"Power never concedes anything without a demand; it never has and it never will."
Sam Adams
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
shoot! i forgot that it was open post monday! i liked the subtitle by the way. i would have been thinking of something for this if i had remembered. Also, sorry i haven't gotten to the last two posts, i have been researching for a paper on the history of the word/concept liberty. It has been very interesting and i just finished my first draft of the paper a few hours ago. i might come back and post something but i'm gonna try to respond to the last couple.
this is by no means relevant to anything we've been talking about recently but i was reading and MLK's "Letter from Birmingham Jail," and it sparked an thought in my head. In his letter, King talks about the unjustness of a law passed by one group that puts restrictions upon another group. If restrictions are going to be placed upon a specific group of people, those restriction should be crafted and issued from inside of the group by a consensus of the people being restricted rather than from the outside by a group whom the law has nothing to do with. King's objection was obviously to racist laws but what i was thinking about was gay marriage. How can it be that straight people are passing a law that does not affect them yet drastically affects the lives of other people? If gays got together and drafted a law that barred them from legal marriage, so be it. They have oppressed themselves (if that is possible) but for straight people to pass a law against gays is just as unjust as for whites to pass a law against gays.
I know that you are in favor of marriage being taken out of the governments hands and making it strictly religious or ceremonial but for the sake of argument, lets take that option off the table. What are your thoughts then?
Great post and very interesting topic. I have issues with the idea that would be great to hash out.
Firstly, under our government we are all under the laws that are directly voted in by the Public and voted in by our government (who were voted in by the Public). Therefore in our society we agree that whatever law is passed is the law of the land unless overturned by the courts or by another vote. So that being said no unjustness can be done to one group from another group, because the law is just. The law was voted upon and became law. The reasons why the law was past maybe up for arguement, but the society and government passed the law. A law can't be unjust, because by it being a law it is justice. The courts may rule it unconstitutional and then it is no longer a law. But if the law goes through the whole process and it is written into law it is just.
Rousseau explains that if someone has an issue with the "general will"'s laws they must leave for they are really not part of the society. He does explain that there is a difference between the "general will" and the Public's will. The "general will" is of a higher moral social political educated level. I don't agree with him whole heartedly, but I do see what he is saying. And that is what is great about having the States of America united. If one doesn't agree with the direction their state is going they are free to move to another, and it is almost painless now, other than missing friends and family (but hey that might be a good thing). I know I keep coming back to this centralization thing, but it is huge. Right now at this very moment, some states have passed law that bans gay marriage. Sad or happy, whatever way you want to look at it. But those states have passed the law for some reason or another, you may not agree with that reason, but that doesn't mean the law is void. But at the same time some states have passed law allowing gay marriage, sad or happy. But those states have passed the law for some reason or another, you may not agree with that reason, but that doesn't mean the law id void. Now if the national government got involved it would be horrible. The national government would just make things worse, because it isn't easy to leave the whole nation for a better place to live. If the gay marriage issue went to congress and the president it would be the end. If they said gay marriage is not allowed, boom, the states that allow it now would have their laws taken away. So what I'm kind of saying, in a very long and boring way, let the states decide the issue. If only 5 states pass the law for gay marriage, than 5 states have gay marriage. If it is such an issue with gays and others than they would leave to those states. This could work for a whole bunch of other things, abortion, gun control, drugs and so on. The national government works in absolutes, which can be good for you or bad.
Moving to another state is a great way to solve the problem of not being allowed to marry if one is gay or to get certain medical procedures, etc, etc. But it does not solve the problem of unjust laws being created altogether. I hear your reasons for claiming that no law that is passed by the people can be unjust and i think they are great reasons. And it is very true that no law is void just because you don't agree with it.
But "the Public" is a misnomer. Just because "the public" voted on it doesn't make the law just. We can see this through the court cases that overturn unjust laws. The laws are not just up until the moment that the court rules on it. It is unjust from the moment it is signed into law. It is just not taken care of until the courts rule on it. So a separate but equal law was unjust the minute it was create. And it was unjust because it was a prime example of the tyranny of the majority. Unjustness can definitely be committed form one group to another by way of passing laws and we have many examples throughout our history.
