In the vain hope that this won’t turn into a pissing match among kids wanting me to referee their personal grievances, which I have absolutely no interest in. I have quite enough of that with the Imperial Heirs, thank you very much, and at least they have the legitimate excuse of NOT being adults who ought to know better. One might even go as far as to say that they are, indeed, entitled to a bit of refereeing, seeing as how they’re pretty new to this being a human being thing and all and, as such, might reasonably expect their own father, who played a part in throwing them into this world, to help them out in such things.
In the whole Bundy affair, I hear a lot of “well it’s the law, so he’s in the wrong” etc. and so forth.
The argument has some merit. But then you have to consider when the law is moral and just as opposed to being immoral and unjust.
And should you just follow it regardless because “it’s the law?”
If that is your opinion, then you should probably brush up on your high school German, because it sounds so much better in that language. They have tradition behind them, after all.
As to myself, the only law I recognize, apart from G-d’s, is the Constitution. And if something is in violation of that, then it’s not law. It’s certainly not something that I have an obligation, morally or otherwise, to follow. I seem to recall having sworn an oath to that effect and, it may be due to my ancient roots in a culture where such things as honor, duty and oaths actually mean something, oaths can’t be revoked just because Befehl ist Befehl.
It seems to me that we fought a revolutionary war over stuff like that. Obviously that doesn’t matter anymore, because if the law says something now, then you’re automatically wrong if you don’t follow the orders set down by said law.
Which is interesting. Because you know, slavery was once very much the law. I suppose that those evil terrorist rabble rousers who thought that it wasn’t right for people to OWN other people had no legal leg to stand on, so fuck them. Because they were against The Law™. In Germany, and it’s sad that we have to keep bringing this up, it was once very much legal to cart Jews off to camps, so I suppose that the Germans who were against that really deserved all of the Gestapo raids they got as a result. Because fuck them. It may not be RIGHT to steal the Jews’ property and send them off to labor camps, but it was the LAW, so who were those assholes to oppose it?
Or take the slight misunderstanding of 1776. King George was doing nothing wrong. He was just trying to enforce The Law™, but those pesky colonialists, rather than resorting to peaceful means (that they also didn’t have because the deck was stacked very carefully against them too), insisted on not respecting The Law™.
The bastards! If only they’d been all hanged, every single one of the Founding Fathers, because they clearly had no right to do what they were doing.
In fact, all of you doctrinaire respecters of the Rule of Law™ owe Britain a big, huge apology and a “please will you forgive us and accept us as a colony again?”
In the unlikely event that you want to be consistent in your argument, that is.
I’m sure Her Royal Majesty will be amused, if a bit befuddled at your sudden request to be welcomed back into the fold again.
Hey, you might even get to enjoy cricket. With a bit of effort. OK, a lot of effort.
As to myself, “it’s The Law™” won’t ever be sufficient. I guess I’m too much of an extremist for that. It has to be moral and just as well and, for starters, it would be nice if we could at LEAST agree that it has to be CONSTITUTIONAL before we’ll even consider the legitimacy of it.
But obviously that has been bred out of this nation too.
Too bad. I thought we’d taught you better through our colossal fuckups “in the name of The Law™”. I guess I was wrong.