The Scales Are Broken

I wish to ask the membership, if they should care to respond, which it is they value most.

Is it what is legal, according to every little part of the written law of their nations?

Or is it what is just, according to the unwritten law which binds all human beings, regardless of nation, colour or creed?

I only ask, because it seems to me that far too many people put stock in the letter of the law, without having the slightest respect for actual justice. We argue points of order into the middle of next week, allow our nations to spend vast quantities of money on the creation of and the indulgence in the letter of the law. But how much do we spend to ensure that what laws are passed, are actually just in their construction AND their outworking?

Why do we still have mass surveillance? Because laws were written to protect that system, and because attacking it directly is illegal. Why do we still have a War on Terror, because acting to prevent ones government from continuing to contribute to it, is illegal. But acting to end both these abuses of power, both these abuses of the public purse, and human lives besides, would be UTTERLY just. So how can we justify the laws we right to wash our hands of our responsibilities, when those very laws are not just?

a reply to: TrueBrit

Is it what is legal, according to every little part of the written law of their nations?
Or is it what is just, according to the unwritten law which binds all human beings, regardless of nation, colour or creed?

One follows the other.
You didnt know that ?
I am so glad I could be of assistance..
Anything else I can help you with today ?
Thanks for calling , and have a great day.

a reply to: Gothmog

But it does not follow at all Gothmog.

It is just and noble to feed those who have nothing, but in some places, if I feed a homeless person, I would be breaking a law.

Law is not equal to, or devoted to the cause of justice, if its out workings are not just.

Human nature abrogates any system we use.
As the issues changed so much and often , the system is too complex for anyone to understand it all,they JUST react to what happens.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Sure, but we know that happens, and can avoid it.

So why do we continue to erect arbitrary systems to decide on matters which are far from arbitrary?

a reply to: TrueBrit

People are milking their jobs for cash.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
I wish to ask the membership, if they should care to respond, which it is they value most.

Is it what is legal, according to every little part of the written law of their nations?

Or is it what is just, according to the unwritten law which binds all human beings, regardless of nation, colour or creed?

I only ask, because it seems to me that far too many people put stock in the letter of the law, without having the slightest respect for actual justice. We argue points of order into the middle of next week, allow our nations to spend vast quantities of money on the creation of and the indulgence in the letter of the law. But how much do we spend to ensure that what laws are passed, are actually just in their construction AND their outworking?

Why do we still have mass surveillance? Because laws were written to protect that system, and because attacking it directly is illegal. Why do we still have a War on Terror, because acting to prevent ones government from continuing to contribute to it, is illegal. But acting to end both these abuses of power, both these abuses of the public purse, and human lives besides, would be UTTERLY just. So how can we justify the laws we right to wash our hands of our responsibilities, when those very laws are not just?

The problem is everyone's definition of nuance is different. Law does not always mean common sense or can address every situation that comes up. This is both the strength and weakness of a nation of laws. The rigidity of law is what protects things but is always what causes harm as people can learn to game the system with technicalities.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Everything was fine before,then Obama came into office,just another example of socialism being forced onto us,there was nothing wrong before,I will not change because some deadbeat decides his way is better

a reply to: TrueBrit

Why do we have mass surveillance? To catch criminals, right?

Why do we have the war on terror? "Radical" Islam.

Why does California want to put people in jail for a year if they use the wrong pronoun when dealing with gender confused people? Who the hell actually knows.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Exactly, and we know that.

We know that this is not just, yet we consistently follow laws which bind us to the crime they commit. Loan companies, insurance companies, the banking sector, the property development sector...

We know these and many more parts of the corporate world are literally awash with conspiracy, not just theoretical conspiracy, but actual, existent and confirmed operations whose purpose is to isolate the beneficiaries of these things, from ever having to pay anything back into the system their perfidy assaults. This we KNOW to be unjust, yet personages who benefit from these broken systems, are considered pillars of their communities, stalwarts, captains of industry and all the rest of the plaudits one can only receive if one is morally defunct.

Where is the correction for all of this? Where is the legal remedy? If there is none, then what use is the law pertaining to these matters? We pay enough as taxpayers in our respective countries, to expect that those who write our law will be competent to do so in a manner which solves these problems, while protecting the hardworking people of the country, as well as the broke and the sick, from their effects. Why do we accept the primacy of law, when it does a sub par job on our behalf?

originally posted by: TrueBrit
I wish to ask the membership, if they should care to respond, which it is they value most.

Is it what is legal, according to every little part of the written law of their nations?

Or is it what is just, according to the unwritten law which binds all human beings, regardless of nation, colour or creed?

Did you know that you can both respect the law AND advocate for change when laws are unjust? This is exactly how it should be and is, even though laws do not seem to change quickly enough, IMO (or aren't nullified and absolved enough).

I'm all about the law, but I'm also about calling out the law when I feel that it is wrong. For example, I do not carry my CCDW pistol on my person or in my car when I go to work because there is a law against having a firearm on federal property, including keeping it in my vehicle. I have a small Kershaw Shuffle knife in my pocket because it is the only decently designed knife that I could find with a blade no longer than 2.5" (which is the limit for having a pocket knife on federal property). The irony is that I work in the graphics area, where I access Xacto knives and scissors every day.

I think that this law is unjust--I have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and I find it absolutely inappropriate that the second amendment exists SPECIFICALLY to prohibit the federal government from infringing on that right, yet here we are in a situation where the federal government is telling me that I can't exercise my right.

That is unjust, and I have called my congressman more than once on the issue, even getting a call back from his "legislation director" or some such title. I still have not seen anything come from that, though--it's time to call again.

But my point is that it's okay to respect the rule of law but also fight against unjust laws. I only use that example because it's fresh in my mind, and I know that there are other laws that are more socially unjust or questionable, but my example is what it is, because it's an infringement on a right that I have.

