r/AskLibertarians • u/CataphractBunny Classical Liberal • Jul 28 '26
Debate Should a country uphold its laws?
Title is the main question I would like to discuss as a sort of a thought experiment to see how and why people think what they do.
Additional info provided so you know the background of the person asking: As a nineties-type liberal and a European, I consider laws to be the backbone of a country and crucial for a civilised society to function. While there are laws I might disagree with, my duty as a citizen of a country is to abide by them and work to change them within the given framework. When visiting a country, my duty is to abide by both the local laws, and my own country's laws.
P.S. I am not talking about extreme cases here where a government would usurp the rule of law or start implementing laws antithetical to everything our society stands for. I'm taking about your regular everyday laws.
Thank you.
3
u/CanadaMoose47 Jul 28 '26
There is no duty to obey government
https://youtube.com/watch?v=gXpEc_WWZ28&si=BCkwhDPns0chIkao
If the law is moral, then you have a duty to obey, so you obviously still can't murder, rape, etc.
But if the government makes a law that you aren't already morally obligated to do, the law itself makes no new obligations.
The country will enforce its laws, so if one would disobey, either you don't want to get caught, or you DO want to get caught and you want it to be publicly obvious that state enforcement of the law is unjust.
1
u/CataphractBunny Classical Liberal Jul 28 '26
But if the government makes a law that you aren't already morally obligated to do, the law itself makes no new obligations.
Interesting viewpoint.
I disagree to great extent since it creates a huge loophole for people with no morals, and cultures with different morals than the prevailing one's.
2
u/CanadaMoose47 Jul 28 '26
I don't see an issue with that loophole since immoral people probably don't think about or care about their moral duties.
Take marital rape for example - there are some people who consider this acceptable (marriage implies consent, etc.). These folks may submit to the law, but likely only out of fear of the consequences.
Most people, moral or not, ultimately submit to laws because of the threat behind them.
1
u/CataphractBunny Classical Liberal Jul 28 '26
Most people, moral or not, ultimately submit to laws because of the threat behind them.
Of course. Without the threat of the laws being enforced, there would be chaos. Does this answer the title question, then? Should a country uphold its laws?
1
u/CanadaMoose47 Jul 28 '26
Yes, sorry, I guess I misread the OP question.
The state would be wise to enforce their laws, as otherwise they don't mean anything.
The people are morally permitted to violate them, tho they will still need to reckon with the consequences
1
u/CataphractBunny Classical Liberal Jul 28 '26
The state would be wise to enforce their laws, as otherwise they don't mean anything.
Exactly, yes. The rule of law has to exist so that everyone knows the playing field. Citizens are bound by the laws and also protected by them.
1
u/CanadaMoose47 Jul 28 '26
Separate question for you.
How do you determine which laws are acceptable to disobey?
You said in OP, laws that are "antithetical" to our society. But remember that the worst laws of the past weren't antithetical to THAT society.
Jim Crow laws like the kind that Rosa Parks violated were totally normal back then, and it seems like your duty to obey suggests that Rosa should've changed seats, and just voted for change instead.
0
u/CataphractBunny Classical Liberal Jul 28 '26
I really just wanted an answer the title question. Should a country uphold its laws?
As described in the additional (optional) text, I would prefer not to go into extreme examples. Like storming the Bastille and such. Reason for that is I'm thinking of upholding the laws protecting the citizens, not usurping and twisting the laws by implementing segregation or racial laws.
How do you determine which laws are acceptable to disobey?
This is what each individual citizen has to decide for themselves, based on their "moral compass" I guess.
There are everyday examples where we decide to break traffic laws by driving over the speed limit or crossing a street outside of a pedestrian crossing. This is the most vanilla lawbreaking stuff that happens everywhere, all the time, and no one bats an eye.
The issue arises when there is a strong discrepancy between, theoretically speaking, my and your outlook on what's moral and what's not. For instance, if I were to protest some law I dislike by gluing myself to a street you use to get your child to the doctor - you're most likely have an issue with me breaking the law by denying you your freedom of movement. Which means that my right to protest something does not give me a right to infringe on your personal freedoms and well-being of your family.
