Teaching respect for the law

[Charles Anthony]

The state teaches law, not morality.

No. The state imposes law.

THEFT - The myth of Robin Hood, (a.k.a. stealing from the rich to give to the poor) is widely accepted by socialists the world over. May Day was yersterday, and already, we have forgotten Mr. Chavez.

Everybody gets Robin Hood confused.

He was not stealing from the rich. He was reclaiming taxes -- in other words, money stolen by the king from the citizens.

Bottom line, if these elements were all morally wrong, and we are dictated by our morality, than why do these things occur?

-- the reason why they occur is irrelevent. Are you suggesting that a democratic State is the only just solution to the ills of the world? I think not.

This is beyond me. Totally beyond me. So can I use this principal to justify robbing kids at my university because the gains I will incur will be used towards my university tuition (perhaps resulting in my curing cancer), rather than money to be spent on their purchase of premium leather seats of their BMW's? Or maybe I can't rob you, but I can rob your parents.

Beyond you? You brought up despicable Coase Theorem to justify state law.

I do not think you understood that ExPLOItEd was explaining that theft is wrong under all circumstances. Your Coase Theorem does not say that.

Charles, before I read that, and don't worry, Hugo j'en connais bien,

Ca signifie quoi? A part de leur ecritures, moi, je ne connais personne ici.

Neanmoins, je ne vous demande pas d'echange avec lui. Vous m'aviez demande d'expliquer ma philosophie qui est clairement anarchiste et ca ne me gene pas. Parcontre, ma foi et mes croyances ne sont pas uniques je le jure. Donc, out of respect to the focus of this particular thread, further discussion of my personal thoughts should not continue here -- that would be thread drift or hijacking and I like this Opening Premis of this thread because it is a very difficult subject.

but could you be so kind as to respond to those three specifics I laid out? Just in a sentance or two.

I have already done so at the end of Hugo's thread.

[marcinmoka]

reason why they occur is irrelevent.

Why?

Are you suggesting that a democratic State is the only just solution to the ills of the world

Do you have any others? What in your view would be more practicable? Survival of those with the biggest guns? (To which someone will respond that the police have guns, so therefore they rule, and they do, but they rule for US and not THEMSELVES). I do not think Columbia or sub-saharan Africa are something we should model ourselves upon.

The government is responsible for the greater good, and judicial system for the individual. It's a self regulating system which attains a sense of equilibrium if everything works correctly.

I have a feeling you are just going to bow out of debate like Ms. Royal, asking more questions without answering a single one.

No. The state imposes law.

No. The state teaches, through various organs. If they just "imposed" the law, than our learning curve would be trial and error. No one is going to sell "crack" and excuse their actions by saying they didn't know it was illegal.

P.S. I do retract that previous statement directed towards ExPLOItEd.

[marcinmoka]

QUOTE(marcinmoka @ May 2 2007, 10:04 AM) *

- If you choose to say, sell explosives or RPG's out of the back of your car to the higgest bidder, and the state intervenes in your commercial transactions, is that wrong?

It depends where the transaction occurs.

If it occurs on my property, it is a violation of my freedom.

And this I am afraid to say that this is a dangerous mentality, and one which is a legitimate threat to society, and should be dealt with. RPG's are not commodities like frying pans, or jeans. While some groups may be outrages at low cut jeans, RPG's will no doubt add exponentially to public instability and unrest (i.e. the chaos we refered to earlier).

I do not own the "victim" in this circumstance

Is there any circumstance in which you do own the victim?

I always claim we do not need government.

And if our nation is attacked by a hostile force? Some would no doubt contribute to a private army, but others would not. What would be the the plan of contingency.

[sharkman]

Haven't you seen kids in the store insisting that they get such and such a toy or seen what goes on their christmas lists?

Yes. However, a television set has never turned itself off nor told me I am watching too much junk nor kicked me in the ass nor sent me to bed without my supper nor bought me any junk for Christmas.

But pop culture has taught kids that smoking is still cool, drugs and beer is cool, your parents are to be ignored, and you are a total loser if you haven't had sex by the time you are 14. Abortions anyone?

The children might like to hang around their parents when they are five, but by the time they are 12, mom and dad are something to be avoided. This all depends, of course, on how much pop culture your kids consume every day.

