Is breaking an unjust law acceptable behavior?

[ThinkAnarchy]

This is a split off topic and the quotation is a duplicate from the original thread --- Tank

Polk County FL -- An outspoken atheist, EllenBeth Wachs has been arrested on trumped-up bogus charges and jailed twice this year by an evangelical Christian Sheriff Grady Judd in retaliation for challenging Judd's illegal transfer and installation of tax-payer property (jail basketball goals) to area churches.

More info at our Change.org petition.  Please sign and promote:

http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-christian-sheriff-to-stop-persecuting-atheist




.

@ OP. Yes this is very wrong, but no worse than no-knock warrants that happen every day, which usually result in the pet being shot and homeowners terrified, all because they have some drugs.

[Whitney]

@ OP. Yes this is very wrong, but no worse than no-knock warrants that happen every day, which usually result in the pet being shot and homeowners terrified, all because they have some drugs.

if the story from the OP is correct thenit is way worse....at least the people with drugs actually broke a law (even if it was an unnecessary law).

[ThinkAnarchy]

@ OP. Yes this is very wrong, but no worse than no-knock warrants that happen every day, which usually result in the pet being shot and homeowners terrified, all because they have some drugs.

if the story from the OP is correct thenit is way worse....at least the people with drugs actually broke a law (even if it was an unnecessary law).

I sort of agree with you, I simply don't see a major difference between being arrested for breaking an unjust law and being arrested for exercising your rights. Both situations are unjust and equally so, in my mind. By breaking an unjust law, you are in effect, exercising your rights, hence I view them as virtually identical.

[The Magic Pudding]

I sort of agree with you, I simply don't see a major difference between being arrested for breaking an unjust law and being arrested for exercising your rights. Both situations are unjust and equally so, in my mind. By breaking an unjust law, you are in effect, exercising your rights, hence I view them as virtually identical.

I see a pretty major difference.
You can choose to obey a law or not, it's not really for the individual to decide what law is just.
From where does the right to take drugs come from anyway?
Freedom from religion is a basis of your law isn't it?
The cop doing this is breaking the law, the ones doing drug busts are doing their job.
If you got your pro drugs placard out and legally protested and were illegally harassed, that would be a more similar thing.  Still not quite as bad though, unless you're a Rastafarian.

[ThinkAnarchy]

I see a pretty major difference.
You can choose to obey a law or not, it's not really for the individual to decide what law is just.

Why is it not up to the individual to decide what laws are unjust? Why does a group, be them congress or judges get to decide what's just? Would you have the same stance if this group of individuals outlawed computers? Who are you to second guess their laws? Were women wrong for the suffrage movement? Were blacks wrong for fighting against Jim Crow laws?

Better yet, were the abolitionist's wrong or were the anti-prohibitionist wrong; both opposed the "law" at some point. Were both wrong in your book?

From where does the right to take drugs come from anyway?

Where do any of your rights come from? My guess is you will say the Constitution. But where did they even get the right to write the Constitution? Even if you believe rights originate with the Constitution, nowhere does it say the individual can't use drugs.

Besides, the Constitution limits government action against the individual. The document, including the Bill of Rights, is an outline for governmental power. It does not grant rights in any way. It specifies exactly what the government is allowed to do, and in the case of the Bill of Rights, exactly what the government cannot do.

Where does our right to atheism come from?

The right to use drugs originates from the rights of the individual. We own our own bodies and minds. We are/should be free to do with our bodies as we choose. This is where your right to denounce god comes from, as well as others having the right to worship him/them.

Freedom from religion is a basis of your law isn't it?

Freedom of religion (not from) is simply a subset of the basic right of self expression, thought, and association. Religion is specified in the First Amendment along with speech because the two are interconnected. Again, the First Amendment does not create this right, it simply specifies that the government cannot interfere with it in any manner.

Your freedom of thought, association, and self-expression are no different from your right to do drugs; i.e. ownership of your body and mind.

The cop doing this is breaking the law, the ones doing drug busts are doing their job.

The cops enforcing Jim Crow laws were simply "doing their jobs". Does that automatically mean they were acting morally? The Gestapo was simply doing their jobs as well; I imagine you can see where I'm going with this. In case anyone can't, simply because law enforcement is following the laws, does not automatically justify their actions!