I only ask, because it seems to me that far too many people put stock in the letter of the law, without having the slightest respect for actual justice. We argue points of order into the middle of next week, allow our nations to spend vast quantities of money on the creation of and the indulgence in the letter of the law. But how much do we spend to ensure that what laws are passed, are actually just in their construction AND their outworking?

We can't "ensure" anything as regular citizens, at least not in the U.S. The best that we can do is vote people into office who we think hold similar values as us and will vote and legislate accordingly. But politicians being what they are, that rarely comes to fruition. Couple that with a society that thinks that an elected body "must do something" about everything, and we get frivolous and poorly written legislation enacted that doesn't even conform to the constitution or the prescribed scope of the government.

Instead of constantly calling for new laws, we should be calling for the culling of old laws that hold questionable standing and purposes under not only the constitution, but also the spirit of the nation.

Why do we still have mass surveillance? Because laws were written to protect that system, and because attacking it directly is illegal. Why do we still have a War on Terror, because acting to prevent ones government from continuing to contribute to it, is illegal. But acting to end both these abuses of power, both these abuses of the public purse, and human lives besides, would be UTTERLY just. So how can we justify the laws we right to wash our hands of our responsibilities, when those very laws are not just?

My senator (the only one that I claim) is Rand Paul...love the guy, for the most part, on both of those topics. My congressman is Thomas Massie, and he conforms to my beliefs much of the time as well. Mitch McConnell, on the other hand, can suck a lemon after chewing on barbed wire.

But like I said (and I can only use America as an example), we only have so much sway as an individual voter, or even as a voting block when the quality of candidates come from the expired shelf of the bakery. But I'm quite certain that the divisiveness in politics today is more to blame than anything, at least as far as an unwillingness to compromise goes.

If our elected officials could re-learn and institute the art of compromise, I think that we really could get things back on track.

a reply to: Oldtimer2

You think mass surveillance, for example, or the de-regulation of banking, was Obama's fault?

Really?

Please, explain your rationale.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Here in the US we have practically no control over what laws are passed or how theyare written. Princeton study recently found that the US is more a Oligarchy than a Democracy, you can read about it here: www.bbc.com...

So really, the question doesn't apply here. Rather than concerning ourselves with the fairness or lack therof of a law, we more seek to avoid any contact with the laws.

Not to stray to afar from your thread.....if we could by magic drop you into an "uncontacted tribe" in the Amazon rain forest. I believe you would soon realize that these " uncontacted people" have laws & rules and consequences for breaking said rules & laws.....They may not call them "rules & laws" but in fact they are. They have them without even knowing that the rest of the world exist. We as humans maintain this setup because it's ingrained into our being.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I only ask, because it seems to me that far too many people put stock in the letter of the law, without having the slightest respect for actual justice.

See that on the road when driving behind someone who rolls thru stop signs, doesn't signal at turns and cuts off people when changing lanes, again without signaling.

For the moral aspect, attend a church service. For one whole hour people are the nicest people on earth. They greet and hug and smile, dripping with kindness. An hour later in the store they don't give you the time of day.

America is two faced, exemplified by our dual standard foreign policy.

Politicians pass laws. It is what they do. Once a law gets passed, they are rarely purged for being ineffective. One of the big weaknesses of our system is that lobbyist and special interest groups are who push for laws to be passed. The motives behind laws are often not in the best interest of society as a whole but often to protect business interests OR designed to make it look like the politicians are accomplishing something.

I recall calling my state senator to give him an earful about passing a banking law during the height of the housing bubble.

The law was stupid and would be ineffective. The state senator all but admitted that the law wouldn't accomplish anything but they "had to do something". So now we have this stupid law that is completely ineffective that costs consumers at least $250 when they buy a house or refinance unnecessarily, just because some politicians wanted to make it look like they were "doing something"

a reply to: jjkenobi

Um... no...

We have the mass surveillance system to make money from the data of citizens, to pry into their business without reason or warrant to do so, which makes it easier to counteract legitimate protest, legal challenges to government and the MIC alike, by getting ahead of them and knowing in advance where the resistance is at any one moment.

We have the War on Terror, because war makes money for people who have the power to ensure that it is fought.

That last thing is likely as not, total nonsense, but if it turns out to have even the smallest nugget of truth to it, is somewhat foolhardy, almost as foolhardy as suggesting that someone is confused about their gender, rather than sure in a way that makes you uncomfortable.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Gothmog

But it does not follow at all Gothmog.

It is just and noble to feed those who have nothing, but in some places, if I feed a homeless person, I would be breaking a law.

Law is not equal to, or devoted to the cause of justice, if its out workings are not just.

Evil is everywhere
"Power corrupts , absolute power corrupts absolutely" - dont know where the quote comes from , but Clint Eastwood said it in a movie one time.
Concern ,like charity , begins at home.Remember that.
It is not up to a country to change laws or cultures of another. If they change , it should be by their own accord.

a reply to: TrueBrit
Personally, I believe that the original laws were fairly simple. Don't murder, don't steal, respect the property of others, etc.

But life has a way of throwing you curves, so the laws became complex over time. What is just often conflicts with the laws.

Every situation is not black and white. What is just, is not always fair, and nothing always fair to everybody.

a reply to: TrueBrit

It is rather a simple answer you request. You want "every man to be an Island." It cannot be so when that man mixes with the common herd. Some will say, "But I'm above that. I know better than my fellow" That man be a fool and bears watching for he hates the common order even as he lives and breaths because of the order. They call that forced order: society. Not always good and just, but it is no accident. It has a purpose. And that is why there are laws and governments to protect the while, even the complainer that wants freedom from the masses because he is special.