Yes... if the circumstances are such that the law-in-question is unjust. And yes, the point is to remove the power of the law, else we end-up with a society which can't track and remove immoral laws. Laws which are not ethical do not deserve power.

So you're telling me that I should license the breaking of the law for people who are smart enough to commit to actions, under cover, which makes them very difficult to remove from society, such as illegal immigrants getting married, and having children on American soil? If I license such behavior, then we will have no more laws. — Agustino

So long as the penalty produces the desired deterrence effect, there is no need to increase its severity further than that, except maybe as a means for the legislator to obtain political gain through demagoguery. Deporting families that have been long established and that may have contributed positively to society may be a penalty that is unnecessarily draconian and that harms society more than the marginal gain from the enhanced deterrence effect would justify.

The same as finding all sorts of ways to license immoral behavior, because the consequences of not licensing it are too harsh. This is nonsense. It's not practical, and it removes the legitimacy and power of the law.

You are suggesting that it's not practical for there to be prescription periods for some forms of offence. But it is quite commonplace, seems to work, and can minimise harm to society. It's also quite unclear that illegal immigration qualifies as immoral. In some cases, it may be a vital necessity. So, I don't see there to be a slippery slope towards licensing immoral behavior.

So long as the penalty produces the desired deterrence effect, there is no need to increase its severity further than that, except maybe as a means for the legislator to obtain political gain through demagoguery. — Pierre-Normand

Agreed.

Deporting families that have been long established and that may have contributed positively to society may be a penalty that is unnecessarily draconian and that harms society more than the marginal gain from the enhanced deterrence effect would justify. — Pierre-Normand

What use is a nice, tall building if the foundation is corrupt? This must be an example to all that the law must be followed.

You are suggesting that it's not practical for there to be prescription periods for some forms of offence. — Pierre-Normand

I can see this working for some issues and not working for others.

It's also quite unclear that illegal immigration qualifies as immoral — Pierre-Normand

This is not legislating morality, but rather following the laws of a country. Illegal immigration is harmful because 1. it breaks the laws of the country, 2. it disrespects the country and the authority of the law, 3. it promotes disobedience. Therefore, illegal immigration is always wrong - even if you're running away from North Korea it's wrong so long as the country you're running to doesn't want to accept you legally. If that country had said for example, that it's willing to accept refugees, etc. it's a different story.

So you're telling me that I should license the breaking of the law for people who are smart enough to commit to actions, under cover, which makes them very difficult to remove from society, such as illegal immigrants getting married, and having children on American soil? — Agustino

Suppose there would be a 20 years prescription period (maybe assorted with some other restrictions, such as the lack of a criminal record, say). It seems unlikely to me that a prospective illegal immigrant would chose to move to the USA with the hope not to get caught during the next 20 years, but would cancel her plan if there were no prescription period. Maybe there will be a precious few that would be thus influenced, but likely not enough of them to justify the harm caused to society by the forced deportation of scores of long established individuals and families.

This is not legislating morality, but rather following the laws of a country. Illegal immigration is harmful because 1. it breaks the laws of the country, 2. it disrespects the country and the authority of the law, 3. it promotes disobedience. Therefore, illegal immigration is always wrong - even if you're running away from North Korea it's wrong so long as the country you're running to doesn't want to accept you legally. — Agustino

This seems to imply that, on your view, some people's choice not to suffer and die miserably is wrong because their only means to avoiding an undeserved death constitutes a misdemeanor and is disrespectful of the law. Or maybe you just mean "wrong" pro tanto.

Suppose there would be a 20 years prescription period (maybe assorted with some other restrictions, such as the lack of a criminal record, say). It seems unlikely to me that a prospective illegal immigrant would chose to move to the USA with the hope not to get caught during the next 20 years, but would cancel her plan if there were no prescription period. Maybe there will be a precious few that would be thus influenced, but likely not enough of them to justify the harm caused to society by the forced deportation of scores of long established individuals and families. — Pierre-Normand

Okay, agreed, I see your point.

This seems to imply that, on your view, some people's choice not to suffer and die miserably is wrong because their only means to avoiding an undeserved death constitutes a misdemeanor and is disrespectful of the law. Or maybe you just mean "wrong" pro tanto. — Pierre-Normand

Indeed, I mean it is wrong only in-so-far as they are breaking the law. Of course people have a right to take sensible and reasonable actions to sustain their own lives and well-being. Such a sensible action, may be seeking to escape an oppressive country which will, sooner or later, kill you anyway. But the country you are running to, has a right to refuse you - they don't have to refuse you, and mercy should be shown, but nevertheless, you have to understand that you don't have a right to be accepted by that country - it would be a privilege, not a right. With the recent refugee crisis, etc. etc. too many people seem to think they are entitled to be accepted. For example, refugees come to the borders of European soil, and literarily demand to be accepted. That's not right. They can ask to be accepted, but they cannot kill themselves on our borders, starve themselves to death and so forth in an effort to force us to accept them. That is wrong. It's like me going to the Saudi Arabian borders, and demanding that I be let in, lest I shall starve myself on their borders and show the whole world how inhuman they are for not accepting me. Emotional blackmail is wrong.

