Pretty much. You can certainly assert that you have any right that you want, but unless the government is willing to acknowledge and protect that right your assertion means nothing to anyone who disagrees with you.
So obeying laws is then much more important to you, and always takes precedence, over any actions “conducive to promoting individual rights and freedoms”, if there is a conflict between them?
The rule of law is essential to freedom.
But actual freedom, not so much?
Without law, freedom is unachievable. You may as well ask if having an ice cream sundae is better than being able to breathe.
So if there was a law against breathing, what would you do?
Not when laws support slavery – in these cases, the rule of (this particular) law is an enemy to freedom.
With laws supporting slavery, freedom is unachievable except by violating those laws. Freedom should be valued more highly than laws that restrict freedom.
Obviously… Where else would they come from? Moral philosophy can tell you what the rights are, but that alone can’t put them into practice, only the concentrated effort of people can do that. Said concentrated effort is what government is.
That’s factually false. Freedom can also be attained by the laws being changed.
Is it morally right to overthrow a government to secure human rights and freedoms?
Huh. I remember reading this somewhere:
Sounds like these crazy guys wanted to abolish their government–the horror! :eek:
Then we’re no longer in a situation “with laws supporting slavery”. Further, sometimes it’s necessary to break such laws in order to change them (as occurred in the US Civil Rights movement).
Here’s the thing though-If all citizens are supposed to obey the law, if all fully recognized human beings are supposed to obey the law, then as property you are under no obligation to obey the law, are you? If a dog does something wrong it is not the dog that is changed with a crime, it is the owner-the dog is not obligated to follow any laws because the laws are not written for property to obey.
Such law-breaking also occurred during the abolitionist movement, and was very influential in actually ending slavery.
And you were doing so well. Right up to this point your persona was plausible. Honestly, you were right on the edge but just keeping one foot in play. Kudos for keeping it spinning this long
That’s a hell of a story. ISTM, in a case like this, the cop in question may have been guilty of a criminal offence and should subject to a grand jury investigation, as opposed to just procedural violations covered by IA.
Like where you’re going with this but as Steophan is a Brit he might not get the irony
I do find it a bit hopeful to note the junior officer’s reaction:
I know the other officer didn’t take any action at the time, but it’s a perilous thing on its own to go over your senior partner’s head to complain even after the fact. I wonder how many officers are quietly forced out after either a) needing too many interventions by other LEO’s or b) intervening “against” other LEO’s. And I wonder which of these is more common.
Who gets to decide what’s morally right, what rights and freedoms people should have? I don’t think that’s a trivial question. I would say that a democratic government probably shouldn’t be, as by doing so you’re asserting that you’re objectively morally superior to the majority. Which is necessarily not true.
One shouldn’t overthrow legitimate monarchs either.