Just because you aren't doing anything wrong...

[lawtonfogle]

...doesn't mean you aren't doing something illegal. So, anyone can think of cases where, assuming your morality doesn't have a 'follow the law blindly' clause, the right action is illegal.

One case I can think of is where people in Texas were officially told to stop providing water to extremely thirsty illegals sneaking in.

But what other cases can you think of?

 

[jayem]

...doesn't mean you aren't doing something illegal. So, anyone can think of cases where, assuming your morality doesn't have a 'follow the law blindly' clause, the right action is illegal.

One case I can think of is where people in Texas were officially told to stop providing water to extremely thirsty illegals sneaking in.

But what other cases can you think of?

Are you asking for actions that I personally think are moral, but illegal? Or what other people think? Obviously, a righteous act to one person is a crime to someone else.

I think the civil disobedience used to further racial desegregation back in the 60s was justified.

But a few might say that Paul Hill was justified in shooting a doctor at a Florida abortion clinic.

 

[keith99]

Historically the most obvious cases involve Jews.

One case I know of involved an older woman, one who if she had lived 1000 hyears earlier would have been at risk as a witch (not for real practice, just general onryness and being disliked) who help Jews and others across the German/French border.

 

[PantsMcFist]

Well, off of the top of my head, there was Gandhi, Bonhoeffer, the entire CC, the German dissenters in WW2, thousands of Soviet intellectuals, thousands of Chinese intellectuals, some Vietnam draft dodgers (depends on motivation in my eyes), General Strikers during the Industrial Revolution, Suffragettes.

I don't personally know any, but those are the ones I could think of.

 

[jayem]

Providing marijuana for patients with glaucoma, AIDS, MS, cancer, chronic pain, etc. It's still a federal violation, even if it's ok in some states.

And how about assisting terminally ill patients commit suicide?

 

[HollandScotts]

Doing drugs responsibly.

 

[Beanieboy]

I often download music for free at work because I the CD is at home.

 

[Beanieboy]

Taking those tags off of pillows or mattresses that say, "Do not remove by law"

 

[Nathan45]

One case I can think of is where people in Texas were officially told to stop providing water to extremely thirsty illegals sneaking in.

the heck? can you find a link to the case or what law they broke?

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

My morality includes not breaking the law unless the law demands immoral action.
This is because to break the law devalues law itself and law is necessary for the public good.
Every time you break a law, however trivial, you are in a small way casting your ballot for anarchy.

The only law I feel iffy about that I follow is the one where I pay taxes to support unjust wars.
I have seriously considered preventing myself ever reaching an income in which my tax contributions are significant in order to prevent that.

 

[No Swansong]

...doesn't mean you aren't doing something illegal. So, anyone can think of cases where, assuming your morality doesn't have a 'follow the law blindly' clause, the right action is illegal.

One case I can think of is where people in Texas were officially told to stop providing water to extremely thirsty illegals sneaking in.

But what other cases can you think of?

Was that actually passed as a law?

 

[Nathan45]

Was that actually passed as a law?

i googled it and found this:

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2006/04/04/religious-activists-arrested-for-aiding-immigrants/

but the houston chronicle article it links too doesn't exist.

i was searching the chronicle archives, the closest i could find was some religious group arrested... which didn't mention anything about water, says they were charged with trying to transport illegal aliens.

 

[No Swansong]

Wow you found more than I did.
But in keeping with the spirit of the OP I would agree that if giving a drink of water to a thirsty illegal immigrant was illegal I can say without doubt I would break that law and accept the consequences.

 

[Nathan45]

i googled it and found this:

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2006/04/04/religious-activists-arrested-for-aiding-immigrants/

but the houston chronicle article it links too doesn't exist.

i was searching the chronicle archives, the closest i could find was some religious group arrested... which didn't mention anything about water, says they were charged with trying to transport illegal aliens.

i couldn't find the houston chronicle article, but i don't think this happened in texas i think it happened in arizona. ( the splcenter link says, "AZ" and "No more deaths" is an organization in arizona)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_More_Deaths

the above article has good info, it happened in arizona not texas.