Another example from my wife, the high school teacher. Her observations of teaching 13 to 18 year olds are as follows: Canadian born kids do not do their home work, get lousy grades, have a higher incidence of cheating, skipping class and being disrespectful of other students. ESL kids far outperform Canadian kids in every single category. It is because they come from a culture where the family unit is still respected and western pop culture hasn't saturated their brains. After they grow up and have kids, however, the second generation kids start underperforming just like everyone else.

You are underestimating the negative influence our culture has on our kids. The classroom proves it.

[Charles Anthony]

But pop culture has taught kids that smoking is still cool, drugs and beer is cool, your parents are to be ignored, and you are a total loser if you haven't had sex by the time you are 14. Abortions anyone?

The children might like to hang around their parents when they are five, but by the time they are 12, mom and dad are something to be avoided. This all depends, of course, on how much pop culture your kids consume every day.

Given our current State of affairs, what do you think should be done about that -- if anything?

I have a feeling you are just going to bow out of debate like Ms. Royal, asking more questions without answering a single one.

No, I am going to refuse to answer your questions in this thread. I genuinely like the Opening Premise of this thread and your line of discussion is thread-drift.

If you do not like my invitation to pursue this discussion elsewhere, here are some other suggestions:

Justification of a Coercive Government

Do we Ask the Government for Too Much? -- Misplaced Expectations

Is government necessary? -- Would society be better without it?

or start your own thread.

[GostHacked]

Charles, do you think that pop culture, TV movies and video games, have no influence on kids compared to their parents? That's what you appear to believe, although you don't directly address it.

Children spend hours a day absorbed in these mediums, which BTW also teach that parents are not cool. Kids to not spend nearly as much time with their parents. I believe the winner of influence is the one the child is immersed in more.

How a parent scolds a child and treats otherr children is a factor, but if the child spends 3 hours a day immersed in pop culture and 1 hour a day with their parents, which will have more influence on the child?

Just another factor in BAD PARENTING. If the parent sees nothing wrong with this, then they are to blame more than society. Your parents are your lifeline to the world for a good deal of your life. Pick up that spare controller and play the game with your child. Ask questiions, get involved. interact with your child. Don't fail your child by not knowing what is going on in their lives. You are the one to provide shelter food, education and entertainment.

Stop blaming everyone else and start being a parent.

[sharkman]

Charles, to answer your question what should be done, I beg to differ with Gost, although he may have a point with bad parenting.

But our culture has devalued the family and traditional values like honesty is the best policy. Most families these days have to have both parents working, at least in the bigger urban centers where most of Canadians live. Children spend increasingly less time with the wonderful people who brought them into the world and love them above all else.

And I don't believe it can be reversed. Whatever the outcome, we are headed there at break neck speed. Those whose top priority is their kids and not money may move to smaller communities where the culture is less prevalent and you can still have mom at home (at least for the first few years of childhood). But most are unaware that pop culture has the upper hand in influencing our kids, and too busy to notice the differnce in their kids anyway.

[marcinmoka]

No, I am going to refuse to answer your questions in this thread. I genuinely like the Opening Premise of this thread and your line of discussion is thread-drift.

Wow. How very authoritarian an ultimatum for a self professed anarchist.

Ah well..

[FTA Lawyer]

Check out this link for the Law Society of Alberta Code of Professional Conduct...Chapter 1 deals with the issue of the OP from the perspective of a lawyer.

Code of Professional Conduct

The following excerpt (particularly the last paragraph) I think does a good job of drawing the distinction between respect for democracy and the administration of justice and respect for any particular law:

R.1 A lawyer must respect and uphold the law in personal conduct and in rendering advice and assistance to others.

C.1 Due to the connection of lawyers with the administration of justice and the public scrutiny to which their

actions will be subjected, a breach of law committed by a lawyer has potentially serious implications. A lawyer therefore has an ethical as well as a legal obligation to obey the law.

"The law" for the purposes of Rule #1 is to be broadly interpreted and includes common law, such as tort law, in addition to criminal and quasi-criminal statutes, However, not every breach of the law will be considered conduct deserving of sanction. The Law Society's primary concern is to protect the public and the integrity of the profession by ensuring that each member of the profession is an appropriate individual to practise law. All relevant circumstances of an offence will therefore be taken into account, including its nature and seriousness and the existence of previous violations. Behaviour that is notorious or public in nature or that has a dishonourable element (such as failure to pay a civil debt in the absence of a legitimate dispute or other justification) is the kind of conduct that may invoke ethical sanction.