If a law is passed, even if it is open to vote, that is oppressing one group while giving an advantage to another, it is an unjust law. Here are some examples off the top of my head: Dred Scott, Segregation laws, Comstock Laws, whatever the laws that interned the Asians in WW2, Laws against native americans, Adamas' sedition laws.
I think you are right about the definition of an unjust law; "a law that is oppressing one group while giving an advantage to another". That is dead on, but it shouldn't stop at just social issues such as gay marraige. In addition affirmative action is then an unjust law, which I agree it is. But we should also know that taxing the rich more than we do the poor is an unjust law. It oppresses one group for the advantage of another. Having the draft be only for men is an unjust law, oppressing one group for the advantage of another. Taxing vices, such as smoking and drinking oppresses one group for the advantage of another. TARP is another example of an unjust government stance. Senior discounts to government parks and buildings is an unjust law by oppressing one group for the advantage of another. I could find more, but agree with all of them that they should be stopped, especially the taxing more from one person than another. Oh another, is allowing unions which oppress non-union members to the advantage of union members.
An unjust law is not just a law that gives the advantage to one group over another, it is when one group creates or enacts a law to oppress another group. So affirmative action, if it was created and enacted by minorities can be said to be oppressive. But it was not. The majority created a law giving an advantage to the minority.
I would agree with tax vices being oppressive (but in the same way that seat belt laws are oppressive). I think that the draft might be an outdated example. I would wager that if there is ever a time when we reinstate the draft that it will include women but with many exemptions. TARP is a program and not a law. I don't know much about it so i'll take your word for it that it is oppressive though it may not fit exactly into this discussion. Senior discounts are courtesies extended by a majority group to a minority group and so don't qualify as oppressive.
Unions are a good example. A majority group creating laws for a minority group. And the tax laws, i think there could be a solid argument made for the tax code being oppressive to degree, though i think it is not as cut and dry as a solid argument could be made against its oppressive nature as well.
shoot! i forgot that it was open post monday! i liked the subtitle by the way. i would have been thinking of something for this if i had remembered. Also, sorry i haven't gotten to the last two posts, i have been researching for a paper on the history of the word/concept liberty. It has been very interesting and i just finished my first draft of the paper a few hours ago. i might come back and post something but i'm gonna try to respond to the last couple.
ReplyDeleteHit it dan!
this is by no means relevant to anything we've been talking about recently but i was reading and MLK's "Letter from Birmingham Jail," and it sparked an thought in my head. In his letter, King talks about the unjustness of a law passed by one group that puts restrictions upon another group. If restrictions are going to be placed upon a specific group of people, those restriction should be crafted and issued from inside of the group by a consensus of the people being restricted rather than from the outside by a group whom the law has nothing to do with. King's objection was obviously to racist laws but what i was thinking about was gay marriage. How can it be that straight people are passing a law that does not affect them yet drastically affects the lives of other people? If gays got together and drafted a law that barred them from legal marriage, so be it. They have oppressed themselves (if that is possible) but for straight people to pass a law against gays is just as unjust as for whites to pass a law against gays.
ReplyDeleteI know that you are in favor of marriage being taken out of the governments hands and making it strictly religious or ceremonial but for the sake of argument, lets take that option off the table. What are your thoughts then?
Great post and very interesting topic.
ReplyDeleteI have issues with the idea that would be great to hash out.
Firstly, under our government we are all under the laws that are directly voted in by the Public and voted in by our government (who were voted in by the Public). Therefore in our society we agree that whatever law is passed is the law of the land unless overturned by the courts or by another vote. So that being said no unjustness can be done to one group from another group, because the law is just. The law was voted upon and became law. The reasons why the law was past maybe up for arguement, but the society and government passed the law. A law can't be unjust, because by it being a law it is justice. The courts may rule it unconstitutional and then it is no longer a law. But if the law goes through the whole process and it is written into law it is just.
