Moderator: ZS Global Moderators
bonanacrom wrote: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.
modustollens wrote: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.
KJ4VOV wrote: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)
Doc Torr wrote: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.
phil_in_cs wrote:KJ4VOV wrote: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.
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?
Anscombe wrote: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.
WY_Not wrote: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."
Kommander wrote: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.
JoergS wrote:Realistically, I think I can launch a nine pound chain saw at 50 fps from a shoulder mounted rubber powered bazooka...
squinty wrote:I reserve the right to yell "Dookyhole!" - or it's Hebrew equivalent if such a thing exists - whilst dispensing a barrage of palm strikes at my opponent.
jamoni wrote: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
jamoni wrote: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.
vyadmirer wrote:Call me the paranoid type, but remember I'm on a post apocalyptic website prepared for zombies.
CB4 wrote: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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests