Rules are made to be broken...?

[KJ4VOV]

One of the rules here in the ZS forums, and it's a good one that we need to follow to the letter, is that there is no discussion of illegal activities. At all.

But, that does beg the question, "When does 'illegal' become, if not 'legal', at least 'permissible'?" That's a difficult question to answer, and will probably prove difficult to discuss here on ZS, in light of the aforementioned ZS forum rule, but I'd like to give it a shot anyway. Without mentioning any specific illegal act(s), when do you think the regular laws and rules of society become "null and void", and to what extent?

And please, to comply with forum rules, I want to stress that there should be no mention in your responses of any illegal act(s) under current law.

In a true PAW, do all the old rules still apply? Is alternate side of the street parking still an actual law? Are one-way streets and roads still one-way? Is that firearm in your BOV legal the next county over? Do you still need a hunting or fishing license? Permit to camp in park? Does your shelter have to meet local and national building codes? Most of you are probably thinking, "Well those are pretty silly things to be concerned about in a PAW, ignore 'em and do what you need to do to survive", and you're right. Survival is the #1 priority after all, and a parking ticket on your BOV is going to be pretty low on your list of concerns, but when do the rules change?

Thoughts?

[bonanacrom]

P.A.W. = extenuating circumstances. About the only time laws are overlooked or excused, but even then it is normally done in a courtroom. Example - Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571. As far as I know ( and I could be wrong ) none of the involved went to prison even though many laws where broken.

[phil_in_cs]

Theft has been punished by amputation or death for much of mankind's history. I think after the "rules" break down that style of punishment will return. Very small infractions will result in the death penalty, and the evidence to convict will be very small. (local's word against an outsider's word, for example).

In addition, as per the Walmart thread almost everything of value will be looted / burned/ destroyed very soon after the PAW causing event.

What's more, just because you felt the world has ended and rules no longer apply, does not mean you are correct. In this thread is the story of a number of police officers in the NOLA area after Katrina hit who felt the PAW was on them and they could do as they pleased. They were wrong.

Just because there isn't an official police force, doesn't mean that stealing isn't wrong and that the thief will not be punished. You might think you are scavenging unclaimed materials, and the sniper/watchman posted in the thicket 400 yards away might disagree.

[modustollens]

Not all rules are of the same class. There are moral rules, which admit of many interpretations; there are so called 'natural' laws, which people disagree about and are taken to be expressed in the main principles of modern constitutions and the idea of human rights. Then there are laws passed by political and social groups. What might be 'illegal' according to one standard might be legal according to another; plus there is a great difference between legal and illegal and right and wrong, laws by covenant and laws by imposition.

This can get tricky; and many times in history the facts are often determined by sheer power rather than any notion of law. Take WWII: It would have been illegal in Nazi occupied areas to hide Jews; but it was not immoral to not follow that law and many people were executed for following those sorts of laws (take Eichmann, who at his trial appealed to Kant's arguments about morality in his defense); and many others were chastised for not breaking the anti-Jew laws.

This is as much a problem of political philosophy as forum policy. There are many classic works on this issue.

Hobbes in the Leviathan addresses this, especially when one is no longer contractually obligated to follow a state's laws: "The obligation of subjects to the sovereign is understood to last as long, and no longer, than the power lasteth by which he is able to protect them. For the right men have by nature to protect themselves, when none else can protect them, can by no covenant be relinquished." CHAPTERXXI. This example is exceptionally relevant to the issues ZS addresses. The 'social contract' view of political society is the historical antecedent and ground for us who live in places like the U.S. or Canada etc.. What it shows is that not all laws immediately evaporate in a PAW: for natural law and moral law are independent of the existence of a sovereign authority (and these are often cited as checks on sovereign authority).

Hegel's Philosophy of Right addresses the question too.

Hegel and Hobbes are not light reading. There are tonnes of resources online for both; perhaps you can give those a read?