You once again mention justification when there is no disagreement about justification. You also mention Mahatma Gandhi, who Russell Brand himself mentions in the video as someone with whom he shares similar views on violence. I can't speak for Russell Brand, but I'm guessing that he thought that it was understandable given human nature, which is far from perfect and sage-like. Those affected by the shooting were understandably angry and outraged and no doubt felt a sense of overwhelming injustice which compelled them to take the actions that they took. If you don't think that that's understandable, then you're too far removed from human nature. It's important to remember that ideals are just that: ideals.

And I mean, what would you do in that situation if you were Carson? I would have a similar cautious stand on the issue. One cannot start blaming the policeman who shot the person prior to the investigation. — Agustino

If I were Carson, I would take a long, hard look in the mirror. His caution is selective. He wasn't cautious in his choice of comparison between homosexuality and beastiality, nor with his choice of analogy between a basic mathematical summation and a controversial social issue.

I would be cautious to an extent, but I would also speak my mind. One can at the least generalise and speak about the wider issue and express scepticism or cynicism regarding yet another suspicious occurrence.

You once again mention justification when there is no disagreement about justification. You also mention Mahatma Gandhi, who Russell Brand himself mentions in the video as someone with whom he shares similar views on violence. I can't speak for Russell Brand, but I'm guessing that he thought that it was understandable given human nature, which is far from perfect and sage-like. Those affected by the shooting were understandably angry and outraged and no doubt felt a sense of overwhelming injustice which compelled them to take the actions that they took. If you don't think that that's understandable, then you're too far removed from human nature. It's important to remember that ideals are just that: ideals. — Sapientia

I agree with it in this sense. I don't agree with understandable in the sense of saying that they should be forgiven.

His caution is selective. He wasn't cautious in his choice of comparison between homosexuality and beastiality, nor with his choice of analogy between a basic mathematical summation and a controversial social issue. — Sapientia

When talking about moral matters and teaching a moral lesson, it is different than when having to take a stand on an issue that is still being played out in the world no?

I agree with it in this sense. I don't agree with understandable in the sense of saying that they should be forgiven. — Agustino

That seems like a hasty and ill-considered judgement. Forgiveness should be conditional, and they should be granted at least that much. But even if they are unrepentant, their actions should be judged in light of the circumstances and context. They would certainly pale in comparison to the alleged long-term endemic and institutional racial injustice, as well as it's dire consequences, which seems to be being wilfully overlooked or dealt with softly by those in power.

When talking about moral matters and teaching a moral lesson, it is different than when having to take a stand on an issue that is still being played out in the world no? — Agustino

Yes, but you're too generous towards Carson. His bias is more than apparent in the ways in which he speaks about certain issues. Granted, you said that you don't follow Fox, so you might not have seen enough to know that it's ridiculously biased (and Carson is a sort of Fox lackey or puppet or mouthpiece who willingly whores himself), but then I don't follow Fox either. You don't need to see much of it. It's as clear as day. Unless, that is, you're foolish enough to fall for it and only see what you want to see.

That seems like a hasty and ill-considered judgement. Forgiveness should be conditional, and they should be granted at least that much. But even if they are unrepentant, their actions should be judged in light of the circumstances and context. They would certainly pale in comparison to the alleged long-term endemic and institutional racial injustice, as well as it's dire consequences, which seems to be being wilfully overlooked or dealt with softly by those in power. — Sapientia

Yes, forgiven after they face the consequences that the law requires them to face for committing acts of violence etc. Not forgiven in the sense of not being punished for what they've done.

As for racial issues dealt with softly by those in power. I'm not quite sure Sapientia. I have a family friend whose brother goes to a prestigious US university. Sometime this year they had an incident there, where some anonymous student said on a public university chat group "back to the cornfields" regarding black people. The person was identified later by the administration, and expelled. That to me, is not dealing with a racial issue softly at all. It's perhaps dealing with it much more harshly than I think it should be dealt with. The person they expelled is right now probably going to only feel even more justified in his beliefs: what has happened, has proven him correct in his mind - namely that the black people have gotten too much power. This, combined with the fact that his being expelled will probably put severe constraints on his life, has literarily ensured that this man will hate black people. And this is unfortunate.

