I think this is a question each of us need to answer for ourselves. Then look at what is going on in the USA
Quote:13 JAN 2021 07:00 ‧ THOMAS GÜR
UPDATED: 13 JAN 2021 07:26 link
Thomas Gür. Photo: Karl Gabor. When it comes to obedience to the law, virtue is superior to law enforcement. A society that through its law enforcement must ensure compliance with the law incurs a lot of extra costs, is obviously not based on trust, and the solution with "a cop in every nook and cranny" can also result in a police state. In well-functioning societies, people do not follow the law because the law says so or so, but because they share the values and virtues of which the law is a manifestation. Which society is the best? The society where citizens obey the law because they are virtuous or the society where citizens obey the law because they fear law and order? This rhetorical question I have had for me should be a quote from Confucius. But, this with virtue and law, and the way of asking, could also be Socrates in some Plato dialogue. However, I have never been able to trace it to either of these two. Not to anyone else either. I do not even know if it is a genuine quote or just something that I myself have toted together as a kind of summary of reading fruits and my own half-baked thoughts. Regardless, I have for some time now put it in various conversations about law and justice, about crime and punishment. And since the question has been asked over time, both the meaning of the question and the social phenomenon I have wanted to shed light on with the question, has changed and then unfortunately for the worse. The question of which society is best is precisely rhetorical and the answer is therefore given: A society where citizens obey the law on the basis of common values, which they define as society's leading virtues, is a better society. So far most people probably agree, although one can of course discuss such things as what is virtue and vice, respectively, or that different societies can have different virtues or that one and the same societal formation's perception of virtue and virtue can change through the centuries. But at the same time, these objections remain the answer to the superiority of virtue vis-à-vis law enforcement when it comes to obedience to the law. For a society that, through its law enforcement, must ensure compliance with the law, incurs a lot of extra costs, is obviously not based on trust, and the solution with "one cop in every knot" can also result in a police state. Initially, I used the question as an objection to the argument that the important thing is not what values people have in our society, but that they follow the laws and do not break them. My objection implies that in well-functioning societies, people do not follow the law because the law says so or so, but because they share the values and virtues of which the law is a manifestation, of which it is an expression.
Quote:What happens to a society that does not want to sink into lawlessness if more and more citizens do not follow the laws because they are not virtuous enough?
The reason why the absolute majority of us, for example, do not beat down and rob a defenseless old man is not that we fear the police and the courts, but that we in one way or another, in this context less interesting how, have embraced the virtue that absolutely not acts as such, even if the probability of being prosecuted is extremely small. But in recent years, I have increasingly asked the same question, emphasizing the latter. What happens to a society that does not want to sink into lawlessness if more and more citizens do not follow the laws because they are not virtuous enough? Yes, then society, or correctly the state power, must get citizens to follow the laws because they fear law enforcement. Then the law enforcement must make themselves fearful vis-à-vis those who are not prepared to follow the law. This would obviously be a regrettable development, but the alternative is worse. For this means that while more and more people do not obey the law due to lack of virtue, at the same time the government does not prosecute the criminals in a sufficiently deterrent manner. That the even worse alternative as above is reminiscent of our country of today, is of course no coincidence. The state power has seen between the fingers, when it itself has not actively and destructively contributed to the decay of virtues. At the same time, it has not wanted to sharpen the deterrent power of law enforcement. However, I am convinced that this will not be the state of affairs for a particularly long time to come. But as it takes time to restore and restore damaged or eroded virtues, the path to a more law-abiding society will initially have to go by the law enforcement in all parts being forced to put themselves in greater respect with those who are not virtuous enough to have barriers to harm their fellow human beings. What we then have to work for is that the necessary repression of crime does not lead to other damage to the open and free society.
WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, THE EU IS FATHER AND MOTHER / FEAR NOT DEATH, BUT FEAR THE WAY YOU WILL DIE
Well I suppose the question has been guided for millennia by these Ten Commandments At least for over three thousand years or the present epoch. Not all believed however, and have paid the price for their ignorance or abuses in society.
Why do we obey the law? I've been asking myself that a lot lately, especially in light of the spectacular successes of those who ignore it.
I used to obey the law because I thought it was the right thing to do. The modern Left has shown me the error of that way of thinking. They ignore the law, ignore it with impunity, and are hailed as heroes for doing so by others of their own kind. When the government itself ignores the law, as is the current situation in America, what example is there to show the citizens the correctness of the law? When the lawmakers themselves ignore their own laws, why should the citizens obey them? When law itself become onerous and destructive of freedom, why should anyone at all pay attention to it?
I don't have the answers any more. Only the questions.
.
I'm willing to die to defend my freedom. The question you need to be asking yourself is: are you willing to die to take it?
"It's the hillbilly way. We kill people and burn their shit down." -- Jim Powell, in "Blood and Banjos" by Franklin Horton
01-13-2021, 11:57 PM (This post was last modified: 01-14-2021, 03:40 AM by 727Sky.)
No one rules if no one obeys.. one of my favorite thoughts.
an excerpt from a story I am writing about the history of human governments.
Quote:A DEMOCRACY ends in Anarchy. Democracy or mob rule has tended to work best in a society of humans who are of the same race. Throw in different races/religions and you have to have a society based upon laws which protects everyone regardless of status and wealth. The laws have to be equal for everyone for when those laws break down or the perception of those laws break down then Anarchy is soon to follow.
01-14-2021, 08:54 PM (This post was last modified: 01-14-2021, 08:55 PM by BIAD.)
Why do we obey the law...? Some of us don't and some of us just don't...
understand them!
Quote:Did he really just do that? Moment Congressman is caught on the House floor removing his mask to sneeze into his hand
*Representative Cecilline seen taking his mask off and sneezing into his hands
*Representative Brenda Lawrence fired a harsh look towards Cicilline
*The Congressman was one of three co-authors of the article of impeachment
*The article passed through the House yesterday on a vote of 232 to 197
One of the co-authors of the second impeachment article against President Trump
was spotted removing his mask to sneeze in the House of Representatives.
For Thee.. Not For Me.
Viewers of the impeachment proceedings were shocked when David Cicilline
pulled down his mask to sneeze into his hand. Rep. Cicilline (D-RI) was spotted
sneezing on camera while Rep. Yvette Clark was speaking at the podium just
in front of him.
Although Cicilline put his mark back on his face, he was not seen sanitising or
washing his hands afterwards. Sat a few seats to his side, to maintain social
distancing, Rep Brenda Lawrence fired a harsh look towards Cicilline before
turning her attention back to the discussion.
People watching the impeachment proceedings were quick to take to Twitter to
complain about the representative's etiquette.
One person commented: 'I love how he looked around to see if anyone was
watching as if he wasn't on national television.'
Another person suggested that nobody has worked out the appropriate way
of sneezing while wearing a mask, but acknowledged that Cicilline's approach
wasn't the correct one.
Other people were less forgiving, suggesting that even children are taught to
sneeze into their elbow rather than straight into their hands...'
![[Image: preview.png?t=1610463608000&d=1152x648]](https://cdn.bulletin.nu/articles/52595aca-2b34-4d46-88b1-bf121ca4f1d8/preview.png?t=1610463608000&d=1152x648)
