"An unjust law, is no law at all." ~Augustine [If laws R nothing more than the will of the tyrant,then they R illegitimate on that account]
"An unjust law, is no law at all."~Augustine [If laws are supposed 2 promote the moral/ethical ideal of justice,if a law B unjust => illegit
If a law is unjust, then 2 be permitted a "due process" of injustice, is hardly ameliorating 2 the ethical question. Unjust laws are illegit
If your so-called "#rights" are defined & granted by the State, then those "rights" are not rights at-all; they R permissions or allowances
The majority of ills plaguing humanity, are the result of not taking ideas, logic, reason, evidence, & #philosophy -- seriously.
When one says, "That's just not practical", it is too often, a confession of the inability to seriously consider alternate possibilities...
If we took the idea of "human rights" seriously, we would have 2 concede that ethics must B applicable 2 all people universally&consistently
"#due_process of law" too often implies, that #consent, reason & ethics is are unnecessary considerations & that #might_makes_right
"#due_process of law" are words, backed by threat of violence, that says, those that own the process, can do what ever they write on paper
If we are to assume that the laws of democratic republics R necessarily just, then we must conclude, that both slavery & holocaust were just
If we recognize, that laws of the past have not conformed to justice, then how has humanity advanced, if we turn not the lens on ourselves?
If we acknowledge that laws of the past were unjust, because they did not conform to ethics & reason, then can we assume our laws are just?
Could perhaps, we take ethics & reason seriously, and begin to question all assumptions of legitimacy, and have our ideas conform to reason?
Or else, we must close our eyes 2 reason & history, & pretend that all evils have been corrected, and we have reached the pinnacle of ethics
Any attempt to "balance" ethical ideas w/ practical concessions, inimical to reason & human rights; is to abandon all hope 4 ethics & reason
Initiation of violence, coercion & theft can never be ethically "balanced" w/ other considerations; these violate every idea of human rights
If you may not murder, and take away another's life, how may you threaten to murder/harm to force another to do your bidding?
If U may not murder, 2 take away another's life,how may you take from them their possessions that were created from the labor of their life?
The initiation of violence against another, is to surrender one's essential humanity, to forgo reason and become a beast...
When a person defend themselves against another 'person' who initiates violence, they do not defend against a person, but a beast of nature
A person can B reasoned with, negotiated with,communicated with...a 'person' initiating violence is open 2 none of these...a beast of nature
One does not negotiate with or reason with the storm, the earthquake, or the ravenous beast of nature... one acts to preserve themselves...
“Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.” -Martin Luther King, Jr.-
No comments:
Post a Comment