# Do you owe the state your consent and obedience even if the state itself is engaging in injustice?



## treyvor (Mar 18, 2014)

I wrote this for my intro to political theory class this week. thought you guys might find it interesting and have more discussion about the topic.


*Do you owe the state your consent and obedience even if the state itself is engaging in injustice?*
Do you owe the state your consent and obedience even if the state itself is engaging in injustice? No, citizens of a state do not owe consent or obedience to any state that engages in injustice. Everything the Nazi's did in Germany was legal, but undoubtedly unjust. So did the German soldiers have a duty to follow the laws and orders from the German government? "Just following orders" was not a viable defense at the Nuremburg trials, so why should we not stand up to unjust laws if we expect others to do so? If we allow unjust laws without protest, we are just as guilty of injustice as the government making such unjust laws
*Thoreau*
Both Thoreau and King supported protesting or resisting unjust laws. Henry David Thoreau said "I cannot for any instance recognize that political organization as my government which is the slaves government also" (Thoreau P.222-3). I understand this to mean that he renounces the rule of the government so long as it is engaged in injustices such as allowing slavery. "Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison"(Thoreau. P.225). Thoreau made quite clear his opinion that injustice was not to go un-remedied or un-protested by just men. And that any man who did not protest injustices perpetrated on his fellow man or himself was complicit in perpetrating the injustices. Thoreau said on unjust laws, “I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine” (Thoreau 1212). 
*King*
Many of Kings opposition and even some of his supporters did not understand why he supported obeying some laws while so adamantly apposing other laws. He explained quite well in the following quote from his letter from the Birmingham jail. "Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, it is rather strange and paradoxical to find us consciously breaking laws. One may well ask, "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer is found in the fact that there are two types of laws: there are just laws, and there are unjust laws. I
would agree with St. Augustine that "An unjust law is no law at all"(Martin Luther King. p3). He goes on to explain that a just law aligns with moral or natural law, and that unjust laws are not in alignment with natural law. Simply not wanting a law to apply to you does not constitute an unjust law. It has to fit the criteria of being immoral to be considered an unjust law. Martin Luther King and Henry David Thoreau are considered two of the most kind and peaceful men in history. And Their lives are often looked at by people looking to learn how to live more peaceful lives. Neither of them ever tried to incite violence against the state or against their fellow citizens. So their opinions and arguments for civil disobedience are well worth our consideration as individuals and as a society.
*Edward Snowden*
Effectively protesting injustices engaged in by the state often requires the breaking of laws. Even then it is still our duty to call out the state in their injustices. Edward Snowden was an NSA agent who came out to expose illegal activities being engaged in by the federal government. He felt that it was his duty to expose the unconstitutional activities being perpetrated on the American people by the government. Some have said that he is unpatriotic for exposing state secrets to the public. I strongly oppose the idea that people who oppose and expose the states injustices are branded as unpatriotic and traitors. On the contrary, I believe they are indeed the most patriotic among us. Thanks to the information that Edward Snowden made available to the public, what were once only the suspicions of conspiracy theorists and nut-jobs are now well known facts about the unconstitutional activities that the government was and still is engaging in. Including mass surveillance of the American people and our allies.
*Plato*
On the other hand, Plato was of the opinion that you are a product of the state that you live under, so you owe the state your consent and obedience because you cannot receive the benefits of living under the state without also receiving any consequences of living under the state(tinder. P114). Plato and Socrates' ideas are very authoritarian when compared to those of King and Thoreau. From a more liberty and individualist mindset, injustice begets injustice. Meaning that if we allow an unjust law to prevail there will soon be made more unjust laws. "Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates? Morons!" (princess bride). We should not rely so heavily on the opinions of ancient scholars to form our own moral opinions.
*Rawls*
Civil disobedience entails breaking laws, but should never employ violence to convey the ideas of the civilly disobedient. "This definition does not require that the civilly disobedient act breach the same law that is being protested. It allows for what some have called indirect as well as direct civil disobedience"(Rawls. P.363-7). Some laws to be protested might come with high penalties, like treason, that might be more severe punishment than someone would accept for protesting such a law. In cases such as this it is reasonable and maybe even expected to instead infringe on laws that hold more reasonable penalties. Such as disobeying traffic ordinances or trespassing to protest the higher penalty laws. Rawls states that civil disobedience should be held as a last resort after all legal options to fight the injustice have failed. He says that only after attempts to repeal the laws and legal protests are ignored should civil disobedience be employed(Rawls. P.371-6). Though, he says, in some extreme cases it may be expedient to pursue civil disobedience prior to pursuing legal means of action.
*Conclusion*
It is always our duty to disobey or protest unjust laws, even if it is inconvenient to do so. All power and authority of the state is given willingly by the people. And can likewise be taken back by the people if enough of them so choose. If the people do not protest unjust laws they give implied consent for more unjust laws to be made. When a people becomes apathetic the state no longer has to worry about their injustices being questioned or protested. And it is our duty as a society to avoid apathy and keep our fellow citizens from slipping into apathy.