If you got your pro drugs placard out and legally protested and were illegally harassed, that would be a more similar thing.  Still not quite as bad though, unless you're a Rastafarian.

You're thinking here is illogical. Is it okay to question laws or not? Protesting is a form of questioning the law. According to you, the individual has no authority to do this.

What if protesting was made illegal, which is not hard to imagine since it seems to be a theme in most authoritarian nations? Would you be okay with people protesting the law against protesting?

[The Magic Pudding]

I see a pretty major difference.
You can choose to obey a law or not, it's not really for the individual to decide what law is just.

Why is it not up to the individual to decide what laws are unjust? Why does a group, be them congress or judges get to decide what's just?

In a properly operating society the majority may demand a law or support a proposed law, people will be elected to enact the law.  The individual is not free because its actions effects others.  It's not a perfect system, the alternative is well, anarchy, I see this as something that benefits the brutal, it would be a dystopia.  

Would you have the same stance if this group of individuals outlawed computers? Who are you to second guess their laws? Were women wrong for the suffrage movement? Were blacks wrong for fighting against Jim Crow laws?

Better yet, were the abolitionist's wrong or were the anti-prohibitionist wrong; both opposed the "law" at some point. Were both wrong in your book?

In a democratic society you are free to state your opposition to a law, you can choose to break it if you feel strongly, you may go to jail for it though.  I don't think any of the groups you list were wrong, but I don't think they were fighting for anarchy.  The system changed for the better to recognise the justness of their case.  This illustrates a working system.

What happens when the person with nothing to loose chooses to use their freedom to kill my family?  Who do I complain to?  Are we going to live in a fantasy land where the law grants unlimited freedom and magically no one misuses this freedom?

From where does the right to take drugs come from anyway?

The right to use drugs originates from the rights of the individual. We own our own bodies and minds. We are/should be free to do with our bodies as we choose. This is where your right to denounce god comes from, as well as others having the right to worship him/them.

It seems to me you desire more rights than you have, the government can put you in uniform, ship you overseas to kill some one you bare no grudge or kill you if you refuse.  I'm seeing wants not rights.

Freedom from religion is a basis of your law isn't it?

Your freedom of thought, association, and self-expression are no different from your right to do drugs; i.e. ownership of your body and mind.

I'm not going to argue your law with you, but it seems those that get paid the big dollars to interpret it disagree with you, otherwise you would have your drugs and we probably wouldn't be signed up to the drug war.

Ownership of my body and mind?  I don't even have access to an off switch.

The cop doing this is breaking the law, the ones doing drug busts are doing their job.

The cops enforcing Jim Crow laws were simply "doing their jobs". Does that automatically mean they were acting morally? The Gestapo was simply doing their jobs as well; I imagine you can see where I'm going with this. In case anyone can't, simply because law enforcement is following the laws, does not automatically justify their actions!

So we're talking morals now, OK.
Some laws were/are/will be immoral by my measure, I'm not ready to throw them all away though.

The cop doing this is breaking the law, the ones doing drug busts are doing their job.

If you got your pro drugs placard out and legally protested and were illegally harassed, that would be a more similar thing.  Still not quite as bad though, unless you're a Rastafarian.
[/quote]

You're thinking here is illogical. Is it okay to question laws or not? Protesting is a form of questioning the law. According to you, the individual has no authority to do this.

It's OK by the laws of my country to question the law and I'm personally OK with people having this right.

What if protesting was made illegal, which is not hard to imagine since it seems to be a theme in most authoritarian nations? Would you be okay with people protesting the law against protesting?

I don't live under such a system, I live in a country where the people who protested were sent as punishment.   The Tolpuddle Martyrs were sent here, they are heroes in my view.

So what was the point of all this?
I don't think a lawful drug raid equates with an unlawful harassment of someone based on their belief system.  People have already fought and died for this right, for this law.  Morally, I could find a few strong arguments against total legalisation of drugs, finding an argument to justify harassing atheists  is a lot harder.  

Why should I feel more morally outraged with the Florida situation, legal rights, human rights are stomped on, the sacrifices of those who fought for the law is dishonoured.  All drug raid victim has is a personal desire and a good but not incontrovertible argument.

[Davin]

Wow ThinkAnarchy, can you tone it down a bit, I mean there are children being tortured and killed as witches still to this day in Africa. Yes, it is very likely that one can find a worse injustice than whatever someone brings up. However bringing up something else when one is talking about a specific issue does little to help discussion.

