A question (mostly) for AC'ers, about the rule of law.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
And you don't think that the majority of those laws are based on the beliefs of the constituency? If not there is nothing to talk about, you are in denial of reality to support a theoretical construct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since the mechanisms under which those representatives are elected and what laws they can pass and what methods they use to pass them were voted on during a period (taking the Us as an example) when well under 50% of the population were even allowed to show up at the polls I find it very amusing that you consider that democracy should be de facto considered bending to wishes of the populace.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And you don't think that the majority of those laws are based on the beliefs of the constituency? If not there is nothing to talk about, you are in denial of reality to support a theoretical construct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since the mechanisms under which those representatives are elected and what laws they can pass and what methods they use to pass them were voted on during a period (taking the Us as an example) when well under 50% of the population were even allowed to show up at the polls I find it very amusing that you consider that democracy should be de facto considered bending to wishes of the populace.

[/ QUOTE ]

What laws were passed prior to their enfranchisement of those groups you refer to that haven't been overturned that they would overturn? Your point is irrelevant if the laws on the books are essentially the same ones that would be on the books had they been enfranchised. And if they havent attempted to change those laws they have given their tacit approval of them. In a purely market driven society there is de facto disenfranchisement of those without financial clout.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason it's bad is described in the OP: we don't always know what is just, and certainly government officials don't always know. If we give our blessing to disregard the law when we think it is just, then we will find that the law is sometimes disregarded when we think it is unjust. Perhaps more significantly, we would make it too easy for officials to break the law when they are acting whimsically, or corruptly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand all these points; but none of this seems problematic if we make the (unreasonable) assumption that the laws are being broken to do what is actually just, not what the state official happens to *think* is just. So I will maintain that nreaking the law to do what is instead *actually* just will never be truly bad/problematic/etc.

That said, you keep bringing us back to the more practical issue of how we should view government officials who disregard the law for what they see as nobler purposes, which is a little murkier. As an anarchist, I don't really think there is anything special about government officials that makes me think this question ought to be answered differently for them than for the average person. I also, of course, tend to think that centralized law is overvalued, so I would tend to favor people acting in accordance with what they thought to be just, rather than what the law said. Clearly this might have some negative consequences (hopefully one such "negative" consequence being that trying to apply federal law over an entire country would no longer be feasible!)

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

What laws were passed prior to their enfranchisement of those groups you refer to that haven't been overturned that they would overturn? Your point is irrelevant if the laws on the books are essentially the same ones that would be on the books had they been enfranchised. And if they havent attempted to change those laws they have given their tacit approval of them. In a purely market driven society there is de facto disenfranchisement of those without financial clout.

[/ QUOTE ]

All of your points are easily refuted with the election of a democratic senate who passed a bill requiring a time line for withdrawal from Iraq. Polls and election results show clearly that the majority of voters at the least and the majority of all Americans with near certainty approved of this measure (or at least approved of this as opposed to continual funding with no timeline). Yet one person (with ~30% approval ratings) vetoed it.

For years the majority of those polled have favored some form of SS reform, yet it has not materialized. Campaign finance reform has similarly strong support at times.