Was Prohibition a unjust law?

[Brendan_64]

“Justice” has no definition.

If it did, we wouldn’t be sitting here arguing about it.
If it did, there would be no crime at all.
If it did, there would be no sin.
If it did, there would be no evil.

The Arabs believe that if you steal something, you should have your hand cut off. Is that justice? What if I’m starving and I’m stealing food?

I could come up with tons of other examples, but you get the idea.

How do you conclude that if there was a definition of Justice that there would be no sin, crime or evil? People commit crimes and evils acts not because they have a misunderstanding of justice, but because they have a lack of regard for justice. Natural law ensures that all men inherently know that it is wrong to rape, slaughter innocents, sexually abuse children, and much more, and they instinctively know that the perpetrators of such crimes ought to be punished. Man has an instinctive, basic understanding of justice hardwired into his nature.

 

[Digitonomy]

That is very different from completely obeying a law because you personally don’t think the law is reasonable (even though the law is not unjust).

I disagree. The son or daughter is deciding that it is not particularly reasonable to rake the leaves in the morning, and so he prefers not to do so then. In my example earlier in the thread, a person decided not to stand to the left as directed, because there was gum on the floor, and he preferred not to get gum on his shoes. The instructions from authorities in these cases may be just, but it is not reasonable to insist people follow them if the alternative is not a burden on anyone, and conforms to the goal of authority when the instruction was instituted.
Brendan64:

If the kid thought, “I’m not going to rake the yard, that’s unfair, none of my friends are asked to do that by their parents, and my Dad has let my brother get away without any chores, Dad is being unreasonable so I will simply ignore this instruction”. Would that be OK? Or would that be a sin?

In most cases that would be a sin, which is why I suggested that one must consider carefully before disregarding the instruction of authority.
Brendan64:

And you think that the authorities would say that to someone breaking the law because he thought that law was unreasonable? Of course not.
And you think that the courts would accept that defence for choosing to break the law? It might mitigate your sentence in some cases, but if you are guilty of breaking the law then you have committed an offence.

I knew someone who was stopped by police for rolling through a stop sign in her quiet neighborhood that has innumerable 4-way stops. She explained to the officer that she always slowed and looked all directions carefully before proceeding through, but that it was virtually impossible to get around the neighborhood coming to a full stop at every sign. He agreed and let her go.

I think virtually every municipality has jaywalking laws, but if one lives out in the country where the nearest intersection is half a mile away, I suspect every police officer and judge in town would laugh at the idea that one would feel the need to walk two miles round trip to check the mail in one’s box across the street from the driveway.
Brendan64:

However the laws that people choose to ignore and break are more often than not the laws that they consider as an infringement of their own individual freedom to behave as wish to behave.

Perhaps, although I suspect a huge portion are probably administrative rules that require that one can only park at a meter for 2 hours, or require payment to the municipal water utility, or filing of taxes, by a certain date. The government could prosecute these violations if it chose, but usually just tacks on a late payment/filing fee. More of an economic incentive to follow instructions than a moral issue, and few government authorities would argue otherwise. Is it appropriate to invest an administrative rule with moral weight if the authorities do not do so?

 

[Brendan_64]

I knew someone who was stopped by police for rolling through a stop sign in her quiet neighborhood that has innumerable 4-way stops. She explained to the officer that she always slowed and looked all directions carefully before proceeding through, but that it was virtually impossible to get around the neighborhood coming to a full stop at every sign. He agreed and let her go.

That would not happen in the UK these days. If you get stopped for breaking a traffic law, you get fined, no leaway or discretion is given.

Perhaps, although I suspect a huge portion are probably administrative rules that require that one can only park at a meter for 2 hours, or require payment to the municipal water utility, or filing of taxes, by a certain date. The government could prosecute these violations if it chose, but usually just tacks on a late payment/filing fee. More of an economic incentive to follow instructions than a moral issue, and few government authorities would argue otherwise. Is it appropriate to invest an administrative rule with moral weight if the authorities do not do so?