A lawyer must also exhibit respect for the law in dealings with others. As to advising or assisting a client to commit a crime or fraud see Rule #11 of Chapter 9, The Lawyer as Advisor, and Rule #4 of Chapter 12, The Lawyer in Corporate and Government Service. Generally, any involvement of a lawyer with illegal conduct, however indirect, has the potential to encourage public disrespect for the law itself as well as the profession and its members.

Even the honest belief of a lawyer in the unjustness of a law does not justify advocating that a client or any other person deliberately violate the law. A lawyer in these circumstances has an obligation to seek amendment or abolition of the law through the normal democratic process (see Rule #2). However, Rule #1 is not intended to prevent a lawyer from advising a client who, in good faith and on reasonable grounds, desires to challenge or test a law through a violation of the law, provided that this is the most effective means of achieving the client's objective and the violation does not involve injury or material damage to any person or property.

FTA

[eXploiTeD]

What are you refering to? Hope it's not Germany (33-45). Is that how the laws came to be?

It was not referring to Nazi Germany. It was a hypothetical made to demonstrate an exceedingly simple point: that if the majority of your country holds authoritarian values, democracy is just as dangerous as any other form of government.

It is absurd to think that because everyone gets a vote, the government will do no wrong, or that it if it does wrong, it did so because it transformed into a total fascist state. Look at the United States. It successfully incorporates elements of fascism - namely, the promotion and protection of corporatism; that is, the merger of business and government. That is true, but the fact is that, on the whole, the US does allow a great deal of personal liberty. It is, in fact, a very good place to live, one of the best in the world.

But look at it's history. The US does alot of good things... it's just that those good things are usually built upon violence or servitude, and are for the benefit of only those who agree with the government. The US formed on stolen property, than exterminated millions. Then they killed six hundred thousand of each other before destroying state's rights, all the while attacking most of Central and South America, most of it's neighbours (including Canada), and later, at one point or another, nearly the entire Middle East.

And here you are telling me that democracies should always be obeyed. What about Vietnam? Was it right or wrong to avoid the government slavery (sorry, it's called "the draft")?

That is called a Mob Rule. I am refering to a democracy (see my definition) as we know in Canada, U.S, Japan, most of Europe, India, etc. You may consider Iraq a full blown democracy but I don't.

The simple act of voting (at least in my books, and most others) does not make a democracy. But if you choose to define it as such, feel free.

Democracy refers to rule by the people, which can take many incarnations. Direct or indirect representation, unitary or separated powers, the rule of law or the rule of whim; it does not matter. You are referring to rights-based liberal democracies... which have democratic elements, but are not true "democracies" by any means. In fact, the government is in place usually to guard against the democratic element (self-rule) of society.

When you are referring to such a specific thing - the West - perhaps you ought to say that, instead of changing the historical definition of democracy.

Please show. I am curious. And remember, wrongs can happen (as I stated), the difference is that they are corrected by these "mechanisms"

Perhaps you can show me where the US government corrected Vietnam. Or where Britain corrected the overthrow of a democratic (though non-aligned) government in Iran? Or Cuba, where thousands of innocent people struggle under a dictatorship, economically punished by the most powerful country in the world?

Absurd? Of course it is, since you attributed something to myself that I am a proponant against. The state teaches law, not morality.

Law is a statement of commonly shared moral values.

Teaching that it is better to do your duty than to do what is right is absurd. Wouldn't things have been better if nobody in the US reported for the Vietnam Draft?

THEFT - The myth of Robin Hood, (a.k.a. stealing from the rich to give to the poor) is widely accepted by socialists the world over. May Day was yersterday, and already, we have forgotten Mr. Chavez.

MURDER - Honour killings, sacrificies, war, all manifestations of different moral outlooks which DO NOT hold murder to be wrong.

RAPE - In a few (been a while since I brushed up on my anthro) pre- legal,morally based primitive societies, it is still a valid, morally correct manner of settling property disputes.

I concede that point. I should have said legitimate moral codes.

Bottom line, if these elements were all morally wrong, and we are dictated by our morality, than why do these things occur?

Because morality did not dictate those things. Few humans obey the principles they adhere to, and even less actually even think about the moral decisions they make. There is an entire unconscious mind that does most of our decision-making... and trying to account for our flaws by always and necessarily making decisions together is both irrational and dangerous.

People need to be taught how to be individuals who will make up their own mind, not insects in a hivemind that are dictated their tasks and expected to obey, no matter what the consequences.