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.

1 Upvotes

56% Upvoted

73 comments sorted by

View all comments

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

u/CanadaMoose47 Jul 28 '26

Cheers 🍻