The fact that a penalty is issued means that a law has been broken and a sanction applied. The reason why people are not prosecuted if they pay up without question is done, not because the authorities take the view that it is not a crime, but to save on the time and expense involved in prosecuting the offender (a kind of plea bargain really). If you choose not to pay and you challenge it and it goes to court, then if you are found guilty of the offence through the courts, then you will get a criminal record recorded (at least that’s how it works in the UK).

 

[Tzimisce]

People commit crimes and evils acts not because they have a misunderstanding of justice, but because they have a lack of regard for justice.

i.e. - they have different definitions.

And when a definition varies from person to person to person, it’s the same thing as being undefined.

Natural law ensures that all men inherently know that it is wrong to rape, slaughter innocents, sexually abuse children, and much more, and they instinctively know that the perpetrators of such crimes ought to be punished.

It’s interesting that every example you cite is very clearly black and white.

Under a lot of US laws, a minor is someone under the age of 21. So if you’re caught with a 20 year old, you are a pedophile in eyes of the court.

Meanwhile under Saudi law, a girl only need be menstruating to be of marrying age. In Saudi Arabia, if you’re caught marrying a 12 year old girl, that’s fine. In fact, a Saudi diplomat can come to the US with his 6 12 year old wives and everything’s fine.
**
I am not justifying pedophilia.**
I am offering another example of why “Justice” has no definition.

You will be interested to know I’ve been thrown off a few pagan boards.

Why? Because I’m pro-life.

To me, it’s a vile, vile act to murder someone who is in the womb. There is no clearer definition of innocent life. A baby in the womb hasn’t hurt anyone.

And for this I was called a “hatemonger” and a “misogynist”. I was compared to a Nazi. And it was suggested that I was opposed to “social justice” for women.

Man has an instinctive, basic understanding of justice hardwired into his nature.

If that’s true, then explain insanity. Explain children.

If it’s hardwired in to all people, then everyone should be born understanding “justice”.

And if God “hard wires” us with Natural Law, why not “hard wire” us all with belief in him.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Prohibition was a just law in that it was enacted legally.

The Eighteenth Amendment, forbidding the manufacture, sale, import or export of intoxicating liquors, was ratified by three quarters of the states January 16, 1919. The Volstead Act also passed in 1919 (over the veto of President Wilson), giving federal agents the power to investigate and prosecute violations of the amendment.

But…

**Alcoholic beverages for medicinal and sacramental use were exempt under section 29 of the Volstead Act, which also authorized the home production of fermented fruit juices. **

Therefore Catholics were not forbidden alter wine and Jews could enjoy their Kosher wines.

While the Eighteenth Amendment was…just…it was stupid. What resulted was a set of unintended consequences that created more lawlessness than ever expected. Bootlegging led to a nationwide increase in crime and violence. A perfect example of what happens when freedoms are denied to a free people.

Prohibition was mercifully ended with the passage of the Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution on December 5, 1933.

It would not be fair to not mention that the production and consumption of sacramental wines and liquors increased by record proportions during Prohibition.

 

[Brendan_64]

i.e. - they have different definitions.
It’s interesting that every example you cite is very clearly black and white.

Because at a very basic level, man has a basic concept of right and wrong built into him. It is wrong to murder, it is wrong to rape children etc. This is part of our human nature, and our human nature is created by our creator, God. At a more sophisticated level moral teaching is required, but at a very basic level there is in man an instinctive concept of right and wrong.

Under a lot of US laws, a minor is someone under the age of 21. So if you’re caught with a 20 year old, you are a pedophile in eyes of the court.
Meanwhile under Saudi law, a girl only need be menstruating to be of marrying age. In Saudi Arabia, if you’re caught marrying a 12 year old girl, that’s fine.

And in Holland the age of consent is 14 (for girls and boys) while in Spain until very recently it was 13 (it might still be 13 as I’m not sure if the law to raise it to 14 has gone through yet). So we don’t need to go Saudi Arabia to see similar ages for consent, Holland and Spain are much closer to home.

You will be interested to know I’ve been thrown off a few pagan boards.

Us Catholics are a much more tolerant bunch. You’re very welcome on here.

