When is ignoring/breaking the law acceptable?

[RuralEngineer]

Is there a point or where is the point when breaking or ignoring the law acceptable in the U.S.?  I'm referring to the, IMO, blatantly unconstitutional gun ban being considered in California but this can apply to any law or potential law.  I'm curious whether the majority has a point where they'll resist in some fashion or if I'm an outlier.

For example, the SCOTUS is supposed to protect us from unconstitutional laws, but they're just 9 human beings and have shown themselves to be much less impartial than one might desire.  With the advent of a "living document" and interpretative constitutional law, does an individual citizen have a moral responsibility to follow laws they disagree with as being unconstitutional despite having been "interpreted" to being legal by Congress, the POTUS, and SCOTUS?

What if the issue isn't guns, what if it is freedom of speech?  I had this discussion with two of my co-workers yesterday (one is Indian and the other is Pakistani and yes, we have wonderful discussions about foreign affairs) and both asserted that people shouldn't be able to make statements that belittle the religion of others because they're offensive (the example being the recent Mohammad Youtube video guy).  I told them that's a very un-American position, but common in Europe (hate-speech laws).  If the U.S. government implemented a law curbing free speech in that way, are we obligated to follow such a blatantly unconstitutional law?

Feel free to ignore this next section, as this is just my response and may muddy the waters a bit.

As for me, I don't really believe in moral authority absent an objective source.  Even if such an objective source existed, it would have to be capable of intervention to facilitate that moral code.  Otherwise we're left with reality, which is might makes right.  If you resist alone and are struck down, it doesn't matter how many people morn your passing as unjust if no action takes place.  Likewise, if a majority is capable of imposing its will on a minority, no matter how unjust, only results matter.  So any individual who decides to take action against a perceived injustice need only worry about their personal state of mind.  Are the consequences of failure acceptable.  Is living under the proposed injustice tolerable emotionally.

A good example of my mindset is the Native Americans in the 1800's.  By this time, they had no hope of defeating the Americans.  We had numbers, technology, economy, and essentially biological warfare (intentional or not).  Resistance changed nothing and may have actually made things worse.  A partial assimilation earlier may have saved more of their culture and people.  However, I still think resistance was the better course.  To surrender without at least making an attempt at fighting would have been more emotionally damaging.  I'd rather die than see my way of life destroyed and my people subjugated.  Morality isn't the issue, it's all about what a man can do or tolerate and what he can not.

[Pointedstick]

It's an intensely personal decision. I think most people eventually settle on ignoring laws that they think have little to no chance of actually being enforced on them. Online media piracy is a great example. There's strength in numbers, too. It's easier for 100,000 protesters to ignore a law and get away with it than if those people all broke the law in their day-to-day lives.

In the end, I think might makes right is really the only absolute morality there is. We've all delegated that final moral decision to government; witness how we grant it the power to kidnap, steal, and kill in our name. If you have no might, you're always dependent on someone else's protection, whether that be a parent, spouse, hired guard, or agent of the state.

I'm with you on the morality of resisting in a doomed situation, though. Better to die with dignity if you're going to die anyway. Things change when the situation isn't forced upon you and you have dependents, of course. Would you go fight for a cause you passionately believed in if the battle lines were far away and you had a wife and children who depended on your resources and protection?

[RuralEngineer]

Would you go fight for a cause you passionately believed in if the battle lines were far away and you had a wife and children who depended on your resources and protection?

It's hard to answer that in the hypothetical because I have a difficult time predicting my emotional state.  There's considerable fudge factor on all of my responses here because I've been very blessed to have avoided many of the horrible situations I read about in the fear-mongering media. 

In that situation fighting would be the selfish act, in all likelihood.  I've had this thought process before when I've considered what I would do if someone hurt a member of my family.  I would likely commit an act of great violence, which would be selfish because it would likely deprive the rest of my family of my presence.  However, I'm not sure I could live with the emotional pain of knowing that someone had hurt a loved one of mine and escaped justice.  Similarly, if I thought that there was a great injustice being imposed on me, I may not have the emotional fortitude to "suck it up" for my family's sake.  On the other hand, if I thought I had a reasonable chance of winning, even at the cost of my own life, I may decide to fight simply to leave my family something better.