Even in situations where the state takes special prerogatives, like emergencies, war etc., these special powers are not necessarily exceptions to the law; for the laws of a nation themselves often give the state those special powers. The Emergencies Act, in the case of Canada, is a case in point.


Of course in practical life one's power is often limited in spite of what is right and wrong, legal or illegal. The question remains: are you willing to suffer the practical consequences of doing what is right when it is illegal, doing something wrong when it is legal, doing something wrong when it is illegal or failing to do something right when it is legal or illegal?

That said, there seems to be a triumvirate of concerns that need to be carefully inter-related: legal concerns, moral concerns and prudential concerns. In tough circumstances prudential concerns are going to become extremely important; but doing the prudent thing is not always the legal or the moral thing to do.

MT

[KJ4VOV]

P.A.W. = extenuating circumstances. About the only time laws are overlooked or excused, but even then it is normally done in a courtroom. Example - Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571. As far as I know ( and I could be wrong ) none of the involved went to prison even though many laws where broken.

You make a good point, especially regarding the courtroom "after the fact". One would expect that during the pre-PAW stage national, state and local governments would announce "emergency" changes to the usual laws (i.e.: martial law or, to use one of my silly examples, alternate side of the street parking being suspended prior to an expected snow storm), but let us assume for a moment a truly sudden, catastrophic, event that affects a vast area. A major earthquake for example, or volcanic eruption. Historically, governments have rapidly issued emergency declarations for the affected area that suspend certain laws and regulations, while others are simply ignored out of common sense without being specifically addressed in such declarations. Usually, violations of those ignored regulations are not enforced, then or later, but the key word there is "usually". There are always consequences to actions, and the more drastic the action the more severe the consequences can be, as Phil points out in his post. The issue facing us in such a situation then becomes, much as I hate to say it, "What can I reasonably get away with to further my own survival, both now and after normal law and order is restored?"

I would submit then, that as a general rule of thumb, every effort should be made to take the barest minimum action required to ensure the survival and safety of yourself, and any others in your group. It is my opinion that later, in a legal proceeding of any kind, being able to show that you acted with reasonable restraint and due consideration and respect for the rights of others, and for the law, will weigh strongly in your favor.

[Doctorr Fabulous]

I think this is when we Supreme Court this stuff. The precedent (NOLA/Katrina, mainly) says that there will still be a rule of law. Secondly, as far as the forum goes, the precedent says that the rule of law still applies. I personally will consider the rule of law to exist until such time as a new rule of law is set in place by some kind of government.

[KJ4VOV]

Not all rules are of the same class. There are moral rules, which admit of many interpretations; there are so called 'natural' laws, which people disagree about and are taken to be expressed in the main principles of modern constitutions and the idea of human rights. Then there are laws passed by political and social groups. What might be 'illegal' according to one standard might be legal according to another; plus there is a great difference between legal and illegal and right and wrong, laws by covenant and laws by imposition.

This is an excellent contribution to our discussion, and I thank you for posting it.

You touch on a point I tried to make with my examples in the original post, and do it much better than I did, that not all laws fall into the same class or level. If we were to adhere 100%, 24/7, to every single law, rule, regulation that pre-existed a PAW, survival might nigh well become impossible, let alone how difficult eventual recovery to a pre-PAW level of society would become. So, it then becomes reasonable, in my own opinion, to adhere to the over-riding principles those laws were founded upon, if not the actual laws themselves. (And I hope the admins and mods will grant us a little leeway from the strict interpretation of the forum rules here when I say that)

[Kommander]

For the purposes of this forum I think it OS wise to simply assume that all laws currently on the books will be in force until the end of time. It is not a perfect solution, but the one that causes the least amount of problems for our hosts and the organisation as a whole.

