Writes Glenn Reynolds, commenting on Ilya Somin's "Martin Luther King on the Ethics of Resistance to State Authority/Georgetown philosopher Jason Brennan offers a valuable summary of King's thought on these issues."
The obvious criticism of views like King's is that many people may have poor judgment about which laws are unjust. For example, those who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021 likely believed that enforcement of the laws against doing so would be unjust, because (in their view) Donald Trump had a right to stay in power. Similarly, both left and right-wing terrorists often believe they are justified in violating laws against murder and assault.
But the risk that individual citizens may be mistaken about matters of justice has to be balanced against the danger that government can be wrong about such things, as well. Even in democratic societies, there is a long and awful history of the latter. Throughout American history, many more people have been killed and oppressed by unjust exercises of government power than by individuals acting on mistaken assumptions about which laws are morally defensible. The toll of slavery and segregation (both imposed by law) alone easily outweighs that of all morally motivated private disobedience to law combined. The extent to which people should defer to the government's judgment on questions of justice depends heavily on how good that judgment is. All too often, the answer is that it is, at best, highly unreliable.
I'm not agreeing with everything I'm quoting. I'm offering it as worthy of contemplation and debate.
पोस्ट्स
५२ टिप्पण्या:
I'm old enough to remember when conservatives believed in the rule of law.
Mr. Civil Disobedience here.
I walked through the Chicago airport without a mask. I was the only brave soul who did so.
It is now known to be absolutely true - based upon reams of data from many states, cities and foreign countries - that masks are worthless. But our overlords continue to require them as a visible sign of fealty and obedience,
BTW, I am vaxed and will get a booster this week. I’m not a nut. I believe in science.
January 6, 2021 likely believed that enforcement of the laws against doing so would be unjust, because (in their view) Donald Trump had a right to stay in power.
The left always have to re-frame the question
The anger was due to courts refusing to hear the complaint. Repeatedly
I'm not agreeing with everything I'm quoting. I'm offering it as worthy of contemplation and debate.
Interesting disclaimer notably included here. I guess when it's not included the assumption should be endorsement?
(Sticks up hand): Does this mean it's OK to talk a bit of political philosophy? Well, maybe a little. The United States of all countries is supposed to be in the habit of questioning whether laws are just. It's probably true that "moral" disobedience does less harm than ordinary "immoral" disobedience, but the real point of the American Revolution seems to be that people with a grievance have a right to act, without a lot of careful scrutiny, comparison of grievances, or studies of how much good or harm results. Jefferson thought there should be a revolution every once in a while; the George Washington party and the Framers didn't desire this (I think Washington predicted it), but they surely expected some pretty robust debate about this or that law, what about my interests, etc.
One of the many strange things today is that libertarians who objected to Bush Jr's expansion of the national security state (a bit of Maoism: lots of scrutiny, keep your mouth shut, toe the line or else) are generally objecting far less to similar moves by the Trump haters and the woke. So there is a question: who do you most fear? Are there any enemies on the left? Even Somin saying the Jan. 6 rioters "likely believed that enforcement of the laws against doing so would be unjust, because (in their view) Donald Trump had a right to stay in power" is a bit tendentious. It's hard to tell from the dishonest media coverage, but surely many of the 700 who have been charged, insofar as they weren't mentally ill or incoherently angry, were hoping Pence or someone could cause a delay, and the courts or someone would do a fair re-count in about four states. Maybe a six month process at most? Not making Trump dictator for life, or anything like that. More like the 1886-87 (as it turned out) election, Rutherford Hayes. I understand that no one really wants to repeat that, but there were legitimate questions: can a state legislature impose a slate of electors for that state, as the Constitution implies? Are there potentially two or more groups or bodies who might come up with a slate for one state, so that this has to be resolved in Washington? Surely Americans won't just blindly "obey the law," as if there is only one unambiguous set of laws at issue?
Leftists need some contortions to justify the J6 prosecutions and ignoring the new Virginia government.
…it’s also never too early to begin ignoring the Republican Congress coming this fall…
I had two thoughts on this: One is a joke and the other, serious.
First the joke: Early in the movie, Clueless Cher brings home some bad grades, but reassures her dad that she considers them opening bids and will get them raised. She succeeds at raising them with a combination of charm and argumentation.
"Mel Horowitz: You mean to tell me that you argued your way from a C-plus to an A-minus?
Cher Horowitz: Totally based on my powers of persuasion. You proud?
Mel Horowitz: Honey, I couldn't be happier than if they were based on real grades."
Second: I've often noted that if you look at murders performed with guns and compare that with murders done by nations, to their own people; the latter is orders of magnitude higher. To the extent that a generally armed populace is susceptible to being massacred by its government, it is analogous to the plagues prevented by established vaccines compared to the side-effects of these vaccines.
An opening bid that carries the risk of losing your life, liberty or fortune as the cost of challenging. I love Instapussy's not so subtle hint that Donald Trump and the horny helmet dude are the moral equivalent to MLK and Rosa Parks, respectively.
I think the country would be a lot healthier if more people accepted that the Jan 6 protestors were simply guilty of "poor judgment".
Rule of law is one thing, but what we have now is the rule of men, where the law is twisted and stretched to apply only to Republicans.
Look at all of the people who could easily have been charged with insurrection over the past few years, including violence at Trump’s inauguration, who were simply released because they sided with Democrats.
Pointless to respect laws that are selectively enforced for political reasons.
For example, those who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021 likely believed that enforcement of the laws against doing so would be unjust, because (in their view) Donald Trump had a right to stay in power.
(Mis)statements like the one above, that now seem to be a daily occurrence in the MSM, really grind my beans. Attribute some false viewpoint to those on the other side of some event, and state it as some kind of known fact.
I can tell you that exactly zero people on the side of viewing Jan. 6, 2021 events as an unjust exercise of government power (and thus being a legitimate target for protest) had the view that "Donald Trump had the right to stay in power". Sure, they're like "ya know man, the Donald was a great president, so like, there shouldn't have even been an election, ya know? He was so great that I think he has the right to remain as president as long as he wants to!". Give me a break.
The view of the 'deplorable' people involved in the events of Jan. 6 is that they were becoming aware of a lot of shady and illegal actives that took place around the election itself, and that the reported election results were being ramrodded through without anyone allowing any serious review of the grievances. Whether or not their grievances would prove to be correct or not, the protest or 'civil disobedience' actions were based on what they saw as unjust exercises of government power (or perhaps in some cases lax/missing enforcement of powers granted to government to keep elections fair). This is a legitimate viewpoint, whereas the one being painted by the article's author is illegitimate, falsely attributed, and deceptive.
Witness said...
"I'm old enough to remember when conservatives believed in the rule of law."
Conservatives are, of course, Classical Liberals. They include among their number the creators of the Declaration of Independence:
-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it
What about when the State Authorities broke their own laws because (in their view) Donald Trump had no right to be in power.
I'm also going to respond to this little snippet, "For example, those who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021 likely believed that enforcement of the laws against doing so would be unjust, because (in their view) Donald Trump had a right to stay in power."
Stormed the Capitol....ok, though I feel it's a stretch, it's fair an out of control riot led alot of people to breaking into the Capitol.
As far as I'm aware, the unifying reason for their disgust and attempt at preventing electoral certification was not because "Trump had a right to stay in power." It was that the election was deeply feared to be fraudulent because of huge discrepancies in state rules in key swing states, questionable actions around mail in ballots, and election night votes for Trump only to be overcome in the days that followed. You can mock those reasons, but don't mis-state those reasons as "Trump had a right to stay in power."
I remain to this day deeply dismayed at the response to January 6th. It was deliberately framed and narrated as being about Trump.....rather than about what happens to citizens who lose faith in their electoral integrity. Normally when a portion o the citizenry rises up, you listen to their concerns and make some moves to address them. In this case, that would be massively stepping up electoral integrity efforts.
The LACK of that response should be painfully troubling.
Anyone hear about Nancy Pelosi's corrupt son?
Yeah - you won't because he's the son of a corrupt democrat in high office.
"Interesting disclaimer notably included here. I guess when it's not included the assumption should be endorsement?"
No.
Marxist leftists care about abiding by laws only to the extent it increases their power. The question is whether they have revealed themselves and their intentions too soon, before they have the reins fully in their hands. I suspect they were a little impatient and predict that it will come crashing down on their heads.
"My sense is that a law or regulation is at best an opening bid. Is it binding, legally or morally? Maybe..."
I'll venture that using this premise as a context, the reasonableness of "It is better that ten guilty escape than one innocent suffer." becomes more apparent. I could be wrong.
Nancy Pelosi’s son linked to five shady companies probed by feds
Howard said...
An opening bid that carries the risk of losing your life, liberty or fortune as the cost of challenging. I love Instapussy's not so subtle hint that Donald Trump and the horny helmet dude are the moral equivalent to MLK and Rosa Parks, respectively.
What do you think the punishment should be for knowingly lying about who killed Officer Sicknick for months?
There is a purpose for the term scofflaw rightly applied.
Except it was us, the U.S. along with the UK, who ENDED slavery. Until WE did that, slavery existed everywhere and since the beginning of time. We are the good guys here, people.
Presently we are living through the end of a two year pandemic in which emergency health “orders” carry the weight of law. Masks make no sense except for N95 versions that few wear. The vaccine mandates lasted longer than the immunity the shot conferred. Precious little of these intrusions on our liberty were wise and they were all futile in “preventing spread” and many of us knew it. That’s how these kinds of respiratory viruses work. Like most I went along to get along (and my employer required me to follow state laws), but I’m done wearing a mask. I expected much more widespread civil disobedience early on. The SCOTUS missed their opportunity to do us a solid last week and declare the emergency over. It is up to us individually to resist and bring an end to the viral tyranny.