On July 9, 2005, two No More Deaths volunteers, Daniel Strauss and Shanti Sellz, were arrested by a Border Patrol agent while transporting three illegal immigrants from the Arivaca "Ark" to Tucson for medical attention. The migrants were allegedly suffering from severe thirst and hunger due to vomiting as well as blisters that prevented them from walking. Sellz and Strauss were charged with transporting illegal aliens and conspiring to transport illegal aliens, both felonies under US federal law.

 

[No Swansong]

i couldn't find the houston chronicle article, but i don't think this happened in texas i think it happened in arizona. ( the splcenter link says, "AZ" and "No more deaths" is an organization in arizona)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_More_Deaths

the above article has good info, it happened in arizona not texas.

I guess that's another law I would break but hey medics have an aversion to people dieing from dehydration.

 

[lawtonfogle]

My morality includes not breaking the law unless the law demands immoral action.
This is because to break the law devalues law itself and law is necessary for the public good.
Every time you break a law, however trivial, you are in a small way casting your ballot for anarchy.

The only law I feel iffy about that I follow is the one where I pay taxes to support unjust wars.
I have seriously considered preventing myself ever reaching an income in which my tax contributions are significant in order to prevent that.

I must disagree. There are law system in general that are not for the public good, and in some cases, even anarchy is better as at least from anarchy a better system has a chance to rise, as in the case of some dictatorships.

 

[Nathan45]

I must disagree. There are law system in general that are not for the public good, and in some cases, even anarchy is better as at least from anarchy a better system has a chance to rise, as in the case of some dictatorships.

I honestly disagree that anarchy is better than dictatorship. IMO, dictatorship has more in common with democracy than anarchy does.

IMO the government is, at it's heart, simply an oversized street gang. If you arn't being pushed around by the government you're going to be pushed around by the bloods and the crypts. The difference is that a government, even a dictatorship, is supposed to have your best interests at heart or at least have it's own interests at heart which are usually somewhat aligned with yours.

Wheras, Street gangs and mob groups, who'd be running the show by default if the government ever disappeared, tend to be bloodthirsty, racist and hostile.

I don't disagree that in some extreme cases it is justified to completely overthrow the government, but when you do you NEED to have a plan to fill the vacuum with something better. That's key. If you're going to disregard the law to overthrow the government, you MUST have a plan to replace the government with something better.

You shouldn't overthrow the government just for the sake of disorganized anarchy because if you don't have something better to fill the vacuum you're going to end up with something worse than the previous government.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I honestly disagree that anarchy is better than dictatorship. IMO, dictatorship has more in common with democracy than anarchy does.

IMO the government is, at it's heart, simply an oversized street gang. If you arn't being pushed around by the government you're going to be pushed around by the bloods and the crypts. The difference is that a government, even a dictatorship, is supposed to have your best interests at heart or at least have it's own interests at heart which are usually somewhat aligned with yours.

Wheras, Street gangs and mob groups, who'd be running the show by default if the government ever disappeared, tend to be bloodthirsty, racist and hostile.

I don't disagree that in some extreme cases it is justified to completely overthrow the government, but when you do you NEED to have a plan to fill the vacuum with something better. That's key. If you're going to disregard the law to overthrow the government, you MUST have a plan to replace the government with something better.

You shouldn't overthrow the government just for the sake of disorganized anarchy because if you don't have something better to fill the vacuum you're going to end up with something worse than the previous government.

In a tough dictatorship where everyone is near starving, I don't think gangs would rise up. By overthrowing the government, sub-governments will form between people close together, branching bigger till a much better, at least on average if not in every single case, will result. I am not saying anarchy is better for anarchy's sake, but for it being a fertile ground of which individuals will begin to form their won government.