To those who speak against our Military and or Government

Well, permit me to elaborate on the original point (note that I have bolded things that I think are important, as this is a bit of a rant!). Of course, this all rests on two fundamental premises:

1. An objective moral law exists (i.e. certain things are right or wrong regardless of popular opinion).

2. We ought to refrain from doing things that are wrong.




Let's imagine a ficticious country that operates under a direct democracy. This nation is fractured by ethnic divisions, and one day the racial majority - of which you are a member - decides that they've had enough, and vote to pass a bill that makes the oppression of or discrimination against a certain minority a legal obligation.

I would then ask a few questions:


- Given that you disagree with the notion of the government being based on righteousness (presumably you believe it ought to be based on popularity), is there anything which makes the efforts of the government to uphold this law morally wrong (i.e. the people voted for it, should the government use its power to enforce it)? Is this an "unjust" law?

- If it is ultimately an unjust law, should we obey it anyways and assist in the oppression of this minority (i.e. does an unjust law carry the same moral and legal legitimacy as a just one)?

- Is there any kind of law or moral code that exists above those of the nations?



If the answer is that unjust laws do not possess the legitimacy of just ones, I would say that any political system which, while functioning according to its principles, is capable of passing illegitimate laws, is a fundamentally flawed political system.

If democracy, which is based on popularity, is capable of creating a legal code which we ought to disobey due to its hideous disregard for justice, I would then argue that we should look elsewhere for the source of law.


By the way, when I speak of a government based on righteousness, I'm referring to topics such as the value of human life, political liberties, equality etc. I am not talking about issues like the length of a woman's skirt.

Red_Tory, thank you so much for your comments. I really appreciate being able to discuss this with you in a mature way. How refreshing!

To answer your questions about the hypothetical democracy you presented:

First of all, I didn't say, per se, that I disagree with the notion of government based on righteousness. I said I'm not convinced that a popularity-based government is necessarily immoral. I believe a righteousness-based government may or may not be moral (depending on how one defines "righteousness" as well as "moral"), and a popularity-based government may or may not be moral (depending on the populous).

Having said that, I would say that yes, the hypothetical law is an unjust law.

Absolutely not. I would put this in the same category of civil disobedience. I would argue that, in fact, following this law would be immoral.

That is an excellent question. I would say yes, but nailing down what it is .... therein lies the rub.

Let's break this down. So according to this logic, people should have just left Nazi Germany if they didn't like it. You are committing what is known as a false dilemma. There are more than just the two options of "love it or leave it." There is complete complacency. There is loving and wanting to make it better when seeing problems. Do you just leave a marriage that needs work? Clearly no...

Now you are advocating violence. That's quite interesting. Are former veterans groups who speak out, Veterans For Peace :: ABOUT VFP, are they being disrespectful when they have ACTUALLY served in the military and see the horrors of war first hand and see how it often does not solve the problems it was intended to? I guess according to you the veterans who are against the wars we are currently engaged in are being "blatantly disrespect" and should go to any of the other 192 countries available to them.

Here's another one- Vietnam Veterans Against the War. I think everyone can see now how shallow your position is.

Dude653...I'll raise my glass to everything you've said on this matter. You're saying a whole lot of what some people are too afraid to say. Bartender, the next round is on me!

...i'm not advocating violence.. you are taking my coment out of context... i said.. to say stupid disrespectful things about our soldiers is the same thing as slapping their frends and family in the face. People sit in the comfort of their homes eating potato chips and watching Micheal Moore documenteries and think they know everything that is goin on in the world. There is propaganda on the anti war side as well.. that's what I'm trying to make people understand

I agree with you partially on this. I don't think most of us (including myself) understand all the nuances of the wars that are going on. But they seem to be carried on endlessly and it's not fair to soldiers who have pledged to possibly give their lives for their country to be asked to do something that has no definite goal. We should have enough respect for them to not just use them for political ends.

So Grunge, would the fact that the hypothetical law is unjust not indicate that just or "real" laws that ought to be obeyed derive their legitimacy from a source other than popular opinion...?

As for determining what the "law above the law" is, doesn't the assertion that the law passed by the hypothetical democracy is "immoral" mean that you think you already know what it is?

Dude you need to understand that this IS an international site. People WILL say negative things about our government and military. The world isn't in agreement with us.

People are entitled to critique our policies as we are of theirs.

yeah,,i see you point on that,,,,