It's laughable that the corrupt FBI are looking at any democrat elite's crimes.
I think a law or regulation is more like a tripwire or crossing the line in the sand than an opening bid. If you violate a law or regulation - either unambiguously or arguably - whether you're called to account depends upon detection and then a host of factors, many of which have nothing at all to do with the legalities or moralities of the violation. The most important of those factors are the judgments, discretions,and resources of the government actors who are involved in the enforcement of that law or regulation. Justice is portrayed as blind but none of the members of any of the gov't branches are, and certainly not prosecuting attorneys, agency enforcement, bureaucrats, etc.
The most important of those factors are the judgments, discretions,and resources of the government actors who are involved in the enforcement of that law or regulation. Justice is portrayed as blind but none of the members of any of the gov't branches are, and certainly not prosecuting attorneys, agency enforcement, bureaucrats, etc.
Exhibit A: Robert Durst documentary.
I think the Reason article is bullshit. It gets King entirely wrong. King did not view civil disobedience as a principle but the acceptance of punishment for it as a mere tactic. Exactly the opposite. Civil disobedience was the tactic whereas non-violence and acceptance of punishment were moral obligations. (Adhering to that moral obligation would also, it is true, make the tactic effective.) King did of course regard the segregation laws as unjust and deserving of contempt. But he insisted on non-violent acceptance of punishment because he recognized the supremacy of law itself, however corrupt this or that law might be. The Reason article (if I get it right) sees the disobedience as the principle rather than the non-violence. I do not agree.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, man is not perfect, as such, every now and then we should expect crappie laws.
I'm old enough to remember when conservatives believed in the rule of law.
I'm old enough to remember that the law once denied women the vote and permitted slavery and Jim Crow.
"You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law."
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Letter From Birmingham Jail
https://letterfromjail.com/
Hawkeyedjp bears repeating:
-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it
Consent of the governed. This required moral authority. The government loses that moral authority when it applies laws in an unjust or partisan way. When that occurs people will move to change it. In many cases this occurs within the framework of legitimate processes such as elections and initiatives and courts. But when those processes are subverted, the next option is to use other means. We have seen that happen at numerous times in our country. Brave people stood up and said, no! There were consequences. At some point we may reach that level again. The Democrats are, again, on the wrong side of justice. It seems to be their habit.
'I'm old enough to remember when conservatives believed in the rule of law.'
And I'm old enough to remember when laws applied to everyone, even Democrats.
Go fuck yourself in the goat ass Achilles. Still waiting for you to bring on your Civil War you big mouth pussy. When some of your stupid friends are actually listened to your ridiculous boastful brag of violence and insurrection and Civil War you go into full denial mode call them clowns fools false flag operators. The only back you have is President Trump's fat slimy ass that you willingly kiss and cover.
REALLY Howard?? Is that your answer to his questtion??
Aw come on Howard.
A friend of mine, a university purchasing agent, was amazed to discover that state laws regulating some specific purchasing practices of the state university system, covering many millions of dollars per year spent by all state universities, had zero consequences for not obeying those laws. He found this out when he told a campus president that a requested purchase would be illegal, and the president responded, "Well, what's the maximum penalty if I do it anyway?"
A question worth asking in many situations regarding law, society, or gravity. Especially gravity, which is one unforgiving sonofagun.
terrorism is what occurred in the fall and spring of 2020, wholesale destruction of property, murders of police officers, the powers that be, deem that fine, a little delta house scrum where the doors to the capital were open, where guards shot and beat protesters, now that is the 'insurrection' give me a break,
Your friend, Professor Reynolds, more often than in the past, makes statements that are quite silly and irresponsible for a man in his position.
He may be playing to the crowd for clicks, may have taken too many supplements, may have been infected by his exposure to the idiotic Libertarians at Reason, but he's losing the respect in which I once held him.
"My sense is that a law or regulation is at best an opening bid. Is it binding, legally or morally? Maybe..."
Spoken like a Massachusetts driver. The traffic law infraction to citation ratio is everywhere quite low. I’ve always said that if you live in Metro Boston and aren’t getting at least one parking ticket a year, you’re spending too much time looking for legal parking spaces and not living your best life.
Howard, you should lay off Achilles as he is probably the Fed.
"I walked through the Chicago airport without a mask. I was the only brave soul who did so."
Brave? How about infantile recalcitrance?