[phil_in_cs]

You touch on a point I tried to make with my examples in the original post, and do it much better than I did, that not all laws fall into the same class or level. If we were to adhere 100%, 24/7, to every single law, rule, regulation that pre-existed a PAW, survival might nigh well become impossible, let alone how difficult eventual recovery to a pre-PAW level of society would become. So, it then becomes reasonable, in my own opinion, to adhere to the over-riding principles those laws were founded upon, if not the actual laws themselves. (And I hope the admins and mods will grant us a little leeway from the strict interpretation of the forum rules here when I say that)

Actually, no, we won't tolerate that discussion at all. The internet is a big place, and there are other places to discuss that. One reason we have a good signal to noise ratio here is that we explicitly exclude that sort of topic.

[WY_Not]

Mala en se laws should be followed pre or post PAW.

Mala prohibita laws... I'll simply quote Robert A Heinlein.

"I will accept the rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."

[KJ4VOV]

I think this is when we Supreme Court this stuff. The precedent (NOLA/Katrina, mainly) says that there will still be a rule of law. Secondly, as far as the forum goes, the precedent says that the rule of law still applies. I personally will consider the rule of law to exist until such time as a new rule of law is set in place by some kind of government.

That there will still be "rule of law" is, I believe, beyond question. What I am questioning, and encouraging discussion of, is whose rule and whose law? Yes, by all means, and as per forum policy, I encourage you to follow all laws and regulations at all times. I cannot do otherwise and still comply with the forum rules. But it is still a valid point that not all laws and regulations are equal, and that at some point in time your very survival might hinge upon the violation of such a law or regulation. The question here then is still, at what point do the laws and regulations change, and in what ways?

[KJ4VOV]

You touch on a point I tried to make with my examples in the original post, and do it much better than I did, that not all laws fall into the same class or level. If we were to adhere 100%, 24/7, to every single law, rule, regulation that pre-existed a PAW, survival might nigh well become impossible, let alone how difficult eventual recovery to a pre-PAW level of society would become. So, it then becomes reasonable, in my own opinion, to adhere to the over-riding principles those laws were founded upon, if not the actual laws themselves. (And I hope the admins and mods will grant us a little leeway from the strict interpretation of the forum rules here when I say that)

Actually, no, we won't tolerate that discussion at all. The internet is a big place, and there are other places to discuss that. One reason we have a good signal to noise ratio here is that we explicitly exclude that sort of topic.

No problem. I knew I was, so to speak, "brushing against the boundaries of forum policy" when I posted that, and tried to do so as lightly as I could. I will steer further away from that boundary henceforth.

[oldsoldier]

Phil kinda laid down the hammer, but I want to make a couple comments.
There was some Brit PAW series someone posted here, that was only a season long, about a group of survivors. The parking on the wrong side thing you mentioned, triggered this. A woman was driving a vehicle, and came to a T intersection. She ASSUMED no one was coming, as she hadnt seen a live person in some time. She blew through it-and almost got T-boned. Another driver was coming. A simple traffic law, that one chose to regard based on the ASSUMPTION she was alone, almost got TWO people killed. Technically, did the law still exist? No, as no one was left to enforce it. However, that doesnt change the potential outcome of simply disregarding it.
Now, another train of thought, which has already been touched on. We all (unless you are sociopathic) abide by certain codes of conduct. These are governed largely by social mores, and local laws. Things such as, you dont kill someone you dont like, you dont take things that dont belong to you, etc. Sort of our own personal honor code (some have more than others, but bear with me). BEFORE you act, ask yourself if its the honorable thing to do. If the answer is no, dont do it. Ultimately, be prepared for the decisions you make though.

[modustollens]

That there will still be "rule of law" is, I believe, beyond question. What I am questioning, and encouraging discussion of, is whose rule and whose law?

I don't think that we will be able to certainly answer that question today, if ever, though there does seem to be an explanation: namely that such matters are settled by war and conflict for as David Apter wrote, "“it takes conflict outside the law to make the law itself.” (See Apter David E., Political Violence in Analytical Perspective. In The Legitimization of Violence, Ed. By David E. Apter. Copyright United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, New York University Press, New York, 1977).

