Legality vs. Right (was RE: [PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Sounds good to me ;))

J Henshaw jeff at jhenshaw.com
Wed Jun 19 02:11:42 UTC 2002


----- Original Message -----
From: "Miller, Jeremy" <JMILLER at ci.albany.or.us>
To: <plug-talk at lists.pdxlinux.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 11:31 PM
Subject: Legality vs. Right (was RE: [PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Sounds good to
me ;))


> > > I stand by the statement and belief that legality has no
> > bearing on right
> > > or wrong.
> > >
> >
> > You misdirect because that is not in question here
>
> Well... why not?
>
> If not, I'm taking the opportunity to put it in question, because I see
some
> relevency to the current argument.  (The one concerning illegal aliens.)
> Hence the new subject line.
>
>
> Jeme says that legality has no bearing on right or wrong.
>
>
> I will state that I agree, but only with a condition.  To furthur clarify,
I
> think legality is our best attempt to codify what is considered right, and
> what is considered wrong.  (Via a process of government that is supposed
to,
> via representation of the people doing the considering, try to determine
> what those things are.  Whether or not they do a good job of that is a
> different argument. :)
>
> So it does have bearing... but in reverse.  Legality /= Right, because
Right
> is not a constant.  (Quite the opposite... it is often in dispute, and
> throughout history a moving target.)  However, one could say the job of
the
> government is to try to ensure that Legality is as close as it possibly
can
> be to Right.  (Again, I'm not commenting on whether they're accomplishing
it
> or not.)
>
> The government is supposed to represent the people, so if the people
(voting
> citizens) collectively determine that some portion of legality is not
close
> enough to what they consider Right, then the government needs to correct
it.
> Right?  The same way they should correct the economic policy referred to
> earlier, if the people collectively decide it really is a bad idea and
needs
> to be fixed back to the way it was.
>
> Consider this:
>
> Jeme likes the pre 20th century immigration policy, and thinks we should
> return to it. (Whether anyone agrees or not.)
> You like the pre 20th century fiscal policy, and think we should return to
> it. (Whether anyone agreess or not.)
>
> You both disagree with some form of what is currently considered Legal,
and
> think it isn't Right, and needs to be changed.
>
> Based on that observation, I'd say that stating a belief that current
> legality and "the right thing" may not be the same thing is very relevant
to
> this discussion, and as such, not a misdirection.
>
> It is the first step to enacting change... to state that they may not be
> equal enough and need to be changed.
>
Well,  I am tired so I will make this short;  Lawful is more important than
Legal,  for it is based on Rights.
Natural Law being most important,
But these fellows refuse to acknowledge Natural law.
Their computers boot in interrupt 666






More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list