Is it okay to break a law just because you disagree with it?

[Kata]

It's all about Walden (if anyone ever had the guts to attempt reading it) if you don't agree with a law you must practice "peacefull disobediance." I say we march on washington that's who all the other opressed people got their unjust laws lifted.

Despite how well it works in anime, in the real world violence is not the anwser, it's just adding more fuel to the fire..

[Newtyped]

lol wut does peace get?
if i was peaceful, i would hav no trouble with the law

[Kata]

Originally Posted by Newtyped

lol wut does peace get?
if i was peaceful, i would hav no trouble with the law

Trust me getting in troube with the law without violence is much easier than you think, you just don't drive yet.

[Newtyped]

i never got in trouble for sumthin non violent =/
except that porn in my manga b4 lol
but it was part of the story ^^;;

[AnimeFangirl]

Originally Posted by Newtyped

(9th, i'm in high school)
I go to school in the u.s, since it says i live in CT (the poor area , poor as in i cant even afford to go to college so wuts the point. i dont know any1 that went anyways)

Shouldn't be that big a problem if your grades are good enough. However you seem to have given up already - at only 14 too, what a shame - so I'll leave you to your devices.

[Newtyped]

Originally Posted by Dorfl

Shouldn't be that big a problem if your grades are good enough. However you seem to have given up already - at only 14 too, what a shame - so I'll leave you to your devices.

i got str8 fs last marking period
its caus i had iss for 3 weeks, and i wasnt in class very often
i dont even bother to do work anymore
its a fucking waste of time

[Kata]

I might sound stuck up here, but if I were you I'd do my best to get an education and move out of you area and make a name for youself. There is always the GED approach.

Originally Posted by Newtyped

i got str8 fs last marking period
its caus i had iss for 3 weeks, and i wasnt in class very often
i dont even bother to do work anymore
its a fucking waste of time

[Newtyped]

ged?
wuts that mean

[AnimeFangirl]

Originally Posted by Newtyped

i dont even bother to do work anymore
its a fucking waste of time

Well that's all good and nice, but what DO you want to do, then? Where do you see yourself 10 years from now and how do you plan to get there? Just think about that and then think of everything else in terms of whether it will help you achieve that goal or not. If you think you don't need a college education that's fine, but I wager you at least need to graduate from high school.

In any case I'm not your counsellor or anything, so let's get back on topic. What was it again...?

[Shay]

Ok a little off-topic here but I just have to tell you guys this.

In the city of Chester, England, it is legal to shoot a Welsh man with a Crossbow after Midnight. No lie. A crazy law from the old times that has not been changed to this day!

[Kata]

Originally Posted by Newtyped

ged?
wuts that mean

It stands for . . .General Edeucation Dyploma (I'm probably wrong) I call the the "Good Enough Dyploma." It is slightly less valuable thena highschool dyploma but has practically all the perks, other than being able to get you into a unviersity. It's for people who fail highschool or drop out. You take a few short courses, get youd G.E.D and you're off to technical school to learn a trade like mechanic of Hvac Specialist. A few of my firnds did it, I'm a bit shady on the subject.

[Kata]

I think breaking the law is ok if you don't belive in it, as long as it fall into the societies moral guidelines.

So yeah back to the original question of this thread scenario 2 is worse, and I'd still be diriving 60.

[Inuzuka]

Laws were created to appeal to people the fact that they have to take responsibility for their actions. Usually, laws which are objected to would tend to range from ridiculous speed limits to more serious cases in which the manipulation of the judicial system is used in order to exploit laws for political or economic gain. With regards to the latter, one would have to argue if these laws are truly detrimental or not and if not, should they still be broken? In such cases, perhaps the breaking of the law is more justified, but on the other hand, though this is a representation of a failing of human morality, isn’t breaking them because you object to them the same thing? Essentially, the answer to the main question posed in this thread all depends on the moral incentives of the person who’s making the decision of if he should, or shouldn’t, break a law because he or she disagrees with it. However I feel that yes, even if the law in question does not cause harm to people, they should be objected to because what they represent is an essential failing in morality with regards to the government which, in itself, is contradicting the very ideological concept of making up laws in the first place, that being putting in place a set of morally-ideal behavior for people to adhere to.

Originally Posted by Asphyxiate

However I believe that even if the laws in place were not for the greater good, they should still be respected until they are changed. I think the main idea that I'm trying to say is, if you disregard one law, will you not try to apply the same thought to yet another? And this will result in a chain reaction.

It's not that I'm against civil disobedience, I just believe you must accept the responsibilities. We as a whole need a reality check I think, rather then the laws themselves. Every action has a reaction, and people need to understand that, without standardized law there will be chaos. :Upset:

I can understand where you’re coming from, but I cannot help but think that respecting a law which isn’t helpful in the slightest would be immensely impractical. I think that in order for true civil disobedience to take place/be justified, the people must have the right incentives and also realize that they must take responsibility for their actions.

