|
Post by Don on Mar 29, 2017 20:26:44 GMT -5
It's sad that there are, and that it's apparently such a difficult process to just strike them out. And I'm quite sure there are some shits in those states who like them there, even if they are unenforceable. But unenforceable works in the interim, practically speaking. Enjoy your next totally legal blowjob courtesy of FedGov. Srsly? I mean, I knew you could get free cell phones courtesy of FedGov, but isn't this going too far?
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Mar 29, 2017 20:35:38 GMT -5
They just made sure no one will cart you off to jail for the act. How you pay for it should probably stay on the DL.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Mar 29, 2017 20:58:49 GMT -5
All this is just proving the point, though. On the one hand, "the law is the law and must be obeyed," yet it's easy to find exception after exception. I'll stand with my original point, that most people obey laws that fit their personal morality not because those laws exist but because of their own sense of morality, and obey other laws on a cost/benefit basis. I think any sense of political obligation, if there is one, plays a minor role in that cost/benefit analysis.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 30, 2017 8:35:45 GMT -5
All this is just proving the point, though. On the one hand, "the law is the law and must be obeyed," yet it's easy to find exception after exception. I'll stand with my original point, that most people obey laws that fit their personal morality not because those laws exist but because of their own sense of morality, and obey other laws on a cost/benefit basis. I think any sense of political obligation, if there is one, plays a minor role in that cost/benefit analysis. You're right that few people believe in obeying the law just because obeying the law is a moral good in and of itself. There are not many Inspector Javerts, fortunately. That doesn't mean political obligation doesn't exist. We are not all little mini-governments deciding what to do or not do solely based on whether or not we want to and think we can get away with it.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Mar 30, 2017 9:19:10 GMT -5
All this is just proving the point, though. On the one hand, "the law is the law and must be obeyed," yet it's easy to find exception after exception. I'll stand with my original point, that most people obey laws that fit their personal morality not because those laws exist but because of their own sense of morality, and obey other laws on a cost/benefit basis. I think any sense of political obligation, if there is one, plays a minor role in that cost/benefit analysis.You're right that few people believe in obeying the law just because obeying the law is a moral good in and of itself. There are not many Inspector Javerts, fortunately. That doesn't mean political obligation doesn't exist. We are not all little mini-governments deciding what to do or not do solely based on whether or not we want to and think we can get away with it. I did not say that political obligation doesn't exist. Nor did I say we are all little mini-governments deciding what to do or not do solely based on whether or not we want to and think we can get away with it. Also, "mini-government" implies that I would be ok with individuals initiating force, since the ability to "legitimately" initiate force is reserved to government, and you know explicitly that I am not ok with anyone initiating force, private individual or government flunky. Your straw man is in flames. See that part bolded? That's what I said. Got any response to those specific points? I think you're agreeing with the first sentence and disputing the second, but your meaning is not really clear to me.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 30, 2017 10:38:00 GMT -5
You're correct, I am disputing the second sentence. I think most people do have sense of political obligation to their community/polity. They generally think the rule of law is a good thing, they may believe in the "social contract" that you despise so much, and so believe that obeying the law is a good thing. That doesn't mean they never break the law, for selfish or even moral reasons. But most people don't individually evaluate every law for its goodness - they just decide, in general, whether they respect the law (in which case they generally won't break a law without reason, even if they think a particular law is stupid) or not (in which case they will break any law they can get away with if they deem the consequences slight/unlikely enough).
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 30, 2017 15:13:38 GMT -5
Yeah, I disagree with this:
Public morality is conditioned in some respects by the legal framework. And more significantly, the sense of morality most people possess isn't expansive; it's simple, basic. When they're stopped at a red light in the middle of the night with no traffic coming from any direction, morality isn't an issue. Neither is a cost/benefit analysis. There's just the simple acceptance of the law being valid/binding to some degree.
And this:
...is I think wholly wrong. Political obligation--of one sort or another--replaces any cost/benefit analysis, more often than not (for most people).
|
|
|
Post by Don on Mar 31, 2017 14:08:28 GMT -5
I'll hazard a guess that the most common answer to "why don't you break the law" is "because I'm afraid I'd get caught" rather than "because I have an obligation to society." But maybe I just hang with a less classy group of people.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 31, 2017 15:51:45 GMT -5
I'll hazard a guess that the most common answer to "why don't you break the law" is "because I'm afraid I'd get caught" rather than "because I have an obligation to society." But maybe I just hang with a less classy group of people. Amongst a group of people inclined to debate the meaning of "political obligation," I think you would find the second answer more common. Or at least, an answer that merits discussion. Yes, people who aren't disposed to even think about what "political obligation" means are probably the sort of people who follow or break laws entirely based on risk/reward reasoning.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 31, 2017 17:49:23 GMT -5
Lol, I'm pretty sure specifics matter, here.