In short, I'd like to think I'd do whatever was best for my family as I value their lives much more highly than my own, but I don't really know because I've not had to make that kind of decision yet.  Working a job I despise to keep a roof over our heads isn't really in the same ballpark and I only had to suffer that for about a year.

[moda0306]

As long as you're treating people with respect as individuals, I see no reason to obey government unless you think it's in you and your family's best interests.

[notsheigetz]

As for me, I don't really believe in moral authority absent an objective source.....

A good example of my mindset is the Native Americans in the 1800's.  By this time, they had no hope of defeating the Americans.  We had numbers, technology, economy, and essentially biological warfare (intentional or not).  Resistance changed nothing and may have actually made things worse.  A partial assimilation earlier may have saved more of their culture and people.  However, I still think resistance was the better course.  To surrender without at least making an attempt at fighting would have been more emotionally damaging.  I'd rather die than see my way of life destroyed and my people subjugated.  Morality isn't the issue, it's all about what a man can do or tolerate and what he can not.

What if you turn that example around and put yourself in the place of one of the soldiers in the last battle of the American Indian Wars at Wounded Knee where the soldiers opened fire and massacred men, women, and children (and interestingly it is claimed this was started when one of the old Indians refused to give up his rifle)? Or, in a more recent example, as an American soldier present at the My Lai massacre in Vietnam? Is there anything in your moral code of might makes right that would prohibit you from taking part in these atrocities? I could continue but Godwin's law of reductio ad hitlerum prevents me.

If you believe you would not be a participant in these kinds of atrocities then what would be the objective source of this morality?

[MediumTex]

As long as a person understands the potential consequences of civil disobedience, I don't think that there is any problem with disobeying any law that an individual finds to be immoral or otherwise offensive to them.

The thing is, though (and this is where people often get off track), the fact that someone may personally find a law offensive has nothing to do with the consequnces of disobeying that law.

It's certainly true that enough political pressure will often cause a stupid law to stop being enforced, but that political pressure process may or may not assist any given individual who has broken the law.

Think of prosecutors as typical schoolyard bullies.  They can't possibly bully everyone, so they just try to pick the weakest people that can most easily be bullied, hoping that this bullying can set a sufficiently strong example for everyone else that they will feel intimidated enough not to challenge the bully.  It works pretty well most of the time.

When a person breaks a law because they feel personally justified and they get caught, their next stop is usually a visit to the bullies I am describing above.  I think that the morally justified defendant is often disappointed to find that the prosecutor not only doesn't give a shit about their moral justification, he/she will actually seem especially annoyed at the implicit challenge to their authority contained in such high-minded activities as "civil disobedience."

Over time, civil disobedience can lead to durable change, but there are normally a lot of casualties involved in challenging authority in this way.  I wouldn't want to be one.

[RuralEngineer]

What if you turn that example around and put yourself in the place of one of the soldiers in the last battle of the American Indian Wars at Wounded Knee where the soldiers opened fire and massacred men, women, and children (and interestingly it is claimed this was started when one of the old Indians refused to give up his rifle)? Or, in a more recent example, as an American soldier present at the My Lai massacre in Vietnam? Is there anything in your moral code of might makes right that would prohibit you from taking part in these atrocities? I could continue but Godwin's law of reductio ad hitlerum prevents me.

If you believe you would not be a participant in these kinds of atrocities then what would be the objective source of this morality?

I think you are somewhat misunderstanding me, but not completely.

It's not that I don't believe in morality, I believe in personal and individual morality since even if there is an objective source (God), the source doesn't enforce that code, which makes it irrelevant.  I have a personal code of morality that is a product of my upbringing and life experiences.  My personal code of morality would prohibit me from taking part in massacres such as you mentioned, but I'll add the caveat that I'm not a soldier and in those kinds of situations and stresses decision making is not the same as sitting in a padded chair in front of a computer screen. 

When I say "might makes right," I mean simply that no mystical power is going to come and save you if you engage in a doomed endeavor simply because of the rightness of your cause.  Likewise, no higher power is going to strike you down if you engage in atrocity from a position of strength.  In this world only results matter and if there is an asterisk next to a particular outcome on some divine scorecard because of the immorality of that particular action, it's of little consequence to those of us stuck living here.  We lament those lost at Wounded Knee, but they are no less dead and we are no less in possession of their ancestral lands.