You went from a person being arrested for practicing free speech being just like drug raids, to the legalized racism of recent U.S. past. Bring it on down with a Hitler/Nazi comparison, some kind of claim of authority and you've almost completed the Intertubes argument set. Seriously, if you want to start a thread on drug legalization or Jim Crowe laws, then start one, don't hijack someone else's.

Any way the difference: The drug crap is coercion, sure, but it's coercion to try to prevent people from doing drugs. The coercion to attempt to limit free speech is much, much worse. Imagine if you couldn't even complain about people being arrested for drugs because they made that illegal. At the very least, our freedom to express our opinions publicly about drugs, religion or almost anything (I'm still against inciting violence), needs to be protected or else we lose all else. So I don't think the no knock warrants for drug raids are the same as silencing someone who is expressing their views publicly.

[ThinkAnarchy]

Wow ThinkAnarchy, can you tone it down a bit, I mean there are children being tortured and killed as witches still to this day in Africa. Yes, it is very likely that one can find a worse injustice than whatever someone brings up. However bringing up something else when one is talking about a specific issue does little to help discussion.

Yes, there are terrible injustices throughout the world, what's your point? Simply because bad things are occurring elsewhere I should simply accept the injustices here? I fail to see the point.

You went from a person being arrested for practicing free speech being just like drug raids, to the legalized racism of recent U.S. past. Bring it on down with a Hitler/Nazi comparison, some kind of claim of authority and you've almost completed the Intertubes argument set. Seriously, if you want to start a thread on drug legalization or Jim Crowe laws, then start one, don't hijack someone else's.

I was merely pointing out how this shit happens everyday. My intention was not to hijack the thread; people simply chose to discuss my comment with me. If Tank, or another moderator, would like to move these posts into their own thread, they are free to do so. The Nazi and Jim Crowe points were perfectly valid seeing as MP was seeming to say we should simply obey laws, regardless of the morality or correctness behind them. 

Any way the difference: The drug crap is coercion, sure, but it's coercion to try to prevent people from doing drugs. The coercion to attempt to limit free speech is much, much worse. Imagine if you couldn't even complain about people being arrested for drugs because they made that illegal. At the very least, our freedom to express our opinions publicly about drugs, religion or almost anything (I'm still against inciting violence), needs to be protected or else we lose all else. So I don't think the no knock warrants for drug raids are the same as silencing someone who is expressing their views publicly.

Again, I disagree. Yes, freedom of expression is certainly important, however, not having your house broken into while your children are sleeping for minor things is equally important. In the article they mentioned SWAT busted into her home; I was merely pointing out this shit happens every day. If you are truly against opposing violence you should oppose all these laws which allow the government to incite violence against the citizenry.

[ThinkAnarchy]

I see a pretty major difference.
You can choose to obey a law or not, it's not really for the individual to decide what law is just.

Why is it not up to the individual to decide what laws are unjust? Why does a group, be them congress or judges get to decide what's just?

In a properly operating society the majority may demand a law or support a proposed law, people will be elected to enact the law.  The individual is not free because its actions effects others.  It's not a perfect system, the alternative is well, anarchy, I see this as something that benefits the brutal, it would be a dystopia.  

Why exactly is this a properly operating system? You mean this is your ideal of a properly operating system. Anarchy is not the opposite of this system; this is a false dichotomy. There are many different forms government a society can take.

I agree the individual should not be able to do things that directly affect other people, but that does not mean he is not free. If an individual could do things that affect others, no one would be free. Freedom is the ability to decide how to run your life and not have arbitrary obstacles preventing it. Things like drugs do not effect anyone but the person doing them.

I am not going to argue the benefits and drawbacks of an anarchistic system, or how such a system should or would operate, in this thread.

Would you have the same stance if this group of individuals outlawed computers? Who are you to second guess their laws? Were women wrong for the suffrage movement? Were blacks wrong for fighting against Jim Crow laws?

Better yet, were the abolitionist's wrong or were the anti-prohibitionist wrong; both opposed the "law" at some point. Were both wrong in your book?

In a democratic society you are free to state your opposition to a law, you can choose to break it if you feel strongly, you may go to jail for it though.  I don't think any of the groups you list were wrong, but I don't think they were fighting for anarchy.  The system changed for the better to recognise the justness of their case.  This illustrates a working system.