I don’t think that without standardized law there’ll be chaos. But likewise, that can only be the case if people and society as a whole became so morally-conscious that we would render laws obsolete, which of course will never happen because as history has proved on so many occasions, people have a tendency of being bastards.

[Roopoo]

I find it a little scary when I read posts from people with the attitude of newtyped but at 14 I guess we often say things we don't really mean in order to sound cool. Hopefully he or she will grow up and realise the importance of getting a good education and that, at the risk of sounding completely boring, education can be the key to a better future.

Anyway, back to the original post. Yesterday a doctor in the British army was sent to prison and fined BP20,000 for refusing to go to Iraq. His justification was that the war on Iraq was illegal. At first I thought maybe he was a bit nervous about going but then read that he had already served twice in Iraq so it couldn't have been that. He had moral principles that he wanted to uphold and look what happened to him.

With regard to the speed limit. Sure I do drive above the speed limit, just a bit. But then again the cause of many accidents is put down to speeding. So should we break the law with regard to speed? Probably not but if you drive at the speed limit every other driver gets really pissed off with you and then that can also cause an accident with other drivers trying to overtake you. So if everyone breaks the speed limit, does that make it right? I like to think that laws are there for the benefit of the majority even though I think some are stupid. For example should doctors be allowed to help you to kill yourself? At the moment they would be accused of murder but if the person trying to kill themselves is going to die anyway and just wants out before the pain or situation becomes intolerable shouldn't they be allowed to die with dignity?

I read a story about a woman in the late 19th Century who was brought up by a very moral/religious family. She was never told the "facts of life" and was married off to some old guy. She could not come to terms with the fact that she had to have sex with this guy so she threw herself out the window of the hotel. Unfortunately for her she didn't die. The doctor was given the job of trying to save her life so she could be taken to court and tried for attempted suicide so the authorities could then hang her. How sad.

[Aoie_Emesai]

Originally Posted by Kata

It's all about Walden (if anyone ever had the guts to attempt reading it) if you don't agree with a law you must practice "peacefull disobediance." I say we march on washington that's who all the other opressed people got their unjust laws lifted.

Despite how well it works in anime, in the real world violence is not the anwser, it's just adding more fuel to the fire..

Very true, though anime teaches you some matter of fact, true to life lessons. No one should ever use some of a anime figure as a inspiration.

- Though violence isn't the answer, you read through history right? Peace was always won thru violence, then after the killing and bloodshed there was peace, even if it was for only a little bit.

- I agree with most of ya that. I believe that it's legal to break the law if you " Your entire self, 100% believe that you will no harm anyone."

scenario 1 - there's a 20 mile stretch of roads you're driving on 3am in the early early morning, and the speed limit is 60mph (miles per hour) (sorry i dont know the speed in Kilometers per hour, around 80-90KPH, somewhere around there). You are driving 90mph, the police pulls you over for speeding, you argue that it's 3am and there's no intersections for approx 5 miles and you still pull me over? Well, whether we like it or not, the speed limit is there 24/7/365.

This seems very logical if you breaking the law, but no one can be harmed in any way, except yourself, should you be arrested or fined for something that may/may not harm any other but yourself?

The officer/judge (who ever happens to be alledging you of your crime) may say that they are protecting you from yourself or maybe you from any bystander that will be eventually in the way.

Originally Posted by Inuzuka

Laws were created to appeal to people the fact that they have to take responsibility for their actions. Usually, laws which are objected to would tend to range from ridiculous speed limits to more serious cases in which the manipulation of the judicial system is used in order to exploit laws for political or economic gain. With regards to the latter, one would have to argue if these laws are truly detrimental or not and if not, should they still be broken? In such cases, perhaps the breaking of the law is more justified, but on the other hand, though this is a representation of a failing of human morality, isn’t breaking them because you object to them the same thing? Essentially, the answer to the main question posed in this thread all depends on the moral incentives of the person who’s making the decision of if he should, or shouldn’t, break a law because he or she disagrees with it. However I feel that yes, even if the law in question does not cause harm to people, they should be objected to because what they represent is an essential failing in morality with regards to the government which, in itself, is contradicting the very ideological concept of making up laws in the first place, that being putting in place a set of morally-ideal behavior for people to adhere to.



I can understand where you’re coming from, but I cannot help but think that respecting a law which isn’t helpful in the slightest would be immensely impractical. I think that in order for true civil disobedience to take place/be justified, the people must have the right incentives and also realize that they must take responsibility for their actions.

I don’t think that without standardized law there’ll be chaos. But likewise, that can only be the case if people and society as a whole became so morally-conscious that we would render laws obsolete, which of course will never happen because as history has proved on so many occasions, people have a tendency of being bastards.

I also agree with this. Without regulations, there would be no such a word as peace. Though my thoughts are paradoxical, there's just too many rules and regualtions around to agree with and to obey.