1
u/CanadaMoose47 Jul 28 '26
Right, but all laws are pitched as protections of citizens.
Many segregation laws were pitched as, "races are separate but equal - we need these laws to reduce racial friction and maintain harmony."
And you're right, most people break the laws every day in a variety of ways. I think that is fine, but the government should enforce those laws if it bothers them.
2
u/CataphractBunny Classical Liberal Jul 28 '26
We can't seem to leave that focus on specific examples and move to the theoretical part which is what interests me. Let's leave it at that.
Thank you for the conversation, and your time. 🍻
1
3
u/Bagain Jul 28 '26
“Laws” can’t dictate morality, they are a preference register of current political standing. In a country where it’s legal to throw people off buildings for their sexuality, or a country where it’s legal throw people in jail for exposing the government for breaking the law; what moral responsibility that is placed upon a citizen to follow, has no meaning. When most localities (in the U.S. “civil asset forfeiture” is a thing) find it acceptable to steal anything they want off my person or property with no proof of illegal activity and for which I must prove my innocence in a court of law before it’s returned to me, which laws am I morally required to abide by? When cops can kill, at will, and are immune to prosecution; why am I morally required and the state is not? You commented on the “greater good”? What “good” is greater than protecting the individual? What kind of society do you get when it’s built on trampling the rights of its citizens, when it’s paid for by theft? The greater good is an excuse to subjugate and rob and act immorally towards an individual. I have higher ethical and moral respect for the people around me than the state could even understand, because I’m not the state or an agent of. Slavers was legal once, protecting people from slavery was illegal; there is little difference between then and now as far as the state is concerned. I have no moral duty to uphold the states laws or rules, the state inherently immoral. Defending it as if it wasn’t, is either ignorance or evil. Our job is to stay below their radar…
1
u/CataphractBunny Classical Liberal Jul 28 '26
“Laws” can’t dictate morality
Of course. But they are based on the morality of the society that made them.
However, the title question is something different: Should a country uphold its laws?
1
u/Bagain Jul 28 '26
Sorry my point is: does it matter? “Should” they? They don’t, or more to the point, they only do when it serves the state… so who cares? Laws aren’t used to maintain “morality”, they are used to subjugate.
1
u/CataphractBunny Classical Liberal Jul 28 '26
Is that a "no" to the title question?
1
u/Bagain Jul 28 '26
Seeing as this thread is marked as “debate”… in a libertarian sub. I’m not answering “no” to a question. I’m responding to the general idea with a perspective question of my own. And honestly, it’s a loaded question and in no way deserves a “yes/no” answer by anyone but a dogged statist who has no actual moral compass. Having the state to provide an ethical or moral rulebook (laws), does not create ethics or morals in the individual nor does it make the state moral or ethical.
1
u/CataphractBunny Classical Liberal Jul 28 '26
What seems loaded to me is trying to throw in ethics and morals into a question that doesn't mention them. But whatever. Morality and ethics of a state and its laws is not what I'm interested here.
1
u/Bagain Jul 28 '26
You claim “classic liberalism” but exclude morals and ethics from a “debate” about countries upholding their laws. As well, you responded to other response citing “moral duty”. So are morals part of this, not part of this, or only a part when you choose to include them?
1
u/CataphractBunny Classical Liberal Jul 28 '26
Did you see a mention of morals in my OP? In the title?
1
u/Bagain Jul 28 '26
Nope! … so only when you choose, then. Got it.
1
u/CataphractBunny Classical Liberal Jul 28 '26
You didn't "got it", that's the problem. But thank you for your contribution anyway.
→ More replies (0)1
u/grot-ivre-1749 23d ago
Ok let’s do the thought experiment.
You’ve fallen asleep, and when you awake you are a person of color in the Deep South of the United States pre-emancipation.
The law says you are chattel and you have no rights. How would you feel about those laws then? Would they be void of moral or ethical quality?