[MachineGhost]

Over time, civil disobedience can lead to durable change, but there are normally a lot of casualties involved in challenging authority in this way.  I wouldn't want to be one.

The pioneers always get the arrows in their backs.

Short of living in a communist utopia, I think sticking to legal methods of reform makes much more practical sense.  Enduring solutions have to be bottoms up, not revolutionary.

[WildAboutHarry]

I am a big Robert Heinlein fan (I've quoted him in this forum several times).  Professor Bernardo de la Paz a character in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress has this to say about the OP topic:

I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

[Benko]

Jury nullification:

"Jury nullification occurs in a trial when a jury acquits a defendant they believe to be guilty of the charges against them. This may occur when members of the jury disagree with the law the defendant has been charged with, or believe that the law should not be applied in that particular case."

Of course from what I've read in a google search, actually trying to do that, or let jurors know that they have that right (best I can tell they still do, but I ain't a lawyer) may have adverse consequences.

[Pointedstick]

If you are not aware of jury nullification you'll find it relevant to this discussion.

Of course from what I've read in a google search, actually trying to do that, or let jurors know that they have that right (best I can tell they still do, but I ain't a lawyer) tends to piss people in the courtroom off.

It's a lot harder than it sounds due to the way the jury selection process works. I was recently called up and had the opportunity to answer questions from the judge and attorneys, and witnessed firsthand just how corrupt and biased the system is. They do their best to remove everyone from the jury pool who has any strong feeling or experience on way or another or who holds views that are too intellectual. They want people who are bland, manipulable, blank slates who are easily influenced by authority figures.

Inevitably one of the questions you're asked is "do you think such-and-such crime the defendant is charged with should actually be a crime?" And because you're under oath, if you decline to admit that you don't think it ought to be, and are then chosen and cause a jury nullification by your not guilty ruling, they have legal recourse to prosecute you for perjury. If course, they have to prove that you believed that position at the time you were asked, but that hurdle doesn't make the threat of prosecution any less dangerous.

[Ad Orientem]

When is ignoring/breaking the law acceptable?

When you believe in the injustice of a law strongly enough that you are willing to go to jail without whining rather than obey it.

[Benko]

PS,

Ya, I heard it mentioned in the context of someone who was going to say (when called for jury duty) that he had taught constitutional law and believed in jury nullification.  He didn't think they would want him after that.

I remember reading about the trouble people have gotten in over this in courts, but I still think  it significant that it was put in as part of the law at all.

[Pointedstick]

PS,

Ya, I heard it mentioned in the context of someone who was going to say (when called for jury duty) that he had taught constitutional law and believed in jury nullification.  He didn't think they would want him after that.

I remember reading about the trouble people have gotten in over this in courts, but I still think  it significant that it was put in as part of the law at all.

Yeah, on my jury, I announced my opposition to the crime of "resisting arrest" and gave a brief speech on the inherent right of self-defense, and how I believed its criminalization in this instance was in violation of universal human rights. That got me dismissed right quick. I knew it would, but didn't want to lie, and was struck by a naive hope that some of my fellow jurors might be moved by my words.

Come to think of it, talking about jury nullification is probably a pretty surefire way to get dismissed from a jury if you don't want to be there. Much easier than pretending not to speak English, which one women tried with limited success, only getting kicked off because she was annoying the judge with her failed attempts at subterfuge.

[MediumTex]

PS,

Ya, I heard it mentioned in the context of someone who was going to say (when called for jury duty) that he had taught constitutional law and believed in jury nullification.  He didn't think they would want him after that.

I remember reading about the trouble people have gotten in over this in courts, but I still think  it significant that it was put in as part of the law at all.

When I get called for jury duty I always try to convey my belief that police are usually dishonest when they testify, simply because the amount of time between the offense and the trial makes it inconceivable that any police officer could remember things in that much detail.  The dishonesty comes into play when the police officer fails to mention while on the stand that he/she is relying on a review of police reports that were prepared when the alleged crime occurred, and that any errors in the initial reports will then become errors in police testimony when the trial occurs later.  In other words, the police officer's testimony is usually a faithful rehashing of the initial reports, not any kind of actual firsthand account of what happened when the incident occurred.

