Is breaking an unjust law acceptable behavior?

[fester30]

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.

I was being rather cheeky with that last part where I lost you.

[ThinkAnarchy]

I was being rather cheeky with that last part where I lost you.

Unfortunately I hear that exact thing a lot and it annoys me every time. It's usually phrased like this, "why don't you just leave than..."

[fester30]

I was being rather cheeky with that last part where I lost you.

Unfortunately I hear that exact thing a lot and it annoys me every time. It's usually phrased like this, "why don't you just leave than..."

Yeah I hear it a lot, too.  Of course that's just not an option for the vast majority of people.

[Davin]

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.

The point I was addressing was in the post I just cited in that you were not responding to MP, but the OP and brought in something very loosely related. That was and still is my point. I did also, as in additionally bring up that instead of just discussing the topics as they were, you brought in more different things. These were two separate points even if they were made in the same sentence.

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

It may seem like that to you, however I change my mind quite a lot. I just don't change it on someone else thinking something, I change it upon reasonable demonstration and/or newly discovered facts. I agree with you that both things are an injustice, however I fail to see any other relevant similarities between the two. I have tried many times in this dicsussion to present the reasons why I came to the conclusion that freedom of speech is a much more vital right than using drugs, but you seem to have avoided all my points on the matter simply because you think they are the same. I find that rather unreasonable.

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

Yes, many people died in Egypt recently in order to fight for the right to use the internet so that they could freely express themselves. However those in China and North Korea don't get our same privileges to the internet and many other countries are somewhere in between. So I don't see how the point you're bringing up is valid. If the U.S. Government sought to limit free speech on the internet, they could do so because they have the means and the technology to accomplish censorship is already in place. When the photos of the GitMo crap were released, the U.S. Government censored the sitel; had they a more active policy on censorship, they could have supressed them entirely.

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'm pretty sure I didn't, I mentioned that the loss of freedom to even express ones disdain for what they feel is an injustice is much worse than having injustices done to people: Having an injustice done to someone is bad, not being able to publicly talk about it is worse.

I do love your tactic of ignoring points by continuously asking their relevance, however.  

I don't see the point in discussing points with no relevance.