOU the "government" is
targeting . . .
Martin Luther King had a real moral issue. He went to jail for it and
was eventually killed.
Great. You just proved anarchy exists. If "government" existed, why
would it put MORAL PEOPLE in jail???
Nonetheless, this new discussion just goes to show how silly your
other claims about "right to rule" really were.
Yeah - sure.