I did not argue that they were fighting for anarchy. I was simply pointing out that they were fighting against what they viewed as unjust laws when a majority of the society supported such laws.

I fail to see how this illustrates a working system that is just. These types of laws should not have been in effect in the first place. They were enacted by majority vote, which you seem to see as a proper system. Majorities should not be allowed to pass these types of laws. This is the flaw in our system and the system you seem to agree with. There are certain lines the law should not be able to cross, no matter what the majority wants.

What happens when the person with nothing to loose chooses to use their freedom to kill my family?  Who do I complain to?  Are we going to live in a fantasy land where the law grants unlimited freedom and magically no one misuses this freedom?

Again, I am not going to argue anarchy with you here. Needless to say, your family should never be endangered by another individual without proper recourse.
But what if the majority said it was lawful to kill children? Would you still support the system you claim is operating properly?

From where does the right to take drugs come from anyway?

The right to use drugs originates from the rights of the individual. We own our own bodies and minds. We are/should be free to do with our bodies as we choose. This is where your right to denounce god comes from, as well as others having the right to worship him/them.

It seems to me you desire more rights than you have, the government can put you in uniform, ship you overseas to kill some one you bare no grudge or kill you if you refuse.  I'm seeing wants not rights.

I am not sure what you are arguing here.

Freedom from religion is a basis of isn't it?

Your freedom of thought, association, and self-expression are no different from your right to do drugs; i.e. ownership of your body and mind.

I'm not going to argue your law with you, but it seems those that get paid the big dollars to interpret it disagree with you, otherwise you would have your drugs and we probably wouldn't be signed up to the drug war.

I am not saying the governmental bodies like the Supreme Court (or the equivalent in England) agree or disagree with me. The Court has held that the First Amendment includes the above stated rights (thought, association, and self-expression). They have also upheld things like abortion based on the First Amendment implied right of bodily integrity. If, according to these people, we have these rights, there is no logical basis for outlawing drugs.

Besides, who is to say that their interpretation is correct. Why are you so against questioning authority?

Ownership of my body and mind?  I don't even have access to an off switch.

Are you claiming here that you do not own your body and mind because you cannot turn it off? If so, it is so senseless and asinine that it does not deserve a proper response. 

The cop doing this is breaking the law, the ones doing drug busts are doing their job.

The cops enforcing Jim Crow laws were simply "doing their jobs". Does that automatically mean they were acting morally? The Gestapo was simply doing their jobs as well; I imagine you can see where I'm going with this. In case anyone can't, simply because law enforcement is following the laws, does not automatically justify their actions!

So we're talking morals now, OK.
Some laws were/are/will be immoral by my measure, I'm not ready to throw them all away though.

Again, I am not arguing that all laws should be thrown out, but I do have problems with immoral laws. The purpose of law is to protect individuals from violence. Immorality has no place in a legal system or code. Laws should not restrain people, but protect them from violence and restraint. The majority should not be allowed to decide what personal behavior to outlaw simply because it is unpopular. The law should instead protect that unpopular behavior. That was the original purpose of our legal system, but it has been bastardized by democracy and the rein of the majority against the unpopular and weak.

The cop doing this is breaking the law, the ones doing drug busts are doing their job
If you got your pro drugs placard out and legally protested and were illegally harassed, that would be a more similar thing.  Still not quite as bad though, unless you're a Rastafarian.

You're thinking here is illogical. Is it okay to question laws or not? Protesting is a form of questioning the law. According to you, the individual has no authority to do this.

It's OK by the laws of my country to question the law and I'm personally OK with people having this right.

But you don't agree with people breaking laws they view as unjust?

What if protesting was made illegal, which is not hard to imagine since it seems to be a theme in most authoritarian nations? Would you be okay with people protesting the law against protesting?

I don't live under such a system, I live in a country where the people who protested were sent as punishment.   The Tolpuddle Martyrs were sent here, they are heroes in my view.

So what was the point of all this?
I don't think a lawful drug raid equates with an unlawful harassment of someone based on their belief system.  People have already fought and died for this right, for this law.  Morally, I could find a few strong arguments against total legalisation of drugs, finding an argument to justify harassing atheists  is a lot harder.  

