Yes, actually, though I don't see why that's relevant.
A Lawyer? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHHA I knew it! Nobody else could have such a high regard for the law. I was half expecting you to say you were a cop.
There is no statutory definition of "legal freedom." When I said to Taarkin that "All laws are binding, by definition. You're free to argue that a binding law is unjust and encourage the community to amend or repeal it. What you're not free to do is simply ignore it," what I meant was that a legal obligation exists whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Since I'm pretty sure I know what I meant when I used the term, I don't see how you can say it's not true.
Laws are binding to me only insofar as you can exert force to make me follow them. I have accepted no social contract to follow the laws that the legislature passes. I simply do not accept their authority over me. It's really that simple. Whether that's legally the case or not is only relevant if they can catch me. The legal obligation itself is a fiction. Quite simply it's not my government and I simply don't recognize it's authority. All the legal garbage flies out the window with that. I'm sure this might be shocking to you but it's simply reality. The government itself is a legal fiction.
You are missing the fundamental point that I've stressed a dozen times now. I do not think the legislature always gets it right. I do not think its decisions are fully thought out. I do not think they are always morally correct, logically sound, well-supported by evidence, economically rational, or in any other way "good." I certainly have never said that legislatures don't make mistakes.
What I have said is that legislative decisions are entitled to obedience simply by virtue of being legislative decisions.
I understand the point you are making I simply disagree with it. I am no more bound to obey the legislature than I am bound to obey Osama Bin Laden or a crazy street preacher. In fact the only difference is that the government has developed more means to enforce their rules on me. But do I have a moral obligation to follow the rules? Hell no. Not even close. I suppose you might argue that people who vote could be giving their assent to be ruled but that's about it.
Of course you're a lawyer so you probably respect the law. I'm not and I don't. In fact as I've already stated I think it's in everyone's best interest if we simply ignore laws that we personally think are unjust. I know.. I know.. but won't everyone murder everyone else? Gimme a break mr strawman.
That's true partly because a central authority defining the bounds of socially acceptable behavior is necessary to avoid anarchy, and partly because our particular central authority is morally legitimate insofar as its authority is ultimately derived from the consent of the governed.
Again, I understand but I disagree. First off you are creating a false choice by saying either "follow all current law or we have anarchy". That's simply BS and you know it. In fact the society that we have is one where people regularly ignore certain laws with impunity because enforcement is spotty. Just because we choose to ignore pot laws doesn't mean we are going to start murdering people randomly. I completely dispute the idea that without a bunch of laws that the alternative is anarchy. Secondly, I would argue that the consent of the governed is not true and frankly shouldn't even be the bar. Consent of the government is simply mob rule. I would like to see a small core set of rights that are inalienable enforced by the government, and that's it. Sort of like the original US constitution which has been amended and ignored into toilet paper.
And yes, whatever its shortcomings I do think our modern government is one of the best systems of self-government that humankind has ever devised. That's true in large part because of our common agreement to resolve contentious issues of social order through legislative deliberation rather than through violence-- which is the only option that would remain if everyone believed themselves free to disregard legislative decisions with which they disagree.
You're a lawyer. Of course you're going to think this.
I think the legislatures have way too much power and that if they want my consent that we're going to need a much much stronger set of individual rights and a lot more restrictions on the powers given to government.
So once again, please tell me what we're to do about the people whose consciences tell them it's just fine to rape, murder, and rob? You've yet to answer this and yet your entire argument hangs on it.
My entire argument doesn't hang on it. The vast majority of people aren't going to think murder or rape is ok, therefore if everyone follows their conscience things will be fine. It's a total straw man BS idea that I'm proposing people murder each other. How much of current behavior is simply due to the law vs what people would do naturally? The place where I think laws get out of hand is when they start to usurp areas that span "soft" moral boundaries. You have to show that murder laws are what prevent people from murdering before you can claim this point. This is kind of like when moralist religious nuts claim that atheists are evil and have no conscience. Laws don't create conscience, they mostly follow it.
Who's being "discriminated against"? People who want to smoke pot? Well, yeah, I guess in the sense that every criminal law "discriminates" against the class of people who want to undertake whatever activity it proscribes-- just like age-of-consent laws "discriminate" against pedophiles.
Black people and mexicans. Why do you think drug laws exist in the first place? I literally think prohibition is simply an extension of Jim Crow which was an extension of slavery. Yes, I am dead serious.
But not all discrimination is bad, and "discrimination against pot smokers" is just another way of saying that you don't think there should be a law against smoking pot. That's fine, and again I actually agree with you about that, but it's simple histrionics to equate every law that you happen to dislike with the tyranny and oppression of slavery.
In this particular case I think there is a direct connection between drug laws and racism.
So Mr. Lawyer, which part of the constitution gives the federal government the ability to make it illegal for me to grow and consume my own pot?
