And how does a person know if a law meets your personal criteria for being breakable and so being forgiveable? Or does this only apply to you? Who decides the Overall good? Because the line you claim it is not is the only practical way to implement your system unless you are saying that the public should have to agree to the law in the first place, in which case I once again bring you to common law. You are correct in what I establish however you have not responded to what I characterise with equivalent claims. I have characterised your system as applying to all laws because it does. If a law is only guarantee valid after a court case determines if it is just then it is not a law, instead a person must decide before acting if society agrees it is a law or not. This is greatly biased by personal belief and by how close your moral compass is to societies and how well you empathise with society. Can you please explain how it is possible to selectively indicate which laws are fixed and which are not prior to their being broken and who gets to decide and how. Failing any established system my claim seems the only applicable way of using your system.
Nelson Mandela was urged by his family and friends to run but refused and insisted that he remain, he claimed that he knew the consequences when he acted and while they were wrong he would not run away from them.
Based on what? As a former student in Britain I can openly say that I approached my school on many occasions to request to perform banned activities and they were often accepted. This story makes it clear that the student was told it was against the rules (not having asked permission at this point) and his next interaction with the school was breaking it, at no point is it suggested that he requested permission.
No it isn’t. My argument is contained by parameters of ALL people following ALL laws that are held true or else facing the consequences, this prevents the formation or action of a dictatorship or authoritarian state. Reductio as absurdum is only a valid argument if there are no parameters or it remains within them. At all points my argument has included the argument ‘because there are mechanism’s in place to allow for change to the law outside of breaking it’. It is a requirement that the Government act under its just powers (as I tried to make clear in the paragraph in which I openly stated this) if a government does not do this then there is no social contract of cause and effect, rather’ the government can punish you and might if you break x law’ which is actually closer to your law which allows parties that believe a law is unjust to break it to take power and hold it.
As I clearly state the opposite no. I believe it is the best system in the real world while yours I believe is best only in a world so idyllic as to make the act of having laws redundant.
According to the world freedom index 4 of the top 6 nations use this system, but I can see how your unevidenced claim that [quote=“ghostly1, post:166, topic:11315”]
Other countries don’t have this philosophy, and you don’t have a notably better standard of living than them
[/quote]
Proves you right and the evidence wrong.
A law that can’t be passed under my system because to pass it would break laws and because common law makes it impossible. We have the functional version of your decided by the people system and it prevents extreme laws, hence no reductio ad absurdum, because to put it into effect you must break the parameters of my argument which means you are not using my argument but some made up argument to make yours seem valid or the strawman argument (which seems to be your main defence against me. Though I have no doubt you will claim the same of me. The difference I feel is when I am ‘misrepresenting you’ it is because I am applying your argument to the real world laws and how it works when applied as a whole, if you have a way of implementing this other than the way I detail perhaps you can fill in the blank).
As I will continue to call your system ignorant and idealist to the point of redundancy. It harms the law and punishes people on a post facto basis.