*Works Cited*
King, Martin Luther._Letter From Birmingham Jail. _august 1963
_Princess bride_. Dir. Rob Reiner. Perf. Cary Elwes, Mandy Patinkin, Robin Wright. Princess Bride Ltd.., 1987. Film.
Rawls, John. _A theory of justice_. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971. Print.
Thoreau, Henry David. _Civil disobedience_. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Tech, 2001. Print.
Tinder, Glenn E.. _Political thinking: the perennial questions_. 6th ed. New York: Pearson/Longman, 2004. Print.


----------



## Tude (Mar 18, 2014)

Interesting read - thank you!


----------



## Ristoncor (Mar 19, 2014)

Really well written and argued. I like how you quoted speakers on the non-violent part, because a lot of people who read things about civil disobedience think it's "let's kill people and steal babies".


----------



## NocturnalJoe (Apr 6, 2014)

Very well put. I do not think that anyone owe's their concent to any government. Consent should be given by their own choice and knowledge. But then hey I gave up my Citizenship.


----------



## Ristoncor (Apr 6, 2014)

NocturnalJoe said:


> Very well put. I do not think that anyone owe's their consent to any government. Consent should be given by their own choice and knowledge. But then hey I gave up my Citizenship.



When you give up your citizenship, what rights do you hold? Do you have the same rights as someone ergo came here say on vacation, or less?


----------



## NocturnalJoe (Apr 6, 2014)

I can still do most of the same things as everyone else. Can't get any government asstience of any kind, which means like no food stamps, no low income stuff, ect. I still pay a sales tax as I do use the public services like the roads and stuff. However I do not have to obay alot of the so called laws. Granted there are some laws I have to fallow like can't cause harm to anyone or their property, ect. But like your basic traffic laws, then no. Can go into more detail if you would like.


----------



## Ristoncor (Apr 6, 2014)

NocturnalJoe said:


> I can still do most of the same things as everyone else. Can't get any government asstience of any kind, which means like no food stamps, no low income stuff, ect. I still pay a sales tax as I do use the public services like the roads and stuff. However I do not have to obay alot of the so called laws. Granted there are some laws I have to fallow like can't cause harm to anyone or their property, ect. But like your basic traffic laws, then no. Can go into more detail if you would like.



Say you run a red light and a cop sees you. Would you be arrested or not?
Also, what happens if you break a law in another country? Can you go to other countries? I would think you'd have to be a citizen to apply for a passport.


----------



## NocturnalJoe (Apr 6, 2014)

Would I be arrested? No, but would get a courtsy stop. Guess the simplest way to explain it would be like I have diplomitic immunity. But if actual harm is caused to someone or their property, then I would go to jail just like anyone else. Am working on getting the work done to do my own passport and have it regonised by the U.N, and therefor other country's.


----------



## Ristoncor (Apr 6, 2014)

NocturnalJoe said:


> Would I be arrested? No, but would get a courtsy stop. Guess the simplest way to explain it would be like I have diplomitic immunity. But if actual harm is caused to someone or their property, then I would go to jail just like anyone else. Am working on getting the work done to do my own passport and have it regonised by the U.N, and therefor other country's.



Sounds interesting.


----------



## James Maarsten (Feb 20, 2018)

So you mean I can use my Grand Duchy of Slobblovia Diplomatic Passport on a Traffic Stop, and not get thrown in the tank? I didn't know this! ::drinkingbuddy::


----------



## T Paradise (Feb 20, 2018)

@treyvor 
Regarding the legal status of what the Nazis did in germany. You have to make the distinction between being legal according to the laws of the respective time and being legal in other contexts. You are contradicting yourself with the Nurmberg trials if you don't. You claimed that everything the Nazis did was legal, but two sentences later you point out that the Nurmberg trials found what they did was illegal.
It's also a pretty strong claim that everything the Nazis did was legal at the time. I am pretty sure it is wrong, even though I don't have much knowledge about the topic. To my knowledge there were illegal acts during the rise of the nsdap, banning other parties like the dkp (or was it kpd?) from votums, etc. The whole enabling act was legally dubious too I think.
I also think you should structure your paper differently. I would sort them in proponents of civil obedience and opponents, starting with the opponents. It is always good practice to start with those opinions you don't share, so that those you do will come last and will therefore be remembered. Plus you can then refer back when pointing out what is wrong with the views you don't share.
Plus: You can then order them chronically as well, starting with Plato and working your way up through different times to Snowden. The way you ordered them seems pretty arbitrary.

I don't fully agree with your conclusion either, at least I think it doesn't work well as a conclusion. The point made in the conclusion seems to me to be more of a new argument, not something concluded from parts before. 
The argument that one _always_ has the _duty_ to protest unjust laws, because one would imply consent to further unjust laws doesn't hold up to me. I neither believe the premise that not protesting every unjust law implies consent to other unjust laws per se, and I don't think that one has the duty to protest every unjust law, simply because there can be laws that are just marginally unjust, so that the benefit of protesting it would not be in any proper relation to the effort of protesting it. But I understand if one takes a different stand here and would protest even those laws, just out of principle.
So much to your paper. Now to the topic: 
I think one doesn't morally owe the state either consent or obedience if it is engaging in injustice (legally one might). But the real problem is to find out what is just or injust. If you allow, or in your case demand, that people will protest every injustice acts, what do you do with people who practice civil disobedience because they think the government acts unjust, while you think the government acts just? 
Actually demanding that everyone disobeys acts he considers unjust, might in many cases lead to more trouble than accepting minor unjust laws. 
Ironically enough, I still would never consider the question whether something is legal or illegal important for my decision making, unless for the consequences of the legal status obviously. The more people think like that, the more important becomes some form of government with a legal system though, so the obedience starts to make sense again.

