Yes the people do. Sure the government may attempt to deprive them of that material right, but then it's a mere contest of wills and not a matter of principle. The legality of shutting down a government is always moot. Of course every government that can get around to it will pass laws making it illegal. Who cares? Believing the (il)legality of shutting down the government to be of significance is only a measure of one's docility.Where we go back to my original point. The Republicans should just throw up their hands, take extended vacations and let the government be shut down. I imagine most people will have a different view of the protesters (however many's left of them) after a few weeks or months of governmental shutdown.
I have nothing against protests in general, protests that hurt other people to make a point, directly or indirectly, is where I draw the line. A United States citizen has the right to freedom of assembly in public areas. You do not have the right to shut down the government whenever you feel like it.
Just because most of us have self control, it doesn't mean all of us will.
When you piss off a massive group of people in a huge way, it is foolish not to expect some to overreact.
What they did was the conservative equivalent of outlawing guns.
Do you really think that would just sail through without any snags?
Everyone would be thinking rationally and giving up their guns in an orderly manner so they could hopefully repeal the legislation later?
If you say yes, you're full of shit.
There's a difference between asserting a right to violence vs. observing that violence wouldn't be surprising when you have thousands of very angry people, especially when those people feel their leaders have betrayed them. Is there anyone here claiming the protesters have a right to become violent? If not, your point is moot.fail, losing a political battle doesn't grant rights to violence, especially not here. I get they're pissed, but they have recourse. This isn't a dictatorship, if enough people agree with them they can vote out those they hate so fervently.
As to the gop not 'expecting' violence, I should sure as hell hope when you pass legislation you don't expect the opposition to get violent regardless of party.
What they did was the conservative equivalent of outlawing guns.
Do you really think that would just sail through without any snags?
Everyone would be thinking rationally and giving up their guns in an orderly manner so they could hopefully repeal the legislation later?
If you say yes, you're full of shit.
There's a difference between asserting a right to violence vs. observing that violence wouldn't be surprising when you have thousands of very angry people, especially when those people feel their leaders have betrayed them. Is there anyone here claiming the protesters have a right to become violent? If not, your point is moot.
LMAO!No, I agree, great analogy. If you sprinkle lemon on the constitution you can even see the invisible ink where collective bargaining is protected. I think it's amendment 1.5.
No, I agree, great analogy. If you sprinkle lemon on the constitution you can even see the invisible ink where collective bargaining is protected. I think it's amendment 1.5.
No, I agree, great analogy. If you sprinkle lemon on the constitution you can even see the invisible ink where collective bargaining is protected. I think it's amendment 1.5.
Freedom of assembly, freedom of speech ring a bell?
I wasn't arguing that they were equal in "legal" severity. I was arguing that you would see similar responses.
Yes, he's bought into the leftist bullshit and hates Walker but it doesn't mean he shouldn't do his job.
Actually that's EXACTLY what it means. "Doing his job" makes him EXACTLY as guilty as those responsible for the situation. By complying, he is endorsing the act/policy. Only by refusing does he actually disagree with what's going on.
He's supposed to serve and protect. Standing by as the law is being broken is not serving and protecting.
The point is he doesn't get it both ways. He doesn't get to claim opposition to the governor while working for him. Nor does he get to hide behind 'I was only doing my job'. If he thinks what's 'right' is to follow orders (even bad ones or ones he doesn't agree with), then THATS what's important to him and he deserves anything that comes of that. If he decides that other things take precedent over what he does for a paycheck, then THATS what's important to him and he deserves anything that comes of that.
Of course, then there's the whole concept of 'whom do the police serve, the public or the government?' There are good arguments both ways along that line, and you could therefore defend or condemn his actions, whichever choice he makes.
uh, no. A sworn officer letting someone enter a building illegally is not "right" no matter what your feelings on the Governor is. The law is the law and not enforcing it because you don't feel like it is not upholding your sworn duty. If you don't like the governor and don't want to uphold the law - resign.
Yes, exactly. Refuse to comply.
Legal is nothing but words on paper. MORAL is the only question ever worth asking.
Yes, exactly. Refuse to comply.
Legal is nothing but words on paper. MORAL is the only question ever worth asking.
So you would rather everyone with the power of law rely on their own moral compass to determine what laws to enforce, and what not to, instead of the law?
What about Christian police officers who feel that homosexuality is immoral? You think they should ignore the law and enforce what they feel is moral?
What about cops that feel abortion is immoral? Would you have a problem if they decided not to enforce laws protecting abortion doctors? Legal is nothing but words on paper, right?
So then they should resign and NOT be standing there allowing it to happen as they are not the law enforcement officer the badge and uniform represent.
Wow, you have that exactly backward. The outstanding attribute of fascism is rule by man, not rule by law. Where the law is immoral, CHANGE THE LAW! We have laws against "slavery, wife-beating, spousal rape, genocide, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and pretty much every other disgusting abuse of humanity and planet since man first stood upright", yet you're suggesting that law enforcement officials should be free to ignore those laws in favor of their own judgment.They already do just that exactly (as do attorneys and judges and politicians), but it's not the point of this convo. Here we're just talking about rather an officer with a moral objection to an order should refuse to enforce it. Obviously he should, or we're NOTHING but Nazi 2.0. Doubly so when it's an order of the state against the people (who are arguably who the police are supposed to protect and serve anyway).
However, yes, law is nothing. It is the fallible words of fallible men with an incomplete understanding of the situation. It's a guideline, and nothing more. Every man must ALWAYS answer to his conscience first. Otherwise you empower slavery, wife-beating, spousal rape, genocide, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and pretty much every other disgusting abuse of humanity and planet since man first stood upright, because they've ALL been the law somewhere sometime.
They already do just that exactly (as do attorneys and judges and politicians), but it's not the point of this convo. Here we're just talking about rather an officer with a moral objection to an order should refuse to enforce it. Obviously he should, or we're NOTHING but Nazi 2.0. Doubly so when it's an order of the state against the people (who are arguably who the police are supposed to protect and serve anyway).
However, yes, law is nothing. It is the fallible words of fallible men with an incomplete understanding of the situation. It's a guideline, and nothing more. Every man must ALWAYS answer to his conscience first. Otherwise you empower slavery, wife-beating, spousal rape, genocide, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and pretty much every other disgusting abuse of humanity and planet since man first stood upright, because they've ALL been the law somewhere sometime.
Wow, you have that exactly backward. The outstanding attribute of fascism is rule by man, not rule by law. Where the law is immoral, CHANGE THE LAW! We have laws against "slavery, wife-beating, spousal rape, genocide, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and pretty much every other disgusting abuse of humanity and planet since man first stood upright", yet you're suggesting that law enforcement officials should be free to ignore those laws in favor of their own judgment.
Laws MUST be enforced or stricken, and enforced fairly on all. Otherwise you have nothing more than politics substituting for law, as in this case.
Your type of thinking is exactly what causes the problems you say it prevents. You allow one man to determine right and wrong, instead of the entire society.
A cop feels abortion is wrong. He feels that burning down abortion clinics so as to prevent further abortions is morally justifiable. You are saying that it is his duty to answer to his own conscience first, if he feels the law is immoral.
You can't possibly believe what you are saying.
Ethics, morals, beliefs, values, truth, reason...these things MATTER and should form the basis of our decision making process. Anyone who doesn't is a bad human being. In this case, the law enforcement officer in question needs to decide what he believes and support that, and nothing else.
I think Bush invaded Iraq on moral grounds. I guess its OK then? Someone let Harvey know he's no longer a traitor and a criminal.