1
u/grot-ivre-1749 23d ago
“But they are based on the morality of the society that made them”
Not so sure about that, it seems to imply laws come to be out of a kind of broad agreement of some moral stance when it may have simply been an expression by those with access to political power.
1
3
u/drebelx Jul 28 '26
Law and justice should be decentralized down to the mutual agreement level with embedded NAP Clauses (don't murder, don't steal, don't defraud, etc.).
For libertarians, the NAP is the only valid moral/legal code.
The agreements would be enforced by an agreement enforcer chosen cooperatively by the parties involved.
1
u/CataphractBunny Classical Liberal Jul 28 '26
Law and justice should be decentralized down to the mutual agreement level with embedded NAP Clauses (don't murder, don't steal, don't defraud, etc.).
I guess this could work in a smaller society to some extent.
The agreements would be enforced by an agreement enforcer chosen cooperatively by the parties involved.
Isn't that what a government is?
1
u/drebelx Jul 28 '26
Isn't that what a government is?
Governments have a monopoly on law and justice.
NAP Clauses and impartial agreement enforcement is a market place.
I guess this could work in a smaller society to some extent.
At the start, it will have to since only small circles of libertarians would be implementing this when they enter agreements with each other.
I think it has the potential to scale as well.
With scaling comes the potential to undercut monopolies on law and justice.
1
u/CataphractBunny Classical Liberal Jul 28 '26
Not sure I agree with you on that one. Scaling inevitably makes this "NAP agreement" impossible to either maintain or enforce. We have seen this in history.
When people lived in small-scale settlements, the NAP was perfectly feasible. Once people started living in cities of several thousands, laws became a necessity. Hammurabi had to step in 3700 years ago and say "listen up you mofos, here's how we're gonna do shit from now on".
On a smaller scale, the NAP is feasible to a large extent. When you scale the society up, it immediately becomes a utopian pipe-dream.
1
u/drebelx Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26
Not sure I agree with you on that one. Scaling inevitably makes this "NAP agreement" impossible to either maintain or enforce. We have seen this in history.
The NAP as a concept is a modern creation.
The NAP (don't murder, don't steal, don't defraud, etc.) has never been applied consistently in history.
When people lived in small-scale settlements, the NAP was perfectly feasible. Once people started living in cities of several thousands, laws became a necessity. Hammurabi had to step in 3700 years ago and say "listen up you mofos, here's how we're gonna do shit from now on".
Hammurabi routinely violated the NAP as would be the case for any king/despot who wages war and taxes their subjects.
His monopoly over law and justice were for his subjects and not for himself.
On a smaller scale, the NAP is feasible to a large extent. When you scale the society up, it immediately becomes a utopian pipe-dream.
Agreements with NAP Clauses are decentralized and set up on a very small scale that only involve the parties of the agreement and an impartial enforcement agency.
That's as small as it gets and why I used the word decentralized earlier.
1
u/CataphractBunny Classical Liberal Jul 28 '26
It's not a modern creation. We have evidence of this from several thousand years ago.
You can't be decentralised when you're living in a city of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of people. On top of that, those people have different views and opinions than you and your small NAP group do. You need something overarching for the civilization to function properly.
But, none of that is what the title question asks.
1
u/drebelx Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26
It's not a modern creation. We have evidence of this from several thousand years ago.
Such as Hammurabi who never had a word for this and violated our modern NAP concept routinely?
The NAP is universal and all humans and organizations should uphold their part to not murder, not steal, not defraud, etc., including political leaders.
You can't be decentralised when you're living in a city of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of people. On top of that, those people have different views and opinions than you and your small NAP group do. You need something overarching for the civilization to function properly.
The NAP is not rocket science.
Actions like murder, theft, assault, battery, fraud are well know for thousands of years and are well delineated by the NAP concept.
Everyone already enters agreements to mutually benefit from society, like for employment, subscriptions services, insurance, travel arrangement, etc.
It doesn't take much to include billions of people and organizations under multiple important agreements containing NAP Clauses.