Come on Don, are you saying that the people you know don't commit murder and armed robbery, simply because they're afraid that they might get caught?
I maintain that of those people who see themselves as citizens, most accept the idea that they should obey the law, and that this is a product predominantly of a sense of political obligation, mostly of the four initial ones I listed.
This doesn't mean such people will never break or bend a law, at all.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Mar 31, 2017 18:40:38 GMT -5
Lol, I'm pretty sure specifics matter, here. Come on Don, are you saying that the people you know don't commit murder and armed robbery, simply because they're afraid that they might get caught? I maintain that of those people who see themselves as citizens, most accept the idea that they should obey the law, and that this is a product predominantly of a sense of political obligation, mostly of the four initial ones I listed. This doesn't mean such people will never break or bend a law, at all. Between you and Amadan, I'm about to petition @cassandraw to change my name to The Scarecrow. Note what I said below, some posts back. I think almost all people have some sense of right or wrong, their own morality, if you will, that they've absorbed/accepted/developed over the years, and that's their primary guide, not some sense of political obligation. I think that's what prevents wholesale murder and armed robbery. I also think that if breaking a particular law doesn't violate that sense for them, their next consideration will be cost/benefit, not some sense of obligation to the state. The very concept of a sense of obligation to the state never enters most people's minds, let alone the four possible sources. IMO, certainly. But get Jay Leno's "Man on the Street" back out there, and I'd bet some serious coin I'm right.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Apr 1, 2017 10:10:00 GMT -5
If multiple people are misunderstanding you, Don, either we're all stupid or you're not being clear.
I think this is incorrect. I think most (thinking) people do consider their obligation to the state (though they may not think of it in those terms - they are more likely to think in terms of "respecting the rule of law" or "obligation to our community/nation" or "the social compact").
Jay Leno's "Man on the Street" is mostly a straw man in terms of political theory. If we're only talking about the archtypical ignorant prole who can barely name the President, it's silly to use their political thinking as a basis of discussion.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 1, 2017 11:23:13 GMT -5
Between you and Amadan, I'm about to petition @cassandraw to change my name to The Scarecrow. Note what I said below, some posts back. I think almost all people have some sense of right or wrong, their own morality, if you will, that they've absorbed/accepted/developed over the years, and that's their primary guide, not some sense of political obligation. I think that's what prevents wholesale murder and armed robbery. I remember what you said. You're the one who appears to have forgotten it. You flipped from arguing that first point to arguing that most people don't break the law because they might get caught (which is basically tossing a sense of morality out of the window). Pick a position.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Apr 1, 2017 11:45:44 GMT -5
I understand Don's position. I don't think he needs to "pick" one of the two options - it just depends on the law under consideration. To wit, one that jibes with one's own sense of morality versus one that doesn't. It's like... a flowchart!
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Apr 1, 2017 12:57:35 GMT -5
If multiple people are misunderstanding you, Don, either we're all stupid or you're not being clear. I may certainly be, but I doubt everyone else is. I think your language is part of the issue. If you ask someone, "Do you not break all the laws, especially the ones you don't agree with, because you feel morally obligated to obey all laws, or because you don't want to get in trouble?" It's very abstract. Most won't kill, rape, set large buildings and small dogs on fire because it's morally repulsive to them. Many laws that are there for safety, people will ignore not because they think it's a wrong law, but because they can't be bothered. Speeding for example. I think many in the US are fine with speed limits because they understand they save lives, doesn't mean they never knowingly go above the speeding limit or have gotten a ticket. Of course, there are some laws, or regulations, that many follow for those reasons, not wanting a fine, when they're looking to say expand or build a home of business. But it's not as much moral outrage at the law, as much as it's not wanting to pay for this or that permit, or jump through hoops. And many will say that they're unneeded laws or regulations, yet have they researched it? Understand they why? They may be right, but that's really not their focus. There are times when people will break laws, knowingly, out of protest. Didn't a woman come into the country and get arrested, on purpose, for bringing in the morning after pill? She wanted it to go to court. And of course, there was Rosa Parks.
|
|