In fact, despite the constant bemoaning by Pagans about how intolerant Christians are, the reality is that a great many Pagans (particularly certain sections) are extremely intolerant of Christians, Jews, Muslims, or indeed anyone who disagrees with their viewpoints.

Why? Because I’m pro-life.

Good for you. Good man!

To me, it’s a vile, vile act to murder someone who is in the womb. There is no clearer definition of innocent life. A baby in the womb hasn’t hurt anyone.

Absolutely spot on!

And if God “hard wires” us with Natural Law, why not “hard wire” us all with belief in him.

Because that would defeat the point. God has given us all the gift of free will. God has not made slaves of us. To force us to believe would be to take away our faith. To have faith is to choose to believe. Forcing us to believe would be to remove our humanity, our sense of morality, and would turn us into slaves.

Stick around on this board friend, you’re very welcome.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Because at a very basic level, man has a basic concept of right and wrong built into him. It is wrong to murder, it is wrong to rape children etc. This is part of our human nature, and our human nature is created by our creator, God. At a more sophisticated level moral teaching is required, but at a very basic level there is in man an instinctive concept of right and wrong.

I don’t agree with that premiss. Man must learn. He can also unlearn…remember: *Lord of the Flies * by William Golding?

Men are born “tabula rasa”, both cognitively and morally. We must be trained by our society in the nature of right and wrong that is accepted by that society. We must also learn the meaning of justice.

A rational man would regard a stranger as innocent until proved guilty, and grant him that initial good will in the name of his human potential.

After that, he judges people according to the moral character they display. If he finds them guilty of major evils, his good will is replaced by contempt and moral condemnation. (If you value human life and personal property, you cannot value its destroyers.) If he finds them to be virtuous, he grants them personal, individual value and appreciation, in proportion to their virtues.

 

[Skadi]

Was the Prohibition laws in the U.S. a unjust law? And if it was, were Christians free to violate that law?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

It was absolutely wholly unjustifiable. Regardless of “the common good” people have no right to ban consumption of a substance.

 

[Brendan_64]

It was absolutely wholly unjustifiable. Regardless of “the common good” people have no right to ban consumption of a substance.

I presume the same applies to crack cocaine and heroin?

 

[Skadi]

I presume the same applies to crack cocaine and heroin?

Yes. What gives you a right to tell me I can’t put something in my body? If it will harm me is totaly besides the point, I’m a consenting adult therefor I have a right to control what I ingest.

I own my body not the state.

 

[Brendan_64]

Yes. What gives you a right to tell me I can’t put something in my body? If it will harm me is totaly besides the point, I’m a consenting adult therefor I have a right to control what I ingest.

I own my body not the state.

Ok, fair enough, I was just checking that you were consistent.

I do have some sympathy for legalisation of drugs. The current situation is simply not working and perhaps the legalisation of drugs, where we could control the supply, ensure quality, and identify those in need of medical treatment, may result in a less worse situation that we have right now.

 

[Skadi]

Ok, fair enough, I was just checking that you were consistent.

I do have some sympathy for legalisation of drugs. The current situation is simply not working and perhaps the legalisation of drugs, where we could control the supply, ensure quality, and identify those in need of medical treatment, may result in a less worse situation that we have right now.

The example I alwase give is Portugal. They had rampant drug problems, but rather than declaring a “war on drugs” and kicking down every suspects door with a swat team they decriminalized everything and now treat addiction as a public health issue. The country has seen a historic turn around because it did, and I quote “exactly the opposite of what the US does.”

The “War on Drugs” in America is dragged on by a combination of Police and special interest support (such as the alcohol and Tabacco lobby) and social conservative groups petrified their children will end up druggies. Also in border states the Mexican cartels spend millions fighting AGAINST legalizing drugs, because criminals cannot compete with legitimate bussines in a free market.

 

[Digitonomy]

The fact that a penalty is issued means that a law has been broken and a sanction applied.

Or it could be that authorities are treating it exactly like a late credit card bill or failure to return a cable box. In other words, the penalties do not suggest a sin, but are simply a fulfillment of contract terms
Brendan 64:

If you choose not to pay and you challenge it and it goes to court, then if you are found guilty of the offence through the courts, then you will get a criminal record recorded (at least that’s how it works in the UK).

