When I was in college I took a class called "Philosophy of Law" which spent most of the time examining the differences between positive law and natural law, as well as various interpretations of the US Constitution. First I will define the terms for those who haven't studied legal philosophy.
Positive Law is a man-made law, that is, one that is established by a government or societal authority.
Natural Law is a law that acts independently of any government authority. This is more of a philosophical concept, as Natural Law is the basis of our Positive Law. Natural Law is also the principal that some things are how they are because that is how they are or how they should be. Natural law generally states that anything is against the natural laws of man when it causes harm to another. Another side of the Natural Law philosophy, the Social contract theorists, such as Hobbes, Locke or Rousseau, believed in a natural law and in natural rights, which were transferred from the individual subject to the sovereign state. The state would then protect individuals from each other through the mediation of its monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force.
I never understand why people support positive law. The most common argument I hear for why Marijuana is bad is "it's against the law", but those people cannot give me a logical reason why is should be against the law. Just because something is against the law doesn't mean it's immoral or wrong in any way. Just like records and rules, laws are meant to be tested and broken. Certain laws should never be tested, but those are things that are against the natural law too, like rape, murder and child abuse. However, there have been many laws in history that were against the natural law.
The "Jim Crow" laws were put into place by racist Southerners afraid of the new world order after slavery was abolished during the Civil War. The laws prohibited black people from using the same public accommodations as whites, and prohibited whites from hiring black workers in all but menial jobs, a situation that created severe economic hardship for the families of black workers. Jim Crow laws, named after a familiar minstrel character of the day, also required black and white people to use separate water fountains, public schools, public bath houses, restaurants, public libraries, and rail cars in public transport. Now I know there are those who still believe that these laws should exist (live in the south for a few years, and you'll meet hicks like that too...just don't date them like I did), but they are simply wrong and should never have been obeyed. Civil disobedience is a responsibility of those who live with unjust laws, which at last check was everywhere.
Rosa Parks was the first woman laid to rest in the White House, and she became known for breaking a law which helped to escalate the Civil Rights Movement. She was a law-breaker and a hero. Ditto for John Brown, who helped to start the civil war with his martyr after being executed for a number of abolotionist slave raids. Gandhi stood up against opression, as did Nelson Mandela, but both of those men will be remembered as a couple of history's greatest men. Civil disobedience can be quite heroic when backed by the right motivation.
So I launch a protest against the prohibition of personal use of intoxicants, against the criminalization of leaving one's home in search of a better life, against the stifling of the freedom to worship as one chooses (afghanistan just tried to sentence a man to death for converting from Islam to Christianity). Sometimes laws just aren't right, and why should we obey a law which was enacted without any regard for the logic behind it? Laws shouldn't control us, we should control the laws.
Positive Law is a man-made law, that is, one that is established by a government or societal authority.
Natural Law is a law that acts independently of any government authority. This is more of a philosophical concept, as Natural Law is the basis of our Positive Law. Natural Law is also the principal that some things are how they are because that is how they are or how they should be. Natural law generally states that anything is against the natural laws of man when it causes harm to another. Another side of the Natural Law philosophy, the Social contract theorists, such as Hobbes, Locke or Rousseau, believed in a natural law and in natural rights, which were transferred from the individual subject to the sovereign state. The state would then protect individuals from each other through the mediation of its monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force.
I never understand why people support positive law. The most common argument I hear for why Marijuana is bad is "it's against the law", but those people cannot give me a logical reason why is should be against the law. Just because something is against the law doesn't mean it's immoral or wrong in any way. Just like records and rules, laws are meant to be tested and broken. Certain laws should never be tested, but those are things that are against the natural law too, like rape, murder and child abuse. However, there have been many laws in history that were against the natural law.
The "Jim Crow" laws were put into place by racist Southerners afraid of the new world order after slavery was abolished during the Civil War. The laws prohibited black people from using the same public accommodations as whites, and prohibited whites from hiring black workers in all but menial jobs, a situation that created severe economic hardship for the families of black workers. Jim Crow laws, named after a familiar minstrel character of the day, also required black and white people to use separate water fountains, public schools, public bath houses, restaurants, public libraries, and rail cars in public transport. Now I know there are those who still believe that these laws should exist (live in the south for a few years, and you'll meet hicks like that too...just don't date them like I did), but they are simply wrong and should never have been obeyed. Civil disobedience is a responsibility of those who live with unjust laws, which at last check was everywhere.
Rosa Parks was the first woman laid to rest in the White House, and she became known for breaking a law which helped to escalate the Civil Rights Movement. She was a law-breaker and a hero. Ditto for John Brown, who helped to start the civil war with his martyr after being executed for a number of abolotionist slave raids. Gandhi stood up against opression, as did Nelson Mandela, but both of those men will be remembered as a couple of history's greatest men. Civil disobedience can be quite heroic when backed by the right motivation.
So I launch a protest against the prohibition of personal use of intoxicants, against the criminalization of leaving one's home in search of a better life, against the stifling of the freedom to worship as one chooses (afghanistan just tried to sentence a man to death for converting from Islam to Christianity). Sometimes laws just aren't right, and why should we obey a law which was enacted without any regard for the logic behind it? Laws shouldn't control us, we should control the laws.
posted by Dan Pasternack at 1:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home