So governmental authorities breaking down people's doors, pointing guns in their faces, scaring their children and shooting their pets is somehow not as bad as harassing atheists. They are equally evil. If a private citizen did this you would be horrified and demand their imprisonment. In this country, we are meant to be free from these types of actions. Our homes are as personal and intimate as our beliefs and thoughts. I just don't understand how anyone sees a difference.

Why should I feel more morally outraged with the Florida situation, legal rights, human rights are stomped on, the sacrifices of those who fought for the law is dishonoured.  All drug raid victim has is a personal desire and a good but not incontrovertible argument.

So a drug user's rights are not "stomped on" when his house is raided by the police? The people who fought to preserve our rights are not dishonored by no knock warrants and SWAT team raids against otherwise innocent people? What about the times when they raid the wrong home or the home of someone with an illegal vegetable garden on their front lawn? These acts are never justified. Even if you believe that drugs should be illegal, the actions taken by the police are over the top and violate human rights.

Raw milk is illegal in this country and they use SWAT teams to raid the warehouses storing it. If I had raw milk in my home would you feel ok with SWAT breaking in my door and shooting my dog to seize a gallon of raw milk?


I would also like to point out, this all started because individuals on this forum seemed to take offense to my pointing out the misuse of SWAT teams in America, and how the wrongs committed in TC's post are no different than those committed everyday in the name of upholding the law. Simply because what they did in that case was not legally sanctioned, does not make it any worse.

[Davin]

Wow ThinkAnarchy, can you tone it down a bit, I mean there are children being tortured and killed as witches still to this day in Africa. Yes, it is very likely that one can find a worse injustice than whatever someone brings up. However bringing up something else when one is talking about a specific issue does little to help discussion.

Yes, there are terrible injustices throughout the world, what's your point? Simply because bad things are occurring elsewhere I should simply accept the injustices here?

No, my point was that you seemed to be saying that drug raids were on the same level. I was saying all that to point out your needlessly bringing up a completely different topic which is something that seems to get progressively worse each time someone responds to you.

@ OP. Yes this is very wrong, but no worse than no-knock warrants that happen every day, which usually result in the pet being shot and homeowners terrified, all because they have some drugs.

It's far more useful to discussion if one talks about what the person wrote instead adding in a bunch of other stuff that is not very related at all, which includes baseless assumptions like: "Simply because bad things are occurring elsewhere I should simply accept the injustices here?"

I fail to see the point.

Try this part... where I clearly stated the point:

However bringing up something else when one is talking about a specific issue does little to help discussion.

You went from a person being arrested for practicing free speech being just like drug raids, to the legalized racism of recent U.S. past. Bring it on down with a Hitler/Nazi comparison, some kind of claim of authority and you've almost completed the Intertubes argument set. Seriously, if you want to start a thread on drug legalization or Jim Crowe laws, then start one, don't hijack someone else's.

I was merely pointing out how this shit happens everyday. My intention was not to hijack the thread; people simply chose to discuss my comment with me. If Tank, or another moderator, would like to move these posts into their own thread, they are free to do so. The Nazi and Jim Crowe points were perfectly valid seeing as MP was seeming to say we should simply obey laws, regardless of the morality or correctness behind them.

Haha, good one. You are well on your way to being the poster boy for memed internet argument techniques.

Any way the difference: The drug crap is coercion, sure, but it's coercion to try to prevent people from doing drugs. The coercion to attempt to limit free speech is much, much worse. Imagine if you couldn't even complain about people being arrested for drugs because they made that illegal. At the very least, our freedom to express our opinions publicly about drugs, religion or almost anything (I'm still against inciting violence), needs to be protected or else we lose all else. So I don't think the no knock warrants for drug raids are the same as silencing someone who is expressing their views publicly.

Again, I disagree. Yes, freedom of expression is certainly important, however, not having your house broken into while your children are sleeping for minor things is equally important. In the article they mentioned SWAT busted into her home; I was merely pointing out this shit happens every day. If you are truly against opposing violence you should oppose all these laws which allow the government to incite violence against the citizenry.

Freedom of speech is way more important than someone getting their house broken into for breaking the law. It would be much worse not having the freedom of speech to inform people about this stuff happening than this stuff happening without anyone being able to talk about it. You didn't "merely [point] out that this shit happens every day", you compared the the two things as equal injustices.