I think Anscombe's essay "War and Murder' is a good read on this point:

Since there are always thieves and frauds and men who commit violent attacks on their neighbours and murderers, and since without law backed by adequate force there are usually gangs of bandits; and since there are in most places laws administered by people who command violence to enforce the laws against law-breakers; the question arises: what is a just attitude to this exercise of violent coercive power on the part of rulers and their subordinate officers?

Two attitudes are possible: one, that the world is an absolute jungle and that the exercise of coercive power by rulers is only a manifestation of this; and the other, that it is both necessary and right that there should be this exercise of power, that through it the world is much less of a jungle than it could possibly be without it, so that one should in principle be glad of the existence of such power, and only take exception to its unjust exercise.

It is so clear that the world is less of a jungle because of rulers and laws, and that the exercise of coercive power is essential to these institutions as they are now--all this is so obvious... In a peaceful and law abiding country such as England, it may not be immediately obvious that the rulers need to command violence to the point of fighting to the death those that would oppose it; but brief reflection shows that this is so. For those who oppose the force that backs law will not always stop short of fighting to the death and cannot always be put down short of fighting to the death.

http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rarneson/Anscombe.pdf

MT

[KJ4VOV]

Mala en se laws should be followed pre or post PAW.

Mala prohibita laws... I'll simply quote Robert A Heinlein.

"I will accept the rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."

While I, myself, am an admirer of Mr. Heinlein, alas, such a statement goes beyond the guidelines of this forum, and we must not violate those forum rules if we wish to keep this thread open.

[majorhavoc]

For the purposes of this forum I think it OS wise to simply assume that all laws currently on the books will be in force until the end of time. It is not a perfect solution, but the one that causes the least amount of problems for our hosts and the organisation as a whole.

This.

There's a little wiggle room in those parts of the ZS forums that clearly reside in a fantasy context (e.g. Zombie biology/Zombie Combat tactics). Or maybe when something is brought up within the narrow confines of historical record (e.g. discussion of cannibalism in the Packer Expedition in 1870's Colorado). But anywhere else? It's a big can of worms.

Having raised this issue elsewhere in the forums recently, and gotten a pretty balanced and civil discussion out of it, I will say this: the moderators here appear fairly toleratant in borderline situations and actively weigh only when they feel it absolutely necessary. I think I can see why. Ultimately we want to create a culture of expectations where the moderators don't have to chase down every perceived rules infraction. The best scenario is where the forums are self regulating.

Knee-jerk enforcement of this rule would probably foster a hostile atmosphere where one slip of the keyboard or a poorly phrased idiom could trigger a flame war. At which point ZS would cease to be the fun, quirky, informative place it has always been.

It's my opinion that the most important thing is to create an enviroment where people can initiate (and tolerate) open discussions about these issues. And also that sometimes the best way to respond to a questionable post is with the kind of disarmingly clever, funny responses that caught my eye the first time I arrive at this nuthouse.

[phil_in_cs]

You should note this thread is still open and running. "What Would You Do" threads often crowd the lines, and when they cross they get nailed shut. "Disasters In Current Events" items are often about man made disasters, and hence inherently pushing the "No Politics" line.

If you're going to set up a thread for "when I can kill someone and take hit shit", you will need to do that on another forum.

If you're going to ask "how long does the house next door to me need to be abandoned before I can 'salvage' it" you will need to do that on another forum. Just because you don't see an owner doesn't mean there isn't one; even if that person is dead someone has inherited it.

Short of a comet strike, and maybe even then, eventually The Law will be restored. You will be called to account for your actions. You will likely get a pass on parking in a tow away zone, but not for homicide or grand theft.

ZS is about prepping for disasters; being ready ahead of time. If you're plan is to steal someone else's shit, you need to read the Walmart thread I linked earlier. That's a really bad plan regardless of the legalities involved. For everyone that hasn't prepared, stealing shit will become their only way to go, and if you get out in that you will be in the middle of the world's largest free for all firefight.