I would say that the same problem exists with the severity academia treats other issues, such as plagiarism. These are issues that are important to our young people, and they should be addressed. We live in a society which cannot be honest about what affects us. We cannot honestly speak about what should be done with people who are racist, because unless we take the absolutist, hard-line stance, we're labelled racist ourselves, or otherwise encouraging racism. This is a serious problem, and it's not doing any good for black people either - it's in fact only preserving the discrimination and/or hatred.

Unless you subscribe to some totalitarian pseudo-morality, @Agustino, laws are not necessarily good or right, and the most interesting political debates are about how the law should be changed.

Unless you subscribe to some totalitarian pseudo-morality, Agustino, laws are not necessarily good or right, and the most interesting political debates are about how the law should be changed. — jamalrob

Agreed. Do you think illegal immigrants should be allowed to freely come in whenever they want?

was twenty-five years ago that America defeated communism and any ideas of socialism with it. Yet, here we are today with a serious Democratic candidate arguing, successfully, for socialism in America. Isn't that rather amazing? — Question

What I find amazing is how many people do not know the difference between Socialism and Social Democracy.

Here's a useful link: https://spfaust.wordpress.com/2011/06/12/socialism-vs-social-democracy-whats-the-difference/

Socialism vs Social Democracy — What’s The Difference?
One is about collective ownership of the means of production;
the other about organic social solidarity with private ownership of production.
One is restrictive;
the other libertarian.
One is metaphysical (excessively abstract reasoning);
the other empirical (demonstrable, verifiable reasoning).
One is dogmatic;
the other scientific.
One is emotional;
the other reflective.
One is destructive;
the other constructive.
Both are in pursuit of the greatest possible welfare for all.
– One aims to establish happiness for all;

– the other to enable each to be happy in one’s own way.

The first regards the State as a society “sui generis,” of a unique essence, the product of a right outside of and above all society, with special rights and able to exact special obediences;
the second considers the State as an association like any other, generally managed no better and no more efficient than others.
The first proclaims the sovereignty of the State;
the second recognizes no sort of sovereign.
One wishes all monopolies to be held by the State;
the other wishes the abolition of all monopolies.
One wishes the governed class to become the governing class;
the other wishes the disappearance of classes.
Both declare that the existing state of things cannot last.
– The first considers revolutions as the indispensable agent of evolutions;

– the second teaches that repression alone turns political evolutions into revolution.

The first has faith in a cataclysm;
the second knows that social progress will result from the free play of individual efforts.
One wishes that there should be none but proletariats;
the other wishes that there should be no more proletariats.
The first wishes to take everything away from everybody;
the second wishes to leave each in possession of its own.
The one wishes to expropriate everybody;
the other wishes everybody to be a proprietor.
The first says: Do as the government wishes;
the second says: Do as you wish yourself.
The former threatens with despotism;
the latter promises liberty.
The former makes the citizen the subject of the State;
the latter makes the State the employee of the citizen.
One proclaims that labor pains will be necessary to the birth of a new world;
the other declares that real progress will not cause suffering to any one.
The first has confidence in social war;
the other believes only in works of peace.
One aspires to command, to regulate, to legislate;
the other wishes to attain the minimum of command, of regulation, of legislation.
One would be followed by the most atrocious of reactions;
the other opens unlimited horizons to progress.
The first will fail;
the other will succeed.
One desires equality; the other seeks equity.
– The first by lowering heads that are too high;

– the other by raising heads that are too low.

One sees equality under a common yoke;
the other will secure equity in complete liberty.
One is intolerant;
the other tolerant.
One frightens;
the other reassures.
The first wishes to instruct everybody;
the second wishes to enable everybody to instruct one’s self.
The first wishes to support everybody;
the second wishes to enable everybody to support one’s self.
One says:
– The land to the State

– The mine to the State

– The tool to the State

– The product to the State

The other says:
– The land to the cultivator.

– The mine to the miner.

– The tool to the laborer.

– The product to the producer.

One is the infancy of Socialism;
the other is its manhood.
One is already the past;
the other is the future.
One will give way to the other…


Meow!

GREG

Agreed. Do you think illegal immigrants should be allowed to freely come in whenever they want? — Agustino

As a general principle, I think people should be able to go where they want.

I agree, so long that this is done legally, in a way that enables communities and countries to protect themselves.

Both are extremes in a way Mayor. I would prefer somewhere in the middle between the two. No authority, vs complete authority are both extremist perspectives that cannot produce a lasting civilisation. We need liberty, combined with education and principle. Principle does not function to prevent people from using their freedom, but rather in encouraging choices which are good for society. Principle does not impose choices on people, but rather recommends them - people are free to ignore them, if they so choose.