Drug raids: The people broke the law by possessing a legally controlled substance and were raided for it.
Free speech suppression: The people were within their rights publicly expressing their views and were arrested for it.

Legally they are very different. They are morally very different. The actions are very different. The impact of each is very different. They affect society and individuals in very different ways. They are so different that any kind of similarity is useless to try to group them together. I see that you think they are both an injustice, however that seems to be the only similarity.

Also how do these laws "allow the government to incite violence against the citizenry." Seems like you're just adding a bunch of crap that isn't even related to anything I said.

[ThinkAnarchy]

No, my point was that you seemed to be saying that drug raids were on the same level. I was saying all that to point out your needlessly bringing up a completely different topic which is something that seems to get progressively worse each time someone responds to you.

Again, it wasn't a completely different topic seeing as it was a response to MP who was suggesting we should simply obey laws. I also find it humorous you are attacking me for not staying on topic when MP was at the same time trying to debate anarchy. Playing favorites a bit?

@ OP. Yes this is very wrong, but no worse than no-knock warrants that happen every day, which usually result in the pet being shot and homeowners terrified, all because they have some drugs.

It's far more useful to discussion if one talks about what the person wrote instead adding in a bunch of other stuff that is not very related at all, which includes baseless assumptions like: "Simply because bad things are occurring elsewhere I should simply accept the injustices here?"

I fail to see the point.

Try this part... where I clearly stated the point:

However bringing up something else when one is talking about a specific issue does little to help discussion.

You did not make it clear it was simply an example in your initial post.

You went from a person being arrested for practicing free speech being just like drug raids, to the legalized racism of recent U.S. past. Bring it on down with a Hitler/Nazi comparison, some kind of claim of authority and you've almost completed the Intertubes argument set. Seriously, if you want to start a thread on drug legalization or Jim Crowe laws, then start one, don't hijack someone else's.

I was merely pointing out how this shit happens everyday. My intention was not to hijack the thread; people simply chose to discuss my comment with me. If Tank, or another moderator, would like to move these posts into their own thread, they are free to do so. The Nazi and Jim Crowe points were perfectly valid seeing as MP was seeming to say we should simply obey laws, regardless of the morality or correctness behind them.

Haha, good one. You are well on your way to being the poster boy for memed internet argument techniques.

Again, you are missing the point.

Any way the difference: The drug crap is coercion, sure, but it's coercion to try to prevent people from doing drugs. The coercion to attempt to limit free speech is much, much worse. Imagine if you couldn't even complain about people being arrested for drugs because they made that illegal. At the very least, our freedom to express our opinions publicly about drugs, religion or almost anything (I'm still against inciting violence), needs to be protected or else we lose all else. So I don't think the no knock warrants for drug raids are the same as silencing someone who is expressing their views publicly.

Again, I disagree. Yes, freedom of expression is certainly important, however, not having your house broken into while your children are sleeping for minor things is equally important. In the article they mentioned SWAT busted into her home; I was merely pointing out this shit happens every day. If you are truly against opposing violence you should oppose all these laws which allow the government to incite violence against the citizenry.

Freedom of speech is way more important than someone getting their house broken into for breaking the law. It would be much worse not having the freedom of speech to inform people about this stuff happening than this stuff happening without anyone being able to talk about it. You didn't "merely [point] out that this shit happens every day", you compared the the two things as equal injustices.

Drug raids: The people broke the law by possessing a legally controlled substance and were raided for it.
Free speech suppression: The people were within their rights publicly expressing their views and were arrested for it.

Legally they are very different. They are morally very different. The actions are very different. The impact of each is very different. They affect society and individuals in very different ways. They are so different that any kind of similarity is useless to try to group them together. I see that you think they are both an injustice, however that seems to be the only similarity.

SWAT was used for the non-violent woman in the article, as SWAT is used on all kinds of non-violent individuals. I don't see this major difference between freedom of speech and freedom of your body/mind. That is basically what it boils down to. The government swarms homes because people do with their own bodies what the government forbids. Freedom of speech in my view, extends from our ownership of ourselves, therefor, they are equivalent.

Also, it would be virtually impossible to limit speech in today's world. Even if they made it illegal, we would still have the means to spread word of events through the internet. So no, I don't think it is anymore vital than other rights we should have regarding our own bodies.