Now to the reason I signed up here: 
@NocturnalJoe, could you please elaborate about giving up your citizenship and getting your own passport? This sounds pretty interesting, never heard of anyone ever having succes with something like that. Feel free to answer per pm or to make a new thread.


----------



## Drengor (Feb 20, 2018)

@T Paradise Traffic violations are the one category of legal infractions that diplomatic immunity specifically does not protect from in the USA.

It sound's a lot like NocturnalJoe is describing 'Sovereign Citizenship', but I don't want to put words in their mouth so I'll let them confirm. In Sovereign Citizenship, one relinquishes all other citizenships and becomes their own citizen, sovereign of any other state. The thinking behind this is that once one declares oneself sovereign, other states (like USA) will treat them as foreign sovereigns, specifically diplomats - those who represent their own sovereignty in other states. The popular perk being diplomatic immunity. Cannot be arrested or detained, residence is free from entry under normal procedures (needs a special warrant), cannot be subpoenaed as a witness, cannot be prosecuted, but is still liable to traffic violations.

NocturnalJoe mentions he's doing work to talk to the UN about being recognized, and this is the precise thing that makes the Sovereign Citizen movement invalid. Just because one declares them-self sovereign doesn't mean any other sovereignty recognizes them. As treyvor wrote in their post "Simply not wanting a law to apply to you does not constitute an unjust law."

If you get pulled over driving and don't have a license you're going to be in trouble. The only thing that keeps diplomats immune is the government issued ID that says they are who they say they are.

@treyvor This was a great read. It's quite short, presumably an overview of the subject of the morality surrounding unjust laws. My one suggestion, be less demanding of your conclusion. You're invoking the thinkers, not commanding the troops! Unless you are commanding the troops, in which case my suggestion would be to think of a catchphrase - something you can repeat often throughout the piece that rolls off the tongue easier than "owe the state your consent and obedience", which only shows up 4 times, twice being the title and opening sentence, which are the same.

Do you have an idea on the political leanings of your professor so far? What are those like? Any interesting discussions arising with them?


----------



## Deleted member 20975 (Feb 20, 2018)

I dont owe the state fuck all!


----------



## James Maarsten (Feb 21, 2018)

@Dregnor:
Don't forget somethings very important with that 'Soverign Citizen' madness:
it may end up backfiring so badly that you'll end up being detained as an Illegal Alien, and by proclaiming to be a diplomat of a foreign power that's neither recognized by the U.S., nor anyone else, puts one into jeopardy of violating the Foreign Alien Agent Registration Act!
All this means: you can be both jailed, and deported, and never actually had been of foreign origin! Very likely: you'd just be jailed for Contempt.::bookworm::

I'd still love to use my Slobblovian passport, but I guess I'll have to wait until I can actually step foot onto Slobblovia (you folks know it as Saturn's moon of: Enceladus), plant the flag, and apply for Diplomatic Recognition to the U.S. dept of State! ::soapbox::



Drengor said:


> @T Paradise Traffic violations are the one category of legal infractions that diplomatic immunity specifically does not protect from in the USA.
> 
> It sound's a lot like NocturnalJoe is describing 'Sovereign Citizenship', but I don't want to put words in their mouth so I'll let them confirm. In Sovereign Citizenship, one relinquishes all other citizenships and becomes their own citizen, sovereign of any other state. The thinking behind this is that once one declares oneself sovereign, other states (like USA) will treat them as foreign sovereigns, specifically diplomats - those who represent their own sovereignty in other states. The popular perk being diplomatic immunity. Cannot be arrested or detained, residence is free from entry under normal procedures (needs a special warrant), cannot be subpoenaed as a witness, cannot be prosecuted, but is still liable to traffic violations.
> 
> ...


----------



## James Maarsten (Apr 4, 2018)

Addendum, and a small answer to the question:
*Do you owe the state your consent and obedience even if the state itself is engaging in injustice?*
Overall: No.
I think the Snowden example is the best one we have thus far, and that guy's got much to say about this. Before him, we had a guy named: Phillip Agee; a former CIA agent who tried doing much the same.
I do consider such madness as 'The Deadly Game of Nations' and other such that makes for Patriotism, and Diplomacy, and game-playing between competing powers, but there comes a time, and especially in societies plagued by underhanded-forces at work, that one must chose Higher-Law, or the duty to one's country, or the society you loved, and your own life, versus just following orders.
I'm gonna' link a video series here, done during the height of the Cold-War, and I wish for you all to watch the entire series, but this episode is especially poigniant: 
*War, by Gwynne Dyer: The Profession of Arms:*


----------