Laws are always open to reconsideration, as should always be the case. We have too many laws, of which too many are too restrictive of personal behavior that is not harmful to others. There are means to work both within the system and outside the system to influence the repeal or revision of unpopular laws. Those who choose means outside the system--that is, by breaking the law--in hopes of bringing about the repeal or revision of laws they oppose may be applauded for their courage and conviction, but they must also be prepared to face the legal consequences, even to the point of possibly facing incarceration for their acts.
Jon Burack has the priorities right. Gandhi was clear that non-violent civil disobedience was a tactic merely, BUT it only worked, or could work, in pursuit of morally righteous goals.
As for some obligation to recognize and be willing to take licks for The Majesty of The Law, pfffttt. I've never seen that critter.
Gandhi (and MLK) also knew that civil disobedience would only work against a government with a relatively moral foundation.
Begley,
If you really believed in following the current results of scientific inquiry, you might well hold off on that booster.
Witness said...
I'm old enough to remember when conservatives believed in the rule of law.
I'm old enough to remember when society didn't explicitly make it that conservatives were bound by one, more restrictive, set of rules, and the Left had a different one.
Let me know when teh Democrat rioters of 2020 are all being prosecuted and punished for their crimes.
Until that law is enforced against the Left, then it doesn't apply to the Right, either
I checked out on Somin's article when he started his "all immigration laws are unjust and everyone should violate them" screed.
But I assume that he completely missed King's point:
It is perfectly right to ignore unjust laws.
BUT
You must accept the punishment that comes from violating the unjust laws.
It was always easy to spot an intelligent opponent of MLK. They were the ones that did everything in their power to keep him out of jail.
If you're violating a law that's actually unjust, you violate it openly, expect them to arrest you, to try and convict you, and to punish you for your "crime".
Because what made the 60s Civil Rights movement a success was people seeing MLK thrown in jail for "crimes" that were BS. it was having their noses rubbed in the fact that those laws existed, they were illegitimate, and until they were overturned people were going to be harmed by them.
When you violate a country's borders and immigration laws, steal your way in, and do everything possible to just get to stay there, you're not committing civil disobedience against an unjust law, you're just a criminal.
But the Democrats (and people like Somin), being idiots and morally wretched scum, learned nothing from King and his successes.
Or, rather, the idiots learned nothing, and the morally wretched scum learned words they could mouth while simply violating the law
Howard said...
An opening bid that carries the risk of losing your life, liberty or fortune as the cost of challenging. I love Instapussy's not so subtle hint that Donald Trump and the horny helmet dude are the moral equivalent to MLK and Rosa Parks, respectively.
This from someone who pretended that the BLM rioters, I mean "peaceful protesters" were the moral equivalent to MLK and Rosa Parks?
Sorry, once you've expressed support / justification for violent, law breaking protesters, you've lost all right to complain about anyone else's violent, law breaking protesters.
Quite properly, no one listens to someone whose entire argument boils down to "but this time it's MY ox getting gored!"
Greg The Class Traitor,
I get your drift, but Ilya Somin is intelligent and consistent; he wants "foot-voting" everywhere, among states as well as nations. I concede that the nations are a tougher sell than the states. But the general argument is clear: If you want to live in a different polity, you ought to be able to do so.
Michelle Dulak Thomson said...
Greg The Class Traitor,
I get your drift, but Ilya Somin is intelligent and consistent; he wants "foot-voting" everywhere, among states as well as nations. I concede that the nations are a tougher sell than the states. But the general argument is clear: If you want to live in a different polity, you ought to be able to do so.
He's consistently wrong, but not "consistent".
1: His argument is wrong: You should have the right to LEAVE anywhere, other than jail.
But you do not, and should not, have the right to inflict yourself on people who don't want you. If America's a country, then we have an absolute right to keep out anyone we want to keep out, for any reason, or no reason at all.
2: He's a law professor. Which is to say, his income is dependent upon the fact that the ABA and State and Federal governments have created a cartel that controls who gets to become a lawyer, and to be one you have to first pay large sums of money to someone like him. So he's all in favor of people having the freedom to come here and put a manual laborer out of work. After all, doing that lowers his prices, and makes his life better.
But putting lawyers out of work? No, you have to pay him to get to do that.
F*ck him, and f*ck every other lying sack of sh!t hypocrite whose "moral position" boils down to "laws that help me must be followed, laws that I don't like you're free to break."
"Civil disobedience" where you violate an unjust law, and then work to get the maximum punishment so the unjustness of the law is forced on people?
That can be morally justified.
"It's ok for anyone I like to violate any law I don't like"?
That's reprehensible garbage, and that's Ilya Somin
Robert Cook said...
"I walked through the Chicago airport without a mask. I was the only brave soul who did so."
Brave? How about infantile recalcitrance?
1/18/22, 1:14 PM
With love, Bob, your native heterodox intransigence could easily be mistaken for an infantile recalcitrance.
Never mind the J6 crew. Has he said anything about the truckers?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा