What is the difference between logic and disobediance?

[lucdatuv]

i feel that laws are illogical in many cases, and are often broken and people are never caught. So surely this leads to intelligent and logical people breaking the .aw freely and easily? I hate that i am labelled as disobediant when truly i am just more intelligent than all the idiots that don't know how to break the law in, how to say it....flambouyant ways.

[Ancient Dragon]

People who break the laws are more than just "disobediant" -- they are criminals. Just because you don't like a law doesn't give you the right to disobey it. Are there laws that shouldn't exist -- Yes, but the way to get around it is to change the law, not break it.

It sounds to me that you are much less intelligent that what you think you are. Breaking laws is not a very intelligent thing for you to do.

[kes166]

I agree with you AD, but for the sake of discussion, there can be laws that are immorral, and to change them, sometimes they have to be broken.

Take ObamaCare for example. I don't have health insurance because I can't afford the $250 a month it costs. My kids are on state insurance due to the small amount I make. If someone comes to me and tells me I have to give them $250 a month for something I can't afford because I must have it, I'm going to tell them to go pound sand. If I NEED to have it, pay it for me.

I have $250 ... Am I going to spend it on health insurance or food?

[Agilemind]

i feel that laws are illogical in many cases, and are often broken and people are never caught. So surely this leads to intelligent and logical people breaking the law freely and easily? I hate that i am labelled as disobediant when truly i am just more intelligent than all the idiots that don't know how to break the law in, how to say it....flambouyant ways.

Some laws are illogical some aren't, all were created for a good reason but they are often not optimal solutions to the problem they are trying to fix. Some 'intelligent' people choose to break laws they feel are illogical risking fines, imprisonment etc... usually to avoid minor inconvenience. Some do get away with it; some get caught then realize how stupid they were. When you break the law you're not just disobedient you are a criminal or a felon or an insensitive human being or a monster depending on what law you are breaking.

There are cases where laws should be broken but they are rare and far between so any blanket statement cannot be condoned on the basis of a few exceptions.

As for the initial question -> the difference between logic and disobedience is for who's benefit you are breaking the law. If you are breaking the law for the benefit of others it is logic if you are breaking the law for the benefit of yourself it is disobedience

[diafol]

I would offer another case. Some laws are archaic, but for some reason have not been repealed. They are often prejudicial. These laws should be ignored. The 'establishment' is often so conservative that even fervent lobbying will not effect a change. It is often through direct action, that change is effected. I'm sure that the majority of freedom fighters across the world wished that the laws of their lands were fair and that they had a responsible/responsive government/judiciary that had the interests of its people at heart.

Society would stagnate were it not for the courage of a dedicated few that stand up for what is right, fair and decent. Ok, will get off my soap box now.

[Ancient Dragon]

Yes I agree some laws are wrong -- The efforts of Rosa Parks in 1954 is one example of where disobeying a law made sweaping changes in our society. And occasionally such protests, no matter how honorable, turn into tragedy (Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 come to mind).

[GrimJack]

Logic is the study of arguments; some arguments are valid and many are fallacies.

Disobedience is the failure to obey.

The difference between them is a gulf you appear unable to cross.

[diafol]

I agree with GJ, the 'difference' doesn't really make sense, but I sort of get the gist. There is a situation in my country at the moment, where the independent native language TV station is to be absorbed by the British Broadcasting Corporation. The government are re-jigging the law to enable them to totally scrap the channel in a few years time. The law currently states that they can't scrap it. So they change the law.

Many of us are going to refuse to pay our TV licence as a protest. What will happen? Who knows, examples made, fines issued, incarcerations. To sit back and see our culture further eroded by a foreign government is not an option.

Is this an act of disobedience - yes. Is it justified? That depends on your political and national affiliations. And that is where the problem often lies.

[Kamatari]

People who break the laws are more than just "disobediant" -- they are criminals. Just because you don't like a law doesn't give you the right to disobey it. Are there laws that shouldn't exist -- Yes, but the way to get around it is to change the law, not break it.

It sounds to me that you are much less intelligent that what you think you are. Breaking laws is not a very intelligent thing for you to do.

I completely disagree, Dr.Martin Luther King Jr. practiced civil disobedience, as well as constant law breaking to get what he,and ourselves needed. I would never agree that we should follow the Jim Crow laws. What exactly did such a thing do? Keep society clean and in check? Not in the slightest.

[Ancient Dragon]

You failed to read my other post in which I supported the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Read the whole thread before making such statements.

[eno_diputs]

I'm confused why we're comparing logic and disobedience.

But it seems that the issue is that you are saying that you are not disobedient, you only have logic...?

Logic and disobedience are like oranges and apples. :)

You can be smart and logical, but as long as you're breaking a rule or a command, you're being disobedient. It doesn't have to be a law that you're breaking. Even breaking your dad's curfew is being disobedient. Logic has nothing to do with it. You might have been late due to a school project, or being in an accident, but you still broke a rule, and you were disobedient, despite it being the logical thing to do.

The question then is, should logical people who disobeyed be punished? Of course, it all depends on the situation. And I'm not going to judge until I have the facts.

But yes, by definition, if you do break rules then you are disobedient.

Another thought, if you didn't really exactly "break" a law, say you worked on a loophole by using your logic, then you weren't disobedient either.

Of course, I'm working with the definition of disobedience = breaking the law

If we add morals to the discussion, this topic is going to get... a bit..

[Kamatari]

You failed to read my other post in which I supported the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Read the whole thread before making such statements.

Don't worry, I did read the entire thread prior to posting. Basically I understood the context of what you said, but went with what you literally said for the sake of argument. "People who break the laws are more than just "disobediant" -- they are criminals." Fine and dandy. Straight to your second post, you said "I agree some laws are wrong" and mentioned a civil rights event that changed history, and left it at that.

Long story short, your first post was heavily handed against people who break laws regardless of the situation, then your second post mentions the civil rights activist creating a change. Civil rights activist created changed through constantly braking laws.
My point was, if I were to follow both of your points back to back, you were saying that civil rights activist were criminal.

[Ancient Dragon]

I still stand by what I said in my first post. MLK was jailed as a criminal for his civil rights stands. Jesus was killed for his radical teachings. In more recent events our jails are full of people who take or took drugs for recreational purposes.

[Kamatari]

Well as far as drugs go.. honest question, is there another purpose for taking drugs besides recreation?

[Ancient Dragon]

Of course -- I take several drugs prescribed by doctors to stay alive.

[Kamatari]

Ah, I read too far into the word. I assigned drugs to something bad, prescription drugs went straight over my head.

[Ancient Dragon]

Got to admit though -- doctors in USA can not prescribe marijuana for anything despite the fact that it has been proven to be usefor in cancer patients. Which brings us back to the topic of this thread.

[Kamatari]

Doctors are criminals?

[acer07]

You say that you are more intelligent than all the idiots that don't know how to break the law. Thats a lame excuse for breaking the law. Thank goodness everyone does not think that way.

There are a lot of criminals that claimed mind superiority over normal citizens. They are now using their master mind to make license plates as all jail birds do.

[jon.kiparsky]

It seems to me that if you're getting caught and labeled as "disobedient" then it might be you're not as smart as you want to think you are. Surely the first step in breaking a law is to not get caught, no?

Yes, there is such a thing as civil disobedience. If you're breaking a law to change it, though, you don't complain about being arrested. You stand up and politely and firmly tell the world, "I rode a bus, and I'm being arrested for it" or "I violated the ObamaCare law and I'm being penalized for it". You take the consequences, in other words, and that is your moral leverage for changing the law. When Gandhi went to the sea to gather salt, he didn't do it under cover of night. That would have defeated his purpose.

[kes166]

jon.kiparsky wrote:
If you're breaking a law to change it, though, you don't complain about being arrested. You stand up and politely and firmly tell the world, "I rode a bus, and I'm being arrested for it" or "I violated the ObamaCare law and I'm being penalized for it". You take the consequences, in other words, and that is your moral leverage for changing the law.

I disagree with that. If I get fined for not having health insurance, then I get legal action against me for not paying the fine, it's because I can't afford the health insurance bill, not because I want to make a point to whomever. I will make as big a stink about it as I can, but it's not because I'm making a point, it's because I'm trying to save myself.

I have a job, and if I end up in jail because I don't have health insurance, that will most likly make me lose my job. I will of course sue the government, and in maybe 10 years I might see a settlement and laws might be changed, but that won't help me at all for the time in between not having a job.

I just want the government to stop telling me what I MUST have.

[jon.kiparsky]

I don't see how you're disagreeing with me. In the situation you describe, you're not breaking the law to change it, you're just breaking the law. Withholding any moral judgement, I think you'd be both selfish and foolish in that instance: selfish because your actions are aimed at your own benefit and foolish because they don't actually benefit you and you know it (you say so right here).

But the case you describe has nothing to do with civil disobedience, and can't ride on the shoulders of Thoreau and Gandhi and King. What you're describing is a simple attempt to evade a law you disagree with, for your own financial benefit.

Now, as it happens, I agree that a single-payer, tax-funded European-style system would be much preferable to the mess that was passed, but since the mess is the law, my choice is to comply or to break the law, and I don't really see that engaging in civil disobedience on this front is going to get what I want, so I obey the law.

[kes166]

I don't see how you're disagreeing with me. In the situation you describe, you're not breaking the law to change it, you're just breaking the law. Withholding any moral judgement, I think you'd be both selfish and foolish in that instance: selfish because your actions are aimed at your own benefit and foolish because they don't actually benefit you and you know it (you say so right here).

But the case you describe has nothing to do with civil disobedience, and can't ride on the shoulders of Thoreau and Gandhi and King. What you're describing is a simple attempt to evade a law you disagree with, for your own financial benefit.

Now, as it happens, I agree that a single-payer, tax-funded European-style system would be much preferable to the mess that was passed, but since the mess is the law, my choice is to comply or to break the law, and I don't really see that engaging in civil disobedience on this front is going to get what I want, so I obey the law.

You have $150. Someone knocks on your door and says "You MUST have this". Ok, so you take it from him.

"You now owe me $250" says random guy ... What do you do?

It's that simple. I can't afford health insurance. I want it, but I need to set priorities. If self preservation is selfish, then everyone is selfish.

[GrimJack]

Do you drive a car? You have to have auto insurance if you drive. What is your point?

[Ezzaral]

> if you drive.
Is the point.

[jon.kiparsky]

> if you drive.
Is the point.

Is it? It's true that you can avoid paying for auto liability insurance by not driving but what if you want to drive without paying for the liability coverage?
I think a lot of people can grasp that this would be a problem, because when you operate a motor vehicle you run a small but non-zero risk of causing injury or damage to someone else's person or property, and we all want to be sure that we could recover such damages if some maniac with his phone in his ear screws up and slams his car into ours.

I think kes166's position is more like the guy with the cellphone who doesn't want to pay his car insurance because he knows he's not going to get into a crash - that only happens to other people.

[diafol]

I think there's a fine line between civil disobedience and self-centredness. The health scam underlines this.

Many may find themselves in a position where they simply can't afford something. This means that the law/bill itself may be unjust/indiscriminate. I remember our country had something called the poll tax, which ensured everybody pretty much paid the same for their local amenities, regardless of the nature of their domicile and ability to pay. There was so much 'civil disobedience' - individuals refused to pay - that the government had to make amendments to the faltering legislation. The current 'council tax', while still flawed, at least takes into consideration the nature of the domicile and the individual's ability to pay. One could argue that the individuals were self-centred, but when a large section of the community displays civil disobedience, it can be regarded as 'society speaks'. Does there need to be a critical mass of individuals before an action is classed as worthy?

I live in a country where we receive 'free' health care, funded by taxes. Due to the nature of a bloated over-administered nationalized system, there is an appalling amount of wastage and apathy. Many hanker after a private insurance-driven system, but not those unable to pay the extortionate fees. No special treatment for rich folk in the first system, no way to duck out and discharge your responsibilities in the second.

[Ezzaral]

@jon.kiparsky: I was referring to the difference between compulsory health insurance vs auto insurance. Auto insurance is a requirement if you drive, however driving is not a mandated activity.

[jon.kiparsky]

Got that. My point is that kes166's desire to not pay for health insurance is more like the person who wants to drive and not pay for liability coverage than it is like the person who doesn't want to pay liability, and so doesn't drive.

You can't opt out of getting sick - it happens to everyone. You can't opt out of accidents or disease. As it turns out, these individual misfortunes, when aggregated, are very expensive to society. On that logic, kes166's decision to go uninsured is a free rider problem, not simply a question of individual liberty versus an irrational totalitarian state. Just like the driver who thinks he won't have an accident - some number of them will, and they cost society a lot more in the aggregate than they save.

[kes166]

> if you drive.
Is the point.

I was waiting for that point to come out, and you beat me to rebuttal :)

Driving a car is optional. You can ride a bike, you can take a bus.

Living is not optional.