Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Derekristow]

An unlawful government would be one that violates its own notions of rights or responsibilities to the governed,

An unlawful government would be one that violates its own notions of rights or responsibilities to the governed...

Come on, man. Democrats trampled on the rights of their constituents, I don't have to explain why that was unlawful government.

Did you forget to attribute the source of the quote originally?  If not, you just started an argument with yourself.

At any rate, I think a lawful government is best defined as the government the governed think should be in place.  This way you may still have a law you believe is morally incorrect without thinking the system as a whole is wrong.  I think the U.S. Government as a whole is lawful, but I wouldn't agree with the law proposed in the OP.

[Nikov]

An unlawful government would be one that violates its own notions of rights or responsibilities to the governed,

An unlawful government would be one that violates its own notions of rights or responsibilities to the governed...

Come on, man. Democrats trampled on the rights of their constituents, I don't have to explain why that was unlawful government.

Did you forget to attribute the source of the quote originally?  If not, you just started an argument with yourself.

At any rate, I think a lawful government is best defined as the government the governed think should be in place.  This way you may still have a law you believe is morally incorrect without thinking the system as a whole is wrong.  I think the U.S. Government as a whole is lawful, but I wouldn't agree with the law proposed in the OP.

On the contrary, when DJ implied that in my view it would be immoral to defy Jim Crow segregation, I clarified by quoting myself where I explained how it was not a moral imperitive to obey a government that trampled on the rights of the governed, using the example DJ made (Jim Crow) and defining who was supporting Jim Crow in the south so this didn't become another lolredneck discussion.

[Derekristow]

Ah.  Sorry about that, got confused.

[Nikov]

Yeah, if you had been skimming the posts you probably would miss DJ's, which is itself why I'm talking about Jim Crow and Democrats in the first place. I don't launch into those sorts of things entirely unprompted.

[DJ]

Well, it doesn't have to be anything as drastic as racial segregation, it's just the first example that came to mind.

A lesser example would be the marijuana prohibition. There's no victims in the "crime" of sale and consumption of marijuana, it's just the government being a bunch of patronizing bastards and forbidding us to do things "for our own good". Unlike the government, I believe that freedom is more important than child-proofing the world, so any such limitations to my freedom is a form of government oppression. The only time when my freedom should be limited is when I start infringing upon the freedom of others (and no, offending someone's moral/religious sensibilities doesn't cut it). So, when I light a joint, I'm not just doing it for the sake of getting high, I am also purposefully defying the laws to do my part in overwhelming the system and forcing the government to reconsider it's laws. This is textbook civil disobedience. But just because I don't agree with some of the laws doesn't mean that I think that the government as a whole is unlawful.

[smigenboger]

I think you would have to tell others about your smoking habits, and pressure the government without incriminating yourself for that to help.

[DJ]

No, it helps. Like I said, the idea is to overwhelm the system with sheer volume of marijuana being smoked and trafficked. Sure, I don't mean much alone, but every bit counts.

[Earthquake Damage]

So, when I light a joint, I'm not just doing it for the sake of getting high, I am also purposefully defying the laws to do my part in overwhelming the system and forcing the government to reconsider it's laws. This is textbook civil disobedience. But just because I don't agree with some of the laws doesn't mean that I think that the government as a whole is unlawful.

You were doing alright 'til you added this to your post.  This looks like a flimsy justification at best.

[smigenboger]

No, it helps. Like I said, the idea is to overwhelm the system with sheer volume of marijuana being smoked and trafficked. Sure, I don't mean much alone, but every bit counts.

If not handled well, it could be construed to requiring higher countermeasures, like mandatory sentences.
Perhaps rallies would be a good way to demonstrate the point. I'd doubt there'd be any violence in a cannabis rally.
(Here at Bay12 we takes concepts literally, for some reason.)

[Derekristow]

With segregation and any other form of discrimination in the U.S. there was a group of people that didn't think the government then in place was correct/following its own laws, therefore it was fine to openly disobey the government in the interest of change.  Matters like various kinds of prohibition don't violate the Constitution so directly, meaning less drastic routes should be taken.

Edit: For clarification, the first case is an attempt to change the definition of "The People", while the second case is kind-of sort-of a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

[DJ]

I'm not saying I smoke pot purely for political purposes, it's just an added bonus.

And protests don't mean much if they're not backed by reality. Alcohol prohibition didn't end because people were protesting against it, it ended because everyone was obtaining alcohol illegally which allowed organized crime to grow to ridiculous measures. In the end the government just had to face the reality and accept that legalized alcohol is the lesser "evil".

[Realmfighter]

What.

Reality is what ever the majority say it is, and if there are protests that is a good sign of a majority rising.

[Nikov]

So you're speeding in protest of the speed limit until they remove it, is that it?

[DJ]

The majority says whatever the media say.

To go back to the segregation example, it didn't end because majority of Americans were against segregation to begin with, it was the civil disobedience of brave individuals that got the America to start thinking and realize things need to change.

I'm not pretending that marijuana is a big issue like segregation, don't get my wrong. But if people see that I'm not such a bad fellow even though I smoke pot, they may start thinking whether pot is as bad as the government paints it.

And yeah, speeding for sake of removing the speed limit is a good comparison, Nikov. Except most likely it won't catch on, and I'll just end up losing my license. But there's nothing wrong with that, some protests are just meant to fail.

[G-Flex]

And yeah, speeding for sake of removing the speed limit is a good comparison, Nikov. Except most likely it won't catch on, and I'll just end up losing my license. But there's nothing wrong with that, some protests are just meant to fail.

Actually, yes, speeding for the sake of removing the speed limit is a really boneheaded comparison, because that's the sort of "protest" that actually endangers people.