[Radiosity]

Originally Posted by Shay

In the city of Chester, England, it is legal to shoot a Welsh man with a Crossbow after Midnight. No lie. A crazy law from the old times that has not been changed to this day!

The law actually states that no Welshman may be allowed within the city walls after 8pm. Additionally, if a Welshman is found within the city walls after midnight, it's perfectly ok to shoot him in the knees with a crossbow. So it's not legal to kill him, only wound him and - I'd imagine - teach him something of a lesson. Something like 'avoid Chester at all costs'

The sad thing is that with today's law system and the amount of unscrupulous lawyers in the business (I'd say profession but personally I don't consider it as such any more because there's little professionalism left and it's mostly about the money) it's entirely likely you could shoot a Welshman and kill him with using a crossbow, with no real consequences. There are that many stupid laws and of course stupid loopholes in the law that it's basically possible to do anything you want and get away with it, as long as you can pay for a bent enough lawyer.

[Diaboso]

Befor any of this we should all grab a book of laws and go to law school.........or not

But I think that some laws are made becase there are a baise for respect and ricousness, like no steeling, no killing, no abuse, etc.

But some laws are just bull to protcet those that fall in the reqirement or are the only ones who care.

so if a law dosent hurt the well being of a person over all (like O no I am a millionaire but that kid didn't buy my CD for 15$ he burnt it from his freind lest throw him in jail!) its not to bad to break.

mostly laws are there to protect the rich and bairly keep the normal people from geting steped ALLOVER.

all so if you break a law thats being abused or no used corectly or is againt worldly standers of well being, then grab your torch and pitch frok and lets go!

[Yotsuba]

Originally Posted by Newtyped

i am 14
I know how to read
i dont think i need anymore learning
by now its just borin crap
and i said fight, not shooting =/
though i say if theres evidence sum1 was provoking u, and u shot them u shouldnt get in trouble.

it's pretty obvious that you don't know how to read, or the basics of grammar.
whatever schooling you're getting, it's not doing much good, truthfully.

and once you're 16, nothing is stopping you from dropping out.


to get back on topic, i really think it depends on the law. i used to smoke before it was legal for me to, etc.

[Nightbat®]

I'm a notorious speedlimit offender
I'm equal to a 'potential murderer' according to the leaders of the current witchhunt on speeders


I cannot see any justification in punishing speeding on an empty highway
if an area is known for accidents and they set up speedtraps there, ok! I'll accept that
problem is,.... speedtraps are nowhere to be found there, only where it's easy pickings
long open freeways with low traffic, where the streets are litterally paved with gold
with lame excuses like sound, enviroment and safety ...puh-lease

Oh, and you know how the get ya?
Obscured by bushes or other elements in the scenery like some goddamn group
of medival bandits.
...difference is they don't take your money at gunpoint and get away with it
they take a picture, get away with it, and 6 weeks later there's a bill on you doormat
"White collor Criminals" indeed


The "againsts"

"But you could get yourself killed!"
Uh-huh, I could also get stabbed by some kid with an attitude who I offended because
I accidently bumped into him

"You could end up paralyzed"
Ahhh, a real burden for society!
Now my taxmoney that had to go to alcoholics, junkies, psychos, lazy*** overpaid
bureaucrats and politicians not to mention those medival bandits with their fat
*** sitting in a car taking pictures like 2 dirty old men ....has to be spent on me me!

"You could kill someone else!"
I ride a motorcycle, no pedestrians on the highway, every car on the road is a
potential killer for me, not the other way around
and unless someone is going 30 on the left lane where they should be doing
100 on the right, chances of me rearending them with 270km/h are slim to none


Vehicles: Affectionatly "the holy cow of the west" and they're milking it for all it's worth

Signing off: Holland's most wanted

[Aoie_Emesai]

Originally Posted by Diaboso

Befor any of this we should all grab a book of laws and go to law school.........or not

But I think that some laws are made becase there are a baise for respect and ricousness, like no steeling, no killing, no abuse, etc.

But some laws are just bull to protcet those that fall in the reqirement or are the only ones who care.

so if a law dosent hurt the well being of a person over all (like O no I am a millionaire but that kid didn't buy my CD for 15$ he burnt it from his freind lest throw him in jail!) its not to bad to break.

mostly laws are there to protect the rich and bairly keep the normal people from geting steped ALLOVER.

all so if you break a law thats being abused or no used corectly or is againt worldly standers of well being, then grab your torch and pitch frok and lets go!

You're very correct. Let's say if everyone had a degree in law(criminal justice to be to specific), when you are charaged with a crime, you can proably get off with a very meager punishment, which mean your fine would be lessen a lot. Since you understand the law and can argue/debate against it very well, and describe the very specific details about the law. In court this is consider "Ultra Specific" reasoning of the law, but is never really required since we are only talking about minor offences.

The law can be more clearly understood if you understand the basis of it, what it's suppose to do and why it's there. If you can prove for a certainly fact that it's not necessary, then your statement should be valid.