> drive to a Starbucks
Didn't help Ross. It's a bad idea to do illegal stuff in public.
Didn't help Ross. It's a bad idea to do illegal stuff in public.
I hear some people arguing that in business "not breaking the laws" is not the problem unless they get caught and even in that case, it is a problem only if the consequences end up costing more than the gain they receive in doing it.
So a person with those value may end up breaking the law. Are you saying it is ok?
It may even be a social duty.
Different people have different values and believes in what is just or unjust. I agree that some laws may need to be changed. But should we not have discussions on changing the laws instead of breaking them?
This obviously implies a good democratic system so it may be different is some nations.
Yes, even under a "good Democratic system".
Everybody does. Everybody must, because delegating the decision in itself is merely an option of that decision. Whether you obey power, follow your own greed, defer to social norms, or carefully weigh your own values and the consequences of your actions for yourself, all people are moral agents whether or not they realize which path they are following.
You raise a reasonable objection; I'm not advocating murder or wanton lawlessness. But here's a whole category of illegitimate laws that should be disobeyed: prohibitions born out of moral panic. These laws don't restrict actual harm, whether immediate like violence or accreted like pollution. They restrict the mere chance of harm by denying individual agency, out of fear that it could possibly be used for harm by even the tiniest number of people.
That's why simply discussing these laws isn't enough. They originate in fear and blindness that can't be reasoned against. The mere word of the thing evokes a fear response that shuts down thought: "drugs", "guns", "homosexuality", "racial integration". Good people have to be willing to break the law to show the difference between the panic and the actual outcomes.
Societal progress doesn't come from people musing about what they think they'd like to try, if only it were legal. It comes from people who risk everything to say "This forbidden thing is actually good and we know because we've done it, and it's so important that even banning it won't stop us".
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/03/five-stup...
El Chapo, an actual drug cartel member who is directly responsible for thousands of deaths, only got a single life sentence.
Ross got screwed on his sentencing and it is totally unjustified.
Free Ross!
It's also quite ironic that an organization that has assassinated numerous people are attempting to destroy the reputation of one of their enemies by claiming that he attempted to assassinate somebody.
The United States Government (USG) enjoys a monopoly of violence (consent of the governed). However, a citizen (or group of them -- org/corp) does not enjoy such rights. Your comparison is invalidated.
Who exactly is consenting to be governed? I know I'm not consenting but I also know that some other people support the government that purports to govern them. Is it enough for one person to consent or does something magic happen at a particular number or portion?
Nah. We have these things called elections (and representational democracy). In general that mechanism decides how society will progress forward from a political perspective.
The US government, acting in accordance with its constitution invades and occupies Canada. Congress creates 13 new states corresponding to the previous provinces and territories and elections are held. Almost all of the elected members from the newly annexed areas are opposed to the annexation and introduce a bill to allow the 13 new states to secede from the US but the bill is overwhelmingly defeated by members of Congress from the other 50 states.
Does the US government in this scenario enjoy the consent of the governed?
If they do, imagine that the original US population was more split on the issue so that the secession bill would have passed with Canada divided into 13 states. However the pre-annexation Congress anticipated this and resolved to make Canada a single state that would consequently not have sufficient representation to pass the bill even with the support of opponents from some of the other 50 states.
Does the US government still enjoy the consent of the governed in the second scenario?