I was once on a DWI jury and the police officer testified about how many seconds elapsed between the time that a signal light turned yellow and when the defendant entered an intersection.  When I realized that he was describing an event that had occurred almost two years before I knew that he couldn't possibly be conveying an actual memory; he was just testifying to what his report from the night of the incident had stated, which may or may not have been correct.  The court bailiff could have given the exact same testimony after reviewing the reports.

This approach is usually sufficient to get sent home before the jury is seated (though it wasn't in the case above--BTW, we acquitted the defendant).  When I voice my concerns about police testimony, the prosecutor often looks at me like "Why did you have to say that in front of the rest of these potential jurors?" 

Prosecutors do send a lot of bad guys to jail, but in the process they also harass a lot of other people with higher than necessary charges, delays that cost defendants money in additional legal fees and with state testimony that is often designed more for the prosecutor to increase his win percentage than to faithfully pursue justice.

[RuralEngineer]

When is ignoring/breaking the law acceptable?

When you believe in the injustice of a law strongly enough that you are willing to go to jail without whining rather than obey it.

You bring up a good point.  Is the only acceptable form of civil disobedience peaceful?  If I disagree with a law, am I obligated to lodge my protest and then let them haul me to jail?  If I'm not obligated to obey a morally objectionable law, why am I obligated to accept arrest and incarceration?

[AgAuMoney]

If I'm not obligated to obey a morally objectionable law, why am I obligated to accept arrest and incarceration?

It's all a judgment call, right?  So here's my judgment:

You aren't.  But you are required to avoid committing any immoral acts in your attempt to avoid arrest and incarceration.  E.g. nothing immoral about moving to another community or state or country, but it would be immoral to take the life of those who do believe in what you consider morally objectionable simply to avoid arrest and incarceration.

Now if it was your life or theirs, it gets really murky really quick.

And if they won't let you leave BEFORE you have broken the law, or if the only law broken is in trying to leave, then as far as I am concerned they have no moral authority whatsoever.

[Mountaineer]

Is there a point or where is the point when breaking or ignoring the law acceptable in the U.S.? 

My beliefs: 1. Civil authority (whether in the church or civil government or business) has been put there or is allowed to be there by God.  2. Absolutely nothing I "do" on this side of physical death affects whether I live forever with the triune God as long as I believe my sins are forgiven for Christ's sake.

Thus, to answer the OP's question with a question and an answer - acceptable to whom?  To God, never.  To man, it depends.

I believe behavior has consequences - thus, I must always be willing to suffer the consequences whether I knowingly or unknowingly break the laws of the places I live and work.  I may or may not "get caught" or may "get caught and be forgiven" by those who judge me.  Since I will be judged on this earth by fellow sinners, all of whom are corrupt in some fashion, it is a crap shoot as to what my consequences will be and whether or not other fellow sinners would think I were judged appropriately. 

[MediumTex]

Is there a point or where is the point when breaking or ignoring the law acceptable in the U.S.? 

My beliefs: 1. Civil authority (whether in the church or civil government or business) has been put there or is allowed to be there by God.  2. Absolutely nothing I "do" on this side of physical death affects whether I live forever with the triune God as long as I believe my sins are forgiven for Christ's sake.

Thus, to answer the OP's question with a question and an answer - acceptable to whom?  To God, never.  To man, it depends.

I believe behavior has consequences - thus, I must always be willing to suffer the consequences whether I knowingly or unknowingly break the laws of the places I live and work.  I may or may not "get caught" or may "get caught and be forgiven" by those who judge me.  Since I will be judged on this earth by fellow sinners, all of whom are corrupt in some fashion, it is a crap shoot as to what my consequences will be and whether or not other fellow sinners would think I were judged appropriately.

So if it was illegal to teach that the earth orbited the sun, as it was in Galileo's day, you would say that in the eyes of God each person had a moral duty not to teach anyone else that the earth orbited around the sun?

What about in Nazi Germany when there were laws requiring Jews to register and otherwise allow themselves to be herded in a way that would result in almost certain death.  Are you saying that in the eyes of God they should have followed these laws without resistance?