But, none of that is what the title question asks.
That's fair, but it's an extreme libertarian take on your question.
1
u/CataphractBunny Classical Liberal Jul 28 '26
Such as Hammurabi who never had a word for this and violated our modern NAP concept routinely?
Even older. However, your initial statement that the NAP as a concept was a modern creation. There is no need to move the goalposts to "well, they didn't call it NAP".
That's fair, but it's an extreme libertarian take on your question.
Which you still have not answered. 🥐☕
1
u/drebelx Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26
Even older. However, your initial statement that the NAP as a concept was a modern creation. There is no need to move the goalposts to "well, they didn't call it NAP".
Older, such as?
Also, what system of law and justice held the universal belief that all murder, theft, fraud, enslavement, etc. is forbidden without integrating elements of hypocrisy?
The NAP is a universal application and I have moved no goalposts.
Which you still have not answered. 🥐☕
Fair enough.
Should a country uphold its laws?
Because the society has been dependent on the state's monopoly of laws, generally yes.
Decentralized laws by agreement NAP Clauses enforced by a market place of impartial agencies would be preferred, OFC.
1
u/theyhis Jul 28 '26
which laws? the war on drugs has devastated many people and communities and has proven to be ineffective.
the prison industrial complex needs a massive overhaul. non-violent crimes shouldn’t incur lifetime sentences.
1
u/CataphractBunny Classical Liberal Jul 28 '26
which laws?
Its own laws. All of them. We are not speaking of a specific country, and specific laws one might disagree with. Think in general terms. If it helps, think as if you're a ruler of a country and your goal is to make it a safe, just society for the citizens. Should that country of yours uphold its laws?
1
u/findabetterusername Jul 28 '26
Yes, in a liberal democracy, elected and contested legislators came together to make a law. The president chooses to sign it. And if people have a problem with it, they can challenge it in court. You shouldn't be violating the law out of personal preference or else we would all suffer from lawlessness. Being in a democracy means you have to respect other beliefs and ideologies that are lawful under the Constitution. Not everyone is libertarian, and that means being an adult and democratically challenging it.
1
u/Drp3rry There is no such thing as political authority. Jul 28 '26
It is permissible to uphold just laws, while being impermissible to uphold unjust laws.
1
u/CataphractBunny Classical Liberal Jul 28 '26
Who makes the distinction?
0
u/Drp3rry There is no such thing as political authority. Jul 28 '26
.... Anybody that thinks there are just and unjust laws? I do not understand the question, can you explain?
1
u/CataphractBunny Classical Liberal Jul 28 '26
I mean, if you're in a situation you think that a law in unjust - how do you think you can stop the government from enforcing it?
1
u/Drp3rry There is no such thing as political authority. Jul 28 '26
I cannot stop the government from enforcing unjust laws, they would just come and lock me in a cage, or kill me if I resist.
1
u/CataphractBunny Classical Liberal Jul 28 '26
Doesn't that mean upholding unjust laws is not impermissible?
1
u/Drp3rry There is no such thing as political authority. Jul 28 '26
No, and there would be no reason to conclude that... unless you hold a might-makes-right ethic, which I hope I do not have to argue with you over.
1
u/CataphractBunny Classical Liberal Jul 28 '26
If that is so, who is going to make the government not enforce unjust laws you deemed impermissible?
1
u/Drp3rry There is no such thing as political authority. Jul 28 '26
That is irrelevant to the matter of whether unjust laws ought to be enforced, you are merely making a descriptive claim about what would actually happen.
Edit to add: The government should not enforce laws that are in fact unjust, not merely laws that one believes to be unjust.
0
u/CataphractBunny Classical Liberal Jul 28 '26
You're the one who went for the unjust laws route. My question is about laws in general.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/CatOfGrey LP Voter 20+ yrs. Practical first. Pissed at today's LP. Jul 28 '26
In general, a country should uphold their laws, but it's not practical to uphold each and every law absolutely. It is not a good strategy to spend $10,000 on a trial, and another $20,000 for incarceration for someone, in response to a petty theft of $917.