For example, I don't disagree with B. Sanders that women should be free to decide whether or not to have an abortion. But I disagree with the fact that he doesn't emphasise the moral nature of this question (ie, which is the right choice to make?), which is beyond the question of whether women should have this freedom or not (coincidentally, many people just like me would never support Sanders for this reason). Of course freedom should exist, otherwise moral excellence becomes impossible. But, people need to recieve a moral education, regarding how it is good to use their freedom for themselves and for their fellow citizens. Giving freedom without moral education regarding how that freedom ought to be used is alike giving a child a gun with a bullet inside. So I cannot encourage people to vote Sanders - he is giving children guns, without educating them to first drop childish things and become adults.

You have taken that letter out of it's original context, as has the author of the article that you linked to. The author was writing about state socialism and anarchism. The letter, like other published work by it's author, is full of hyperbole and hogwash and should not be taken seriously.

I see the emergence of Bernie and Donald not to be a sign of the remarkable human spirit, but as evidence of the law of entropy in action. Why you can only see the left side of the ledger and not the right seems like selective analysis. — Hanover

First we had G.W. and that resulted in Obama and now we're getting Trump. I just see the pendulum that used to swing slightly left then slightly right swinging a bit more wildly. — Hanover

The political pendulum in the US has been on the right for quite a while. But, one thing I don't understand is the hatred against Obama from particularly the right. I don't recall such reactions even from the left against Bush. Many people simply folded up their political ideology and placed national security as a higher priority than their personal goals (post 9/11)...

Obama has been a great US president. There is no doubt about that in my mind. The favorability of congress amongst the American public as of recently speaks for itself.

But, I have to ask, as you sound Hegelian in these posts. Do you really think that Trump and Sanders are a reaction to Obama or rather the inherent conservatism, as you've pointed out, built into the U.S.' political system?

Obama has been a great US president. There is no doubt about that in my mind. The favorability of congress amongst the American public as of recently speaks for itself. — Question

Obama has been a great President?? No way. More like one of the worst Presidents in US history - he has literarily not done anything while in office. Congress has. The Democratic Party has. But Obama? Absolutely nothing. The rest of the world doesn't respect Obama, I can tell you that. His one and only achievement is that he became President. That's it. He's done nothing else.

Ending two wars isn't an achievement? Closing GitMo? Introducing comprehensive healthcare reform?

Are you high on the right wing meme themes?

Ending two wars isn't an achievement? — Question

Ending two disastrous wars in an even more disastrous way that has left the Middle East in tatters and gave rise to ISIS...

Introducing comprehensive healthcare reform? — Question

ObamaCare has done absolutely terrible for people, and has greatly diminished the quality of services.

I'm sorry to say; but, you sound brainwashed. Just sayin.

Do you disagree that the way the US ended the Iraq war facilitated ISIS's rise to power in the region? Do you not think that if the US had retreated more slowly, and promoted more stability in the region, today we would all be better off?

Also, what do you think of the millions of Americans who are disappointed with ObamaCare?

I don't recall such reactions even from the left against Bush. — Question

Then you have a very short memory.

Obama has been a great US president. There is no doubt about that in my mind. The favorability of congress amongst the American public as of recently speaks for itself. — Question

My recollection is that in the second mid-term elections the Democrats suffered historic losses to the Republicans in the House, Senate, Governorships, and state legislatures. http://ktla.com/2014/11/05/election-results-republicans-seize-senate-gaining-full-control-of-congress/

But, I have to ask, as you sound Hegelian in these posts. Do you really think that Trump and Sanders are a reaction to Obama or rather the inherent conservatism, as you've pointed out, built into the U.S.' political system? — Question

I think everything is a reaction to something else. If that's Hegelian, fine, but I think it just speaks more to cause and effect. The conservatism I mentioned references the low level of power any one person or branch has in the US system and the very difficult path to pass a law that exists. Obamacare passed only because the Democrats had a brief moment of total control of both houses and the presidency, and it passed without a single Republican vote. It takes that sort of line up to get anything controversial done, and even then, because of the very close margins, it had to be created in a way that satisfied almost every Democrat. As I recall, the single payer option was defeated because Senator Leiberman didn't want it and the Democrats didn't have any votes to spare.

The good news is that you don't see major swings when the other guy is in charge. It's for that reason that I really don't think that Trump will matter. He will either start compromising or he'll become powerless. It's not like he can just impose his will everywhere without any checks or balances, especially since many in his own party reject him.