Also how do these laws "allow the government to incite violence against the citizenry." Seems like you're just adding a bunch of crap that isn't even related to anything I said.

Are you seriously incapable of seeing how breaking into citizens homes for minor crimes is not government sanctioned violence? Simply because someone is guilty of a non-violent crime does not justify violent retaliation. Many times the people are not even guilty of that; sometimes it's the wrong home and other times it's faulty information. You clearly aren't anti-violence like you claim if you see nothing wrong here. It seems like whenever you can't comprehend something you throw out accusations of "unrelated crap." You said you were "against inciting violence."

[Davin]

No, my point was that you seemed to be saying that drug raids were on the same level. I was saying all that to point out your needlessly bringing up a completely different topic which is something that seems to get progressively worse each time someone responds to you.

Again, it wasn't a completely different topic seeing as it was a response to MP who was suggesting we should simply obey laws. I also find it humorous you are attacking me for not staying on topic when MP was at the same time trying to debate anarchy. Playing favorites a bit?

Take a look at the quote directly below this, it is the entire post, in which you made no mention of responding to MP but did make it clear that you were responding the to Original Poster:

@ OP. Yes this is very wrong, but no worse than no-knock warrants that happen every day, which usually result in the pet being shot and homeowners terrified, all because they have some drugs.

This and that you continue to bring in many other things into the discussion that have no understandable relevance to the topic.

Again, you are missing the point.

What do you mean by "Again"? You had not previously stated in this conversational line that I had missed a point, so how could I miss one again? Also what is your point that I am missing?

SWAT was used for the non-violent woman in the article, as SWAT is used on all kinds of non-violent individuals. I don't see this major difference between freedom of speech and freedom of your body/mind. That is basically what it boils down to. The government swarms homes because people do with their own bodies what the government forbids. Freedom of speech in my view, extends from our ownership of ourselves, therefor, they are equivalent.

So because they are the same in your view they are equivalent? That hardly seems reasonable. In my view they aren't equivalent. Also by almost all demonstrable means they aren't the equivalent.

Also, it would be virtually impossible to limit speech in today's world. Even if they made it illegal, we would still have the means to spread word of events through the internet. So no, I don't think it is anymore vital than other rights we should have regarding our own bodies.

Well as long as you merely think so.

Also how do these laws "allow the government to incite violence against the citizenry." Seems like you're just adding a bunch of crap that isn't even related to anything I said.

Are you seriously incapable of seeing how breaking into citizens homes for minor crimes is not government sanctioned violence?

You said the government inciting violence. Inciting and commiting violence are two different things. Just because an officer of the government commited violence doesn't mean that the officer was incited to do so.

Simply because someone is guilty of a non-violent crime does not justify violent retaliation. Many times the people are not even guilty of that; sometimes it's the wrong home and other times it's faulty information.

What does this have to do with anything I said? Are these merely random statements?

You clearly aren't anti-violence like you claim if you see nothing wrong here. It seems like whenever you can't comprehend something you through out accusations of "unrelated crap." You said you were "against inciting violence."

Yes, I don't think inciting violence should be protected under freedom of speech, which was the original context of my statement about inciting violence. Also, I'm not anti-violence (nor did I ever claim so): I do like to box, which is a violent sport. I'm ok with violence if all participants are of age to give consent and also give consent. I make this correction about my views on violence in good faith that you will not take what I say out of context again.

[ThinkAnarchy]

take a look at the quote directly below this, it is the entire post, in which you made no mention of responding to MP but did make it clear that you were responding the to Original Poster:

@ OP. Yes this is very wrong, but no worse than no-knock warrants that happen every day, which usually result in the pet being shot and homeowners terrified, all because they have some drugs.

This and that you continue to bring in many other things into the discussion that have no understandable relevance to the topic.

In the initial post I was simply saying these things happen everyday.

Again, you are missing the point.

What do you mean by "Again"? You had not previously stated in this conversational line that I had missed a point, so how could I miss one again? Also what is your point that I am missing?

In this one, you may be right. The point you seemed to miss however is that my comparisons were not off base seeing as they were a direct response to MP. The were valid illustrations of how laws are not automatically just.