Get your beans and rice now, when you don't have to pay for them in blood.

[jamoni]

I think that some people approach our rule about not discussing illegal activities as some sort of head-in-the-sand problem, IE ZS doesn't realize that during disasters there will be moral, ethical, and legal dilemmas which will be difficult to solve.
That is not the case. We simply believe that discussion of such things AS PART OF YOUR DISASTER PLANNING leads to several problems:
1. Arguments in the forum (which is our primary objection)
2. An attitude that following the law is not important NOW
3. A tendency to treat looting, theft, and other craziness as legitimate parts of disaster preparation

So, we do not allow discussion of illegal acts on the forums.
As Czech has said, you are free to discuss these topics anywhere else, but not here.
That said, I'm not sure whether this topic has crossed that particular line, but there have been some very interesting and reasonable posts.

[KJ4VOV]

I think that some people approach our rule about not discussing illegal activities as some sort of head-in-the-sand problem, IE ZS doesn't realize that during disasters there will be moral, ethical, and legal dilemmas which will be difficult to solve.
That is not the case. We simply believe that discussion of such things AS PART OF YOUR DISASTER PLANNING leads to several problems:
1. Arguments in the forum (which is our primary objection)
2. An attitude that following the law is not important NOW
3. A tendency to treat looting, theft, and other craziness as legitimate parts of disaster preparation

Agreed, and it is my intention to steer clear of those recognized problems and focus solely upon how laws change during such events. My own opinion is that the better we understand the laws, the less likely we are to run afoul of them.

So, we do not allow discussion of illegal acts on the forums.
As Czech has said, you are free to discuss these topics anywhere else, but not here.
That said, I'm not sure whether this topic has crossed that particular line, but there have been some very interesting and reasonable posts.

Hopefully this topic will never cross that line, but I recognize that it has the potential to, and I'm glad to see staff members here both watching over it and contributing to it.

[majorhavoc]

And I guess I should clarify that when I said earlier in this thread that it's important that people be willing to initiate (and tolerate) discussions of these issues, I didn't mean discussing the merits of the rule prohibiting talking about illegal activities. Rather the importance of initiating/tolerating discussions about whether a post or series of posts may have crossed that line.

I think sometimes there's a temptation to ignore issues of legality in threads about super cool technical aspects of weaponry used in law enforcement and/or sanctioned combat. And once those discussions begin, an even more powerful temptation to be dismissive of, if not openly hostile towards, anyone suggesting that they might be inappropriate.

[CB4]

I think the only situation where you would be justified in stealing, B&E, etc would be when we've reached a point where the world will never return to the way it was before....where there will never be an established government or force of law ever again.
I just dont see that ever happening outside the movies. Prepping with the thought in mind that you will be able to scavenge things in the PAW when everyone else is dead and get away with it is pure fantasy.

[DarkAxel]

Well, here's my thoughts:

In this country, the citizens are sovereign. That means that the rules and laws that exist now are there because the people gave assent. As long as there are still citizens of this country, the sovereign is still on the throne and the Rule of Law still applies. The core document governing the United States doesn't go away just because there are no police around, or even if the federal government gets wiped out by some pornocalypse disaster.

Until the Constitution is revoked by consent of the people, it and all the laws passed under it remain in force.

[Grey Mann]

^I like the way you think.

[Doctorr Fabulous]

I think the only situation where you would be justified in stealing, B&E, etc would be when we've reached a point where the world will never return to the way it was before....where there will never be an established government or force of law ever again.
I just dont see that ever happening outside the movies. Prepping with the thought in mind that you will be able to scavenge things in the PAW when everyone else is dead and get away with it is pure fantasy.

Stealing, B&E, etc. do not become legal just because things change. people still worked to get what they have, and they still own it until they give consent for it to become public domain. Otherwise by your logic murder, rape, and genocide would also become legal.