Rousseau explains that if someone has an issue with the "general will"'s laws they must leave for they are really not part of the society. He does explain that there is a difference between the "general will" and the Public's will. The "general will" is of a higher moral social political educated level. I don't agree with him whole heartedly, but I do see what he is saying. And that is what is great about having the States of America united. If one doesn't agree with the direction their state is going they are free to move to another, and it is almost painless now, other than missing friends and family (but hey that might be a good thing). I know I keep coming back to this centralization thing, but it is huge. Right now at this very moment, some states have passed law that bans gay marriage. Sad or happy, whatever way you want to look at it. But those states have passed the law for some reason or another, you may not agree with that reason, but that doesn't mean the law is void. But at the same time some states have passed law allowing gay marriage, sad or happy. But those states have passed the law for some reason or another, you may not agree with that reason, but that doesn't mean the law id void. Now if the national government got involved it would be horrible. The national government would just make things worse, because it isn't easy to leave the whole nation for a better place to live. If the gay marriage issue went to congress and the president it would be the end. If they said gay marriage is not allowed, boom, the states that allow it now would have their laws taken away. So what I'm kind of saying, in a very long and boring way, let the states decide the issue. If only 5 states pass the law for gay marriage, than 5 states have gay marriage. If it is such an issue with gays and others than they would leave to those states. This could work for a whole bunch of other things, abortion, gun control, drugs and so on.
The national government works in absolutes, which can be good for you or bad.
Moving to another state is a great way to solve the problem of not being allowed to marry if one is gay or to get certain medical procedures, etc, etc. But it does not solve the problem of unjust laws being created altogether. I hear your reasons for claiming that no law that is passed by the people can be unjust and i think they are great reasons. And it is very true that no law is void just because you don't agree with it.
ReplyDeleteBut "the Public" is a misnomer. Just because "the public" voted on it doesn't make the law just. We can see this through the court cases that overturn unjust laws. The laws are not just up until the moment that the court rules on it. It is unjust from the moment it is signed into law. It is just not taken care of until the courts rule on it. So a separate but equal law was unjust the minute it was create. And it was unjust because it was a prime example of the tyranny of the majority. Unjustness can definitely be committed form one group to another by way of passing laws and we have many examples throughout our history.
If a law is passed, even if it is open to vote, that is oppressing one group while giving an advantage to another, it is an unjust law. Here are some examples off the top of my head: Dred Scott, Segregation laws, Comstock Laws, whatever the laws that interned the Asians in WW2, Laws against native americans, Adamas' sedition laws.
I think you are right about the definition of an unjust law; "a law that is oppressing one group while giving an advantage to another". That is dead on, but it shouldn't stop at just social issues such as gay marraige. In addition affirmative action is then an unjust law, which I agree it is. But we should also know that taxing the rich more than we do the poor is an unjust law. It oppresses one group for the advantage of another. Having the draft be only for men is an unjust law, oppressing one group for the advantage of another. Taxing vices, such as smoking and drinking oppresses one group for the advantage of another. TARP is another example of an unjust government stance. Senior discounts to government parks and buildings is an unjust law by oppressing one group for the advantage of another. I could find more, but agree with all of them that they should be stopped, especially the taxing more from one person than another. Oh another, is allowing unions which oppress non-union members to the advantage of union members.
ReplyDeleteAn unjust law is not just a law that gives the advantage to one group over another, it is when one group creates or enacts a law to oppress another group. So affirmative action, if it was created and enacted by minorities can be said to be oppressive. But it was not. The majority created a law giving an advantage to the minority.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with tax vices being oppressive (but in the same way that seat belt laws are oppressive). I think that the draft might be an outdated example. I would wager that if there is ever a time when we reinstate the draft that it will include women but with many exemptions. TARP is a program and not a law. I don't know much about it so i'll take your word for it that it is oppressive though it may not fit exactly into this discussion. Senior discounts are courtesies extended by a majority group to a minority group and so don't qualify as oppressive.
Unions are a good example. A majority group creating laws for a minority group. And the tax laws, i think there could be a solid argument made for the tax code being oppressive to degree, though i think it is not as cut and dry as a solid argument could be made against its oppressive nature as well.
Great reply. So what you are saying is an unjust law is any law that is created to oppress another group. That makes sense.
ReplyDelete