If you raise this issue and dare to deny it, suppose that there is a “right” and a “wrong” answer, when in reality there are only prospects. Most people in society believe that one must obey their laws simply because they are the laws. This is the basis for the acceptance of Supreme Court decisions. However, a small percentage believe in obedience to laws only when they have meaning and are also willing to accept the consequences of disobedience. A simple example is the point of view of my wife and me. It obeys the law unconditionally. I obey him when it makes sense. She hates it when I go through a stop sign, even when I look around and find it safe not to stop. If I crash or get a ticket, I don`t complain. Of course, the person who crashes into me can complain. Did I mention that she is German and that she is a better person than me? The ratio of law-abiding to law-abiding people is about 5:1 everywhere, resulting in a relatively stable society that can still evolve. If you believe that the highest law is the continued survival of life in (primarily) human form, then the answer to your courage is 5:1. Almost every state has a sexual offense registration law that leads to homelessness and unemployment and increases the risk factors that can lead to relapse.

There is growing evidence that excessively punitive laws to record sexual offences impose draconian life sentences on thousands of people who pose no particular risk. An estimated 900,000 people are registered in state registries, from those who committed crimes decades ago to teenage sexual encounters with “Romeo and Juliet.” State laws that prohibit people convicted of a sexual offense from living or working near a school or daycare (even if their offense has nothing to do with a child) drive people out of the cities and away from employment, family, and community support. One of our clients is forced to live under a bridge rather than with his wife or brother, as their homes are both in a massive exclusion zone – like 80% of the whole city. Registry laws plunge people into a cycle of poverty. The first issue on the agenda must be the justice of the laws that Obama has decided to undermine. If we discuss his decision, we should discuss it. He is a university professor. If he failed to maintain the CP`s reasonably plausible pretext, he would soon cease to be a university professor. While it`s the man who could get up to five years in prison or pay $2,500 for it, it`s still a law that targets gender inequality and unjust expectations. I also hear a lot about the “rule of law,” and I don`t know what that means.

Does this mean that if the government does not enforce all the laws in place, people will be breaking other, more important laws? 2) Second, standards are not regulated as Brian suggests through extreme examples. This is just flawed logic in extreme cases. In fact, the use of extreme conditions as examples of norms is the source of most of the false criticisms of moral statements that use moral dilemmas – turning morality into a Victorian board game. I suspect that the main problem is that most people feel that as citizens of a country, they feel they “own” it together and therefore have the collective right to say who is allowed to enter. For the most part, it`s a simple matter of (collective) property rights, and this time you`re on the wrong side. I do not think immigration laws are extremely unfair. Oh, really. I largely accept your general analysis of “extremely unjust laws,” but since I don`t think immigration laws are extremely unfair, I don`t think Laws #3, #4, #5, or #6 apply to Obama`s actions. Kevin MacDonald has been spewing anti-Semitic garbage for more than a decade and has yet to be fired.

If it`s safe, then I think most college professors can afford to be much less PC than most. The problem is that the vast majority of people, including most who prefer more immigration or even open borders, believe that a country has the right to legislate on immigration. The claim that Obama, as president, must lead by example when it comes to the rule of law is extremely stupid. First, if you talk about Obama, his entire presidency has been a major circumvention of the rule of law. Check out the maneuvers to pass Obamacare! Second, if you mean president in general, the head of the executive branch must determine by force how the limited and therefore tight budget of the executive is most effectively used. Not all laws can be fully enforced. Choosing among laws that are not rigorously enforced, which are obvious and extremely unfair, is a simple solution of economic optimization in the use of scarce resources. With race-based slavery in a society without welfare, it is likely that a significant portion of slaves would be too useless and stupid to take care of themselves, except through crime if they had to make their own decisions.

With debt-based slavery in a society without welfare, it is likely that most slaves would be too useless and stupid to take care of themselves, except through crime if they had to make their own decisions. However, this law is debatable because how can we suggest that people should just let everyone into their homes? This law has made many lists of the most absurd laws, but I have not found any context behind this particular law. With respect to the rule of law, I would prefer a tyrannical government that respects the rule of law, understood as a formal ideal, to a tyrannical government that arbitrarily exercises coercive power. . . .