On Nov 14, 5:36 pm, JNugent 
wrote:
> use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > On Nov 14, 12:03 pm, JNugent 
> > wrote:
>
> >>use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> >>>JNugent  wrote:
>
> >>>>use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> >>>>>JNugent  wrote:
>
> >>>>>>use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>JNugent  wrote
>
> >>>>>>>>use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>JNugent  wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>[...]
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>Your argument treats all laws as being the same.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>They are all the same in that the citizen cannot decide whether or not
> >>>>>>>>>>to comply. That's the point of laws. There is no way to construct a
> >>>>>>>>>>moral abstract rule for deciding which laws you will not comply with.
>
> >>>>>>>>>There are very obviously many ways of constructing moral abstract
> >>>>>>>>>rules for deciding which laws you will not comply with. Such ways even
> >>>>>>>>>exist within our constitution (judges can chuck out laws introduced in
> >>>>>>>>>contravention of the Human Rights Act; similar arrangements exist in
> >>>>>>>>>many other countries) and many ways have been put forward by ethicists
> >>>>>>>>>through the ages.
>
> >>>>>>>>Think again. That is not an abstract rule for deciding which laws you
> >>>>>>>>can breach because you don't agree with them.
>
> >>>>>>>If the law can be struck down by a judge for violating the Human
> >>>>>>>Rights Act, then there is no need for me to obey it.
>
> >>>>>>Does that apply to all laws, or just the ones you don't like and don't
> >>>>>>want to obey?
> >>>>>>If the former, does it also apply to other people? Is any old Tom,
> >>>>>>Dick or Harry entitled not to obey any old law on the off-chance that
> >>>>>>a judge might just decide it is incompatible with the Human Rights Act?
> >