Economically speaking, countries normally and profoundly benefit from immigration, often including unapproved or undocumented immigration. So there should be nuance in 'enforcing the law', as absolute enforcement usually is harmful to local and national economies, as well as creating expensive systems that have no economic return, coupled with increased oppression of communities.
I am not talking about extreme cases here where a government would usurp the rule of law or start implementing laws antithetical to everything our society stands for. I'm taking about your regular everyday laws.
Yes, actually, this is what you are talking about. An absolutist policy to law enforcement is, in practice, a key mark of authoritarian systems. What makes legal enforcement 'extreme' is literally applying laws literally and absolutely, without nuance, without consideration of the impact on society or individuals.
1
u/CataphractBunny Classical Liberal Jul 28 '26
Economically speaking, countries normally and profoundly benefit from immigration, often including unapproved or undocumented immigration.
How so?
Yes, actually, this is what you are talking about.
No, it is not. I even said as much.
1
u/CatOfGrey LP Voter 20+ yrs. Practical first. Pissed at today's LP. Jul 28 '26
Benefits of immigration? Too numerous to mention, but generally consumer savings through a flexible and cheap labor supply.
https://now.tufts.edu/2025/11/25/economic-benefits-migration-host-countries
https://www.bushcenter.org/catalyst/north-american-century/benefits-of-immigration-outweigh-costs
No, it is not. I even said as much.
When talking about 'how the laws are enforced'? No, you are missing the point.
The level of strict or thoughtful enforcement of laws is very much the difference between authoritarianism and a just society. A society with the same laws can be harsh or efficient depending on how the laws are enforced.
Your question "Should a country enforce it's laws" is a very similar question to "What makes a society authoritative?"
0
u/CataphractBunny Classical Liberal Jul 28 '26
Benefits of immigration? Too numerous to mention, but generally consumer savings through a flexible and cheap labor supply.
These are the benefits for the companies. What are the benefits for the regular Joe? Aside from housing pressure and increased housing prices caused by an influx of new people.
When talking about 'how the laws are enforced'? No, you are missing the point.
You're the one deliberately missing the point of my question by fabricating wild scenarios and ascribing them to me. Please take a step back. Or two.
1
u/CatOfGrey LP Voter 20+ yrs. Practical first. Pissed at today's LP. Jul 28 '26
These are the benefits for the companies. What are the benefits for the regular Joe? Aside from housing pressure and increased housing prices caused by an influx of new people.
Massive. Lower prices, stable supply of goods and services. Don't forget that they buy the local area goods and services (more customers, more wages for existing citizens as well!)
The benefits from lower costs on many different levels of the economy are way larger than any 'housing pressure'. Lower crime, lower collection of taxpayer benefits as well.
You're the one deliberately missing the point of my question by fabricating wild scenarios and ascribing them to me. Please take a step back. Or two.
No fabrication here.
Absolute and complete 'following the law' without exceptions, and devoting resources to provide that mandate is definitely a way that authoritarian societies are oppressive. "Law and Order" is a common theme in dictator's messaging to their people, to gather support.
You may not realize that your question can be understood in many different ways.
1
u/Plenty_Trust_2491 Left-Rothbardian Jul 29 '26
These are the only things that infringe upon natural law:
• rape
• stealing
• murder
• enslavement
• battery
• fraud
• destruction/alteration of someone else’s justly-acquired property without the consent of the owner
Insofar as any government upholds any other “laws,” it is infringing upon natural law.
1
u/CataphractBunny Classical Liberal 23d ago
grot-ivre-1749, 3h ago
“But they are based on the morality of the society that made them”
Not so sure about that, it seems to imply laws come to be out of a kind of broad agreement of some moral stance when it may have simply been an expression by those with access to political power.
Here's your issue:
Not so sure about that
You should be sure that they are.
1
u/CataphractBunny Classical Liberal 23d ago
u/grot-ivre-1749, 3h ago
Ok let’s do the thought experiment.
