Dear Altrav,

It is said that in the Soviet Union there was a Jewish scientist who made a great contribution to Stalin's war machine and so the regime wanted to reward him. "What would you like as your reward?" they asked, "Perhaps a big datcha on the black sea? Perhaps a political position? Perhaps other riches? A holiday-trip overseas maybe?".

"Niet", said the scientist, "If you want to reward me, then all I ask is to speak for an hour live on radio".

The bureaucrats discussed his request and concluded that this cannot be granted, because speaking uncensored on radio he could call for a contra-revolution.

"Well, what about just half an hour?", still he was refused; "15 minutes?"; "5 minutes?" ; "just one minute?" ; "just 10 words?", the bureaucrats conferred and decided that it's still quite possible to call for a contra-revolution in 10 words.

"What about saying just ONE word?"

Well, the bureaucrats thought it over and decided that no harm can be done in one word, so they agreed.

At the appointed time, the radio-announcer said: "Now we have the great honour to hear the word of our great scientist and hero of the people", then handed him the microphone.

The Jewish-scientist took the microphone and exclaimed: "G-E-V-A-A-A-A-L-D" ("gevald", http://www.jewish-languages.org/jewish-english-lexicon/words/191)

---

Your example of the Massachusetts church is excellent and what you describe is a violent trespass.

If the only remaining way to ask for justice and defend one's freedom is to protest violently and hurt others, then this indicates that something has gone awfully wrong way earlier. The assumption that this will be needed is therefore extremely pessimistic and if you allowed society to fall to that level, then rest assured that your protests are not going to be heard or make a difference anyway, other than just allow you to release some steam.

This currently happens all over the world because participation in states/nations is compulsory: it wouldn't happen in a voluntary society and protest would not be needed to begin with because people would never join without appropriate safeguards to protect their freedoms.

ALTRAV, the notion of legality is nothing more than what the powers that be dictate at some point in time. You said " it happened in a time and a way that was completely acceptable or the 'norm' for that era and culture." Then do you say everything the state does "legally" should be acceptable to all?

1st January 1863 an executive order, the Emancipation Proclamation, issued by US President Lincoln, changed the legal status of 3.5 million African Americans enslaved within 10 Confederate states, from slave to free, the Confederates refused to accept Lincoln's proclamation. Given your view, one would say slavery in the US was legitimate based on the law, prior to the proclamation, but it is unclear what the legal position of these people was after the event, with the conflicting attitudes of the two different governments.
Even the moral argument could not be used to justify emancipation as the majority within the Confederacy accepted slavery as morally right.

My question is; Did Lincoln act illegally, as the majority affected had succeeded from the Federation and formed a Confederate government with its own legal powers. I am saying the law in itself is not simply the be all, and end all, of what should be acceptable.

Paul, your question finds me in turmoil over the conflict of the two notions at play here.
Firstly, personally you would not find a more ant-establishment person than myself.
I am a great negator of the concept of law.
I have run my life on reason and common sense.
As there is never any evidence of these qualities in 'the law', I have chosen to live by them in spite of the possible ramifications.
I am happy to say I am satisfied with my decision to-date.
Now to your question.
One of the reasons I am torn is because I am not privy to American laws then or now, but I will answer in this way.
By Lincoln passing his anti slavery bill, did so with powers over all the States, then because it was law the states had no option but to comply.
If the States were not obliged to 'accept' this new law then I suppose they were free to rule as they saw fit.
As for the question of morals and ethics, well it may not be what I and many would like to hear but, unfortunately, if the States are beholding to the White House and the Presidential decrees, then it would appear the States should have come into line.
It has always been the case against the 'one size fits all' foundation of laws and rules.
As I have always said the USA is 48 different countries, not States. Because of the great variance in the laws between the States.
It's one of the reasons I love the place.
If you find you are made to feel an outcast in one state, you can find so many more that suite you and your lifestyle.
I won't side with either for or against slavery, because I think each person, black or white, already had a view about it.
If the laws in the slave States allowed the notion of slavery then so be it.
Today's slaves are employees, according to some.
Paul, I hope I have understood your question, if not please tell me.

Paul140 said "My question is; Did Lincoln act illegally, as the majority affected had succeeded from the Federation and formed a Confederate government with its own legal powers. I am saying the law in itself is not simply the be all, and end all, of what should be acceptable."

Answer- Whenever I've visited Lincoln I've been uncertain of his principles and often considered him an opportunist. But the question is a good one- Is law always acceptable?- How should law be created? John Locke talked about a social contract as a necessary part of statesmanship. Other considerations include was the law was juresdictionally correct (I assume it was in this case), also under the constitution the militia is under the control of the state for the very reason to enforce the will of the people over that of a dictatorial government.

When I see speeding cameras installed without a mandate as well as other policies implemented because certain people know better than the electorate - it concerns me.

There are times when dictatorial actions are necessary but part of leadership involves foresight- so if emergencies occur then the incumbent needs to be questioned and possibly dismissed.

The law is the law but the law should be open to change by the electorate. But for this to work the electorate needs to be extremely well informed- this requires a very open environment where ideas can be discussed freely in all areas of society. There needs to be a balance between tradition and progressive forces- I believe this is possible but requires some thought. Much of the electorates time is spent in the workplace- diversity policy restricts discussion about certain topics in the workplace- therefore diversity policy has the potential to undermine free speech and democracy.

Democracy is based on the idea of the power of the people not the power of the dollar or the power of the needy.

This question deserves a better treatment but that's all the time I have for the moment

Canem Malum,

Power of the people?

Lets not forget interest groups that use a variety
of tactics - from collecting petitions, take
court action, advertise in the media, organise
floods of letters to legislators on particular
issues, pledge their members' votes to certain
candidates, donate money to election campaigns, or
even resort to outright bribery. And frequently
they use lobbying, the tactic of directly
persuading decision makers.

Many large interest groups - including corporations
maintain highly paid, full-time professional staffs of
lobbyists who meet regularly with legislators and
government officials. Other groups hire the services
of free-lance lobbying firms, which are often staffed
by former members of Parliament.

Anyway, it is a more complicated world - than just
a government for the people, by the people et cetera.
Especially in the US.

Foxy- I agree that lobbyists are an issue. I was just dealing with the macro content. See Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal. Edward Bernays is the father of public relations- read "Propaganda". Sadly propaganda is everywhere and even when people make every attempt to avoid biased thinking it still pops up in everything. It's fascinating reading about an issue that you have a great knowledge about and seeing how an article can get it so wrong. Looking back through history it's very easy to see how even fields with strong processes manage to get things wrong. A good example is the field of logic the rules of which were known from Greek times- when George Boole came along it was found that some of the rules accepted for over two thousand years were incorrect. I'm not saying that all the old rules are wrong. Sometimes they may be more right than the new ones- sometimes even when they are wrong they are right. Popper believed that an inductive method was the best way to ensure truth- Principle of Falsifiability. Kuhn believed democratic meritocracy was the way that science works in reality. Over time there have been principles used in the attempt to advance rationally. I wouldn't want to be the one to advocate "Blood Letting". It's not enough to be respected, to have qualifications, ...