In our own country, our Founding Fathers were little more to Great Britain that a bunch of educated and pretentious traitors.  In the eyes of God should they have simply submitted to British rule without complaint?

What about a modern Islamic state in which practicing Christianity is illegal.  Does that mean that a good Christian in one of those countries should simply convert to Islam because failure to do so would involve a violation of the laws of that country that would be unacceptable in the eyes of God?

I think that you are giving political institutions way too much credit in suggesting that they exist because that's the way God wants it.  I can just as easily see God saying something like "No.  That's not the way I wanted it at all, and that's why I sent you George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, et al."

[rocketdog]

Being a conscientious objectoror otherwise ignoring bad laws is a fine way to change them.  But first you need a fully informed jury on your side:

http://fija.org/

I've been on jury duty 3 times, and it's sad to see how the judge will manipulate and lie to the jurors about their right to judge the law as well as the facts in a court case. 

[Mountaineer]

Is there a point or where is the point when breaking or ignoring the law acceptable in the U.S.? 

My beliefs: 1. Civil authority (whether in the church or civil government or business) has been put there or is allowed to be there by God.  2. Absolutely nothing I "do" on this side of physical death affects whether I live forever with the triune God as long as I believe my sins are forgiven for Christ's sake.

Thus, to answer the OP's question with a question and an answer - acceptable to whom?  To God, never.  To man, it depends.

I believe behavior has consequences - thus, I must always be willing to suffer the consequences whether I knowingly or unknowingly break the laws of the places I live and work.  I may or may not "get caught" or may "get caught and be forgiven" by those who judge me.  Since I will be judged on this earth by fellow sinners, all of whom are corrupt in some fashion, it is a crap shoot as to what my consequences will be and whether or not other fellow sinners would think I were judged appropriately.

So if it was illegal to teach that the earth orbited the sun, as it was in Galileo's day, you would say that in the eyes of God each person had a moral duty not to teach anyone else that the earth orbited around the sun?

What about in Nazi Germany when there were laws requiring Jews to register and otherwise allow themselves to be herded in a way that would result in almost certain death.  Are you saying that in the eyes of God they should have followed these laws without resistance?

In our own country, our Founding Fathers were little more to Great Britain that a bunch of educated and pretentious traitors.  In the eyes of God should they have simply submitted to British rule without complaint?

What about a modern Islamic state in which practicing Christianity is illegal.  Does that mean that a good Christian in one of those countries should simply convert to Islam because failure to do so would involve a violation of the laws of that country that would be unacceptable in the eyes of God?

I think that you are giving political institutions way too much credit in suggesting that they exist because that's the way God wants it.  I can just as easily see God saying something like "No.  That's not the way I wanted it at all, and that's why I sent you George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, et al."

Medium Tex, thanks for your response.  I now realize that I left a very important part of my beliefs out when I made my post.  I should have added:  We are subject to civil authority UNLESS the civil authority is in conflict with God's Word as expressed in the Bible.  This is a very complicated subject to discuss in an internet forum - it usually devolves into a discussion of various Old Testament regulations that applied at the time but not now.  Others are free to reject God's gift of faith through grace and His Word (via the Bible) if they choose.  I also believe that we are not to try to understand the mind of God; what He provides in the Bible is sufficient for our salvation but still leaves unanswered questions.  So I am going to try not to get into a debating match but I'll do my best to address other questions you may have.  The definition of "Bible" that I use means the Old (Hebrew Scriptures) and New Testaments which typically contains 66 books; God's Word is revealed in the Bible.  That said, I'll briefly comment on your examples:

1. Orbits - God gave man reason to use in the civil realm here on earth but not in the Godly realm (e.g. trying to understand the mind of God).  Thus, we make benefit of our increasing knowledge in such areas as science, engineering, technology, medicine, helping others.  I believe it was wrong for the "church" power brokers to kill others for advancing new scientific theories.  Many awful things have been done, and still are, by a corrupt "church" that is more interested in preserving power and wealth than preaching the truth of God's Word, both Law and Gospel.

2. Nazis - Their ideas and behaviors were in major conflict with God's Word and thus should not have been followed.  Dietrich Bonhoeffer's (a Lutheran pastor) struggle re. whether to be involved in the Hitler assassination attempt is a good example of a real life situation.

