Quote:
|
Personally, I find that the concept of blind obedience to law as outweighing the health of an ecosystem to be philosophically disturbing.
|
I think this statement leans toward the heart of this topic - Philosophy.
"Blind obedience" is certainly dangerous, but in any organized society, no matter what the form of government, there is a social compact in place. The philosophical nature of that compact is that the populace agrees to give up some of their individual rights to the government, and the government, in turn, agrees to govern in the interest of the people. The level of rights given up individually dictates the amount of power the government holds, and if the balance is not right, then there is either a government that is too weak to maintain control, or a government with too much power that ends up bullying the populace.
Assuming that the balance is right (whether it is or not is probably not a topic for this thread), it is incumbent on each member of the society to follow the laws the government makes, since the right to make and enforce laws is the primary right that has been given up by the individual. It is then incumbent upon the government to make sure that the laws are, in fact, in the best interest of the people they are governing.
This is where it gets fuzzy. The government, being formed of human beings, is not perfect. Never has been, never will be. When the people perceive that the government is wrong, they have the right and the responsibility to make it known and try to get things changed. That can take the form of petitioning, protesting, voting out leaders in favor of new blood, or any number of other methods, but the nature of the actions taken should fall within the established rules for accomplishing change.
A distinction needs to be made at this point. If I feel that my government is wrong, and the rules they have established are unreasonable, I still have the responsibility to follow them while I am trying to get them changed. Only if it is clear that the government is acting illegally or in some way violating the compact that has been established do I have the right to disobey.
A couple of examples of a government acting illegally or violating the social compact:
- Violations of Civil Rights
- Unconstitutional actions
A couple of examples of a government acting unreasonably, but not illegally:
- Enacting tax laws that don't make sense
- Enacting game laws that don't make sense
- Enacting any law that doesn't make sense
Here is the question that must be asked: Was this law put in place legally?
If the law does not violate any other existing statutes, and it does not violate the rights of the people who are subject to the law, then it is not illegal and should be followed.
Notice that there is no allowance for "that law is stupid, so I'm not gonna' follow it." It is not the right of the individual to randomly decide which laws to follow and which to break, assuming that the laws are legal. It IS the right of the individual to be the catalyst of change by gathering support and demonstrating to the government that the people are not happy with the current state of affairs.
Here is the toughest part for a lot of people to swallow:
Even when the majority of the population feels that the rule in question is not reasonable and should be changed, the government is under no obligation to change it. Representative government does NOT mean that the government officials are required to follow popular opinion. They ARE expected to use their best judgement and make decisions that are in the best interest of the people. The popularity of a law, however, is not often a good indicator of whether it is a good law or not. One example of this is taxes. Taxes are incredibly unpopular, but they are necessary, and the government is under no obligation to change or eliminate a tax based on popular opinion (please don't let this statement be the impitus for a partisan debate. I hate to see a good thread put down because it got infected with those darn poli-tics).
The only way to legitimately get a law changed based on popularity is to exercise your right to vote. Get the people you disagree with out of office, and replace them with people you like. If you can't get rid of them that way, then maybe their policies are not as unpopular as you thought they were.
OK. I am officially dismounting the soapbox now.