I have never heard of such an approach in the US. If one is appealing a citation, there may be court fees depending on the jurisdiction. Sometimes, the court fees apply regardless of the outcome of the challenge. Come to think of it, in the jurisdictions with which I’m familiar, when the case goes to traffic court, I don’t think there is the possibility of a criminal record, just “points” on a license or revocation.

 

[Brendan_64]

If one is appealing a citation, there may be court fees depending on the jurisdiction. Sometimes, the court fees apply regardless of the outcome of the challenge. Come to think of it, in the jurisdictions with which I’m familiar, when the case goes to traffic court, I don’t think there is the possibility of a criminal record, just “points” on a license or revocation.

That’s the way it works over here. Many people seem to be under the illusion that breaking a speed limit isn’t a criminal offence, it is under UK law. Fines and penalty points are simply used as a means to free up court time and expense as a kind of plea bargain where the offence is not put on as a criminal record, but if you challenge it, go to court and lose the offence will be recorded as a criminal offence. Most of the public are unaware of that, as few people challenge speeding offences. I would never challenge a speeding offence in the UK unless the points gained would mean I would lose my licence, and I was almost certain that I would win.

 

[Antonio_022]

Was the Prohibition laws in the U.S. a unjust law? And if it was, were Christians free to violate that law?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

Such laws are unjust and an infringement of many of our rights.

For a law to be unjust, it must either be UNFAIR (as the word ‘unjust’ implies), infringe on our moral and natural rights (right to property, right to change religion, right to knowledge, freedom of speech etc.), foolish (lacking in right reason which St. Aquinas points out), or cause harm to society/the economy…

I’m not sure about the 4th one but the first 3 fit right into Prohibition laws.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Yes. What gives you a right to tell me I can’t put something in my body? If it will harm me is totaly besides the point, I’m a consenting adult therefor I have a right to control what I ingest.

I own my body not the state.

Yes, you do own your own body…

But the next time you wind up in the gutter, frothing at the mouth, due to an overdose of whatever glorified chemical you ingest for pleasure…explain why my tax money should cover your trip to the emergency room…

 

[Skadi]

Yes, you do own your own body…

But the next time you wind up in the gutter, frothing at the mouth, due to an overdose of whatever glorified chemical you ingest for pleasure…explain why my tax money should cover your trip to the emergency room…

You have me mistaken for a liberal. I’m not, I’m a right-anarchist. If I was irresponsible and ODed on a dangerous substance that’s my fault, and I would be disgusted that money the government forcibly took from you (your taxes) were used to help pay for the consiquences of my actions.

I totaly agree with you. Libertarian is not libertine or liberal, I have a right to my body, not to your money. We all must live with the consiquences of our actions.

 

[Brendan_64]

I would be disgusted that money the government forcibly took from you (your taxes) were used to help pay for the consiquences of my actions.

You may be disgusted at that thought now, but I’ll bet you wouldn’t be if you were lying in the gutter, convulsing. If the ambulance rolled up then I very much doubt you would say, “Go away I am disgusted that tax-payers money is being used to help me”.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

You have me mistaken for a liberal. I’m not, I’m a right-anarchist. If I was irresponsible and ODed on a dangerous substance that’s my fault, and I would be disgusted that money the government forcibly took from you (your taxes) were used to help pay for the consiquences of my actions.

I totaly agree with you. Libertarian is not libertine or liberal, I have a right to my body, not to your money. We all must live with the consiquences of our actions.

Right on…I feel the same way about motorcycle helmet laws.

 

[nmgauss]

You may be disgusted at that thought now, but I’ll bet you wouldn’t be if you were lying in the gutter, convulsing. If the ambulance rolled up then I very much doubt you would say, “Go away I am disgusted that tax-payers money is being used to help me”.

If I were lying in the gutter, convulsing from intoxication, I would be entirely responsible for this situation. If I were a leach sucking money from other people because it is there to be sucked (taxes), I would just keep on sucking it up. But if I were a responsible person (of which we are in short supply because of the welfare state), I would endure the temporary discomfort and resolve to never commit this kind of idiocy again.