3. Founding Fathers - Tough one.  I do not believe England's behavior was in conflict with God's Word (anymore than all of us sinners are in conflict with it).  My current perspective is that the colonists should not have rebelled.

4. Islam - That religion is in major conflict with God's Word.  Christians who choose to live in a Islamic country must be ready to suffer the earthly consequences.

Thanks again for "calling me out"; I'll try to be more thoughtful and careful before posting in the future.  Forgive me for unecessary pot stirring. 

... Mountaineer

[MediumTex]

Mountaineer,

I appreciate that response.

I also appreciate you sharing your beliefs.

I didn't mean to call you out. 

[MachineGhost]

Yeah, on my jury, I announced my opposition to the crime of "resisting arrest" and gave a brief speech on the inherent right of self-defense, and how I believed its criminalization in this instance was in violation of universal human rights. That got me dismissed right quick. I knew it would, but didn't want to lie, and was struck by a naive hope that some of my fellow jurors might be moved by my words.

Come to think of it, talking about jury nullification is probably a pretty surefire way to get dismissed from a jury if you don't want to be there. Much easier than pretending not to speak English, which one women tried with limited success, only getting kicked off because she was annoying the judge with her failed attempts at subterfuge.

Showboating will never get you on a jury.  You should never pontificate, just say yes, no or I don't know.

[Pointedstick]

Yeah, on my jury, I announced my opposition to the crime of "resisting arrest" and gave a brief speech on the inherent right of self-defense, and how I believed its criminalization in this instance was in violation of universal human rights. That got me dismissed right quick. I knew it would, but didn't want to lie, and was struck by a naive hope that some of my fellow jurors might be moved by my words.

Come to think of it, talking about jury nullification is probably a pretty surefire way to get dismissed from a jury if you don't want to be there. Much easier than pretending not to speak English, which one women tried with limited success, only getting kicked off because she was annoying the judge with her failed attempts at subterfuge.

Showboating will never get you on a jury.  You should never pontificate, just say yes, no or I don't know.

Well, she asked me to explain my position.

[RuralEngineer]

It's all a judgment call, right?  So here's my judgment:

You aren't.  But you are required to avoid committing any immoral acts in your attempt to avoid arrest and incarceration.  E.g. nothing immoral about moving to another community or state or country, but it would be immoral to take the life of those who do believe in what you consider morally objectionable simply to avoid arrest and incarceration.

Now if it was your life or theirs, it gets really murky really quick.

And if they won't let you leave BEFORE you have broken the law, or if the only law broken is in trying to leave, then as far as I am concerned they have no moral authority whatsoever.

I suppose running away is a legitimate response to an oppressive or immoral legal system.  The problem is we're running out of places to run to.  Additionally, I disagree that there is some kind of moral imperative for the person who wants to resist or otherwise ignore the law to try leaving first.  It can be safer and more convenient, but I think resistance is equally legitimate.

Honestly, my opinion in its purest form is that I can do whatever I want, whenever I want.  I accept that there are consequences for any action I take that I may or may not be able to control.  LEO's are also free to do their job and enforce laws that may inspire resistance, or not.  Either way, there are also consequences for their actions that they have to accept.

I don't believe I have an obligation to do anything other than follow my own personal morality as much as is convenient or tolerable for me personally.  I just wanted to see what other views where since this is actually a somewhat radical view I hold.  I have found that most people believe in some kind of objective morality that would dictate when a law can or can not be broken, whether that morality be some kind of "natural law" or religiously inspired.  The people on this forum are obviously not representative of the general population so I'm not really surprised by the responses.

EDIT: To clarify, if I decided to break an immoral law, anyone attempting to enforce said law by force is open to retaliation in my view without conflicting with my personal code of morality.  To take an extreme example, if the Gestapo find out you're smuggling Jews out of Germany, I don't think you're under any obligation to cooperate.  Even under a more down to earth example.  If they decide to implement any kind of firearm confiscation scheme, I will not comply and I will not be peacefully complicit in my own incarceration.  Every law is offensive to someone, but some of these that fall squarely into the grey area need to be considered carefully by LEO's before they decide whether they really want to be the jackboot kicking in the doors.