SWAT was used for the non-violent woman in the article, as SWAT is used on all kinds of non-violent individuals. I don't see this major difference between freedom of speech and freedom of your body/mind. That is basically what it boils down to. The government swarms homes because people do with their own bodies what the government forbids. Freedom of speech in my view, extends from our ownership of ourselves, therefor, they are equivalent.

So because they are the same in your view they are equivalent? That hardly seems reasonable. In my view they aren't equivalent. Also by almost all demonstrable means they aren't the equivalent.

Than we will simply have to disagree, it doesn't appear either of us will change our mind.  

Also, it would be virtually impossible to limit speech in today's world. Even if they made it illegal, we would still have the means to spread word of events through the internet. So no, I don't think it is anymore vital than other rights we should have regarding our own bodies.

Well as long as you merely think so.

It's not merely a thought. The internet has continuously showed how efficient it is in circumventing laws.

Also how do these laws "allow the government to incite violence against the citizenry." Seems like you're just adding a bunch of crap that isn't even related to anything I said.

Are you seriously incapable of seeing how breaking into citizens homes for minor crimes is not government sanctioned violence?

You said the government inciting violence. Inciting and commiting violence are two different things. Just because an officer of the government commited violence doesn't mean that the officer was incited to do so.

Agreed, inciting and committing are two totally different things. In hindsight, I used the wrong word here, I should have said, "initiating violence." Again, though, they are two different things.

So let me just clarify, the government is initiating violence when they retaliate to non-violent crimes with violence.

Simply because someone is guilty of a non-violent crime does not justify violent retaliation. Many times the people are not even guilty of that; sometimes it's the wrong home and other times it's faulty information.

What does this have to do with anything I said? Are these merely random statements?

It has to do with the use of SWAT, both in the article and your comment about busting down the doors of non-violent homeowners. You mentioned the article is worse. I do love your tactic of ignoring points by continuously asking their relevance, however.  

You clearly aren't anti-violence like you claim if you see nothing wrong here. It seems like whenever you can't comprehend something you through out accusations of "unrelated crap." You said you were "against inciting violence."

Yes, I don't think inciting violence should be protected under freedom of speech, which was the original context of my statement about inciting violence. Also, I'm not anti-violence (nor did I ever claim so): I do like to box, which is a violent sport. I'm ok with violence if all participants are of age to give consent and also give consent. I make this correction about my views on violence in good faith that you will not take what I say out of context again.

In this case I did unintentionally take what you said out of context. I agree with you on this, I am not against violence either, merely the initiation of it. I have no problem with consensual violence and enjoy it as well.

I would also like to add I was inadvertently using inciting and initiating as virtually the same thing which likely caused some confusion. Any mention of inciting in my previous posts, please read as initiating.  

[fester30]

I can't remember for sure but I think it was Socrates who taught that if you choose to live in a society, you choose to live by that society's laws. 

According to Dr. C. George Boeree Socrates "suggests that what is to be considered a good act is not good because gods say it is, but is good because it is useful to us in our efforts to be better and happier people.  This means that ethics is no longer a matter of surveying the gods or scripture for what is good or bad, but rather thinking about life.  He even placed individual conscience above the law."

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/athenians.html<<< website for the above quote.

I'm not sure if I'm right about Socrates in the first part, because it might have been Aristotle.  If both are true, perhaps even Socrates isn't totally certain which view he would take in this argument.

My opinion in this case goes with Aristotle... everything according to your own tolerances.  If you cannot tolerate jail time and trials, then simply stay within the law and do not fight against what you perceive to be unjust laws.  If you can tolerate it, then by all means break the law you perceive to be unjust as a form of protest. 

Or you could simply protest it and fight to get the law changed.  Or move to a place where the law is different.

[ThinkAnarchy]

My opinion in this case goes with Aristotle... everything according to your own tolerances.  If you cannot tolerate jail time and trials, then simply stay within the law and do not fight against what you perceive to be unjust laws.  If you can tolerate it, then by all means break the law you perceive to be unjust as a form of protest. Or you could simply protest it and fight to get the law changed.

Very well said.  

Or move to a place where the law is different.

This is where you lose me. That simply isn't a very practical statement in today's world. When dealing purely with the drugs issue it is acceptable, since there are countries where at least some are legal. In the broader issue, however, there will likely be more than one law an individual disagrees with. Even for a non-anarchist, it would be virtually impossible to find an area with the laws you support and absent of the ones you oppose.