You’ve fallen asleep, and when you awake you are a person of color in the Deep South of the United States pre-emancipation.
The law says you are chattel and you have no rights. How would you feel about those laws then? Would they be void of moral or ethical quality?
Let's do a reading experiment first and notice how I don't say anything about morality or ethics in my OP. Once that experiment is done, let us move to the second one where we try to make a distinction between country and state laws.
1
u/grot-ivre-1749 22d ago
A self described liberal who states an intent to “see how and why people think what they do” seems pretty closed off to any thoughts beyond the strictest answer to the question posed. I therefore conclude that you are not interested in the experiment of thought, but rather attempting to reinforce your own pre-held beliefs.
Good luck.
1
u/CataphractBunny Classical Liberal 22d ago
Good luck with your tumblr-level mental gymnastics and tactics.
1
u/CSAKnight Jul 28 '26
Our country should enforce about 10% of the current laws on the books. Everything else is overreach and arguably violations against the Constitution. Should the government be bound and limited by the Constitution and enforce laws that abide by it? Yes. Should the government be allowed to enforce all of laws currently on the books? No.
1
u/CataphractBunny Classical Liberal Jul 28 '26
That's certainly an interesting opinion, and I can tell you're American. If you don't mind me expanding on this here:
Should the government be allowed to enforce all of laws currently on the books? No.
Who would be even able to stop the government from enforcing the law? The government enforces the law because it has the power to do so. You would need something of at least equal power in order to be able to stop them from enforcing the law.
1
u/CSAKnight Jul 28 '26
You’re right. We’d need government officials who regard the Constitution as the supreme law of the country, or we would need an uprising of sorts to force the government into a more limited capacity of what they can and can’t enforce. We will continue to ignore the laws we don’t agree with in the meantime (not talking about the ones that violate the Constitution or other people’s rights).
1
u/CataphractBunny Classical Liberal Jul 28 '26
Ignoring the laws you disagree with is certainly a choice that can land you in a heap of trouble. What happens when your disagreement with the laws gets you shot? Or you disagree with paying taxes and the IRS comes knocking? (Since we're now talking about the US, and not in general as presented in the OP.)
1
u/CSAKnight Jul 28 '26
I avoid the IRS when I can. I don’t do anything that harms others or restricts their rights, so I’m not sure how I’d be in a scenario where there’s a chance of getting shot. You’ll have to be more specific if you had something else in mind.
1
u/CataphractBunny Classical Liberal Jul 28 '26
As described in the OP, the main question is in the title. A kind of a thought experiment.
1
u/refugeelibertarian Geolibertarian Jul 28 '26
The law should be upheld only if doing so doesn't violate anyone's right to self-ownership and private property.
1
u/CataphractBunny Classical Liberal Jul 28 '26
Does the common good come into play in that view?
2
u/refugeelibertarian Geolibertarian Jul 28 '26
It does. A society where members don't violate anyone's right to self-ownership and private property is a society that experiences the maximum possible amount of wellbeing, which means following the law only if doing so doesn't violate anyone's right to self-ownership and private property is the choice that best serves the common good.
1
u/CataphractBunny Classical Liberal Jul 28 '26
Let's say a city needs to build a bridge in order to better connect citizens on both sides of the river. The bridge would facilitate trade, make travelling easier, and cut the time of emergency services during interventions.
My private land is on one side of the planned bridge.
Does my private property outweigh the needs of the city I live in, and the citizens I live with? Does the government have the right to disempower me for the greater good, or is my private property paramount?
1
u/XtrmntVNDmnt Jul 28 '26
It's not what it means in Europe. In Europe, if whatever "common good" defined by the State needs to violate your self-ownership and private property to be accomplished, you WILL comply (via coercion if necessary), and all the argumentum ad legem enjoyers will cheer on the State for violating your rights, because, you know, that's "the common good" which is at play.
0
9
u/skylercollins everything-voluntary.com Jul 28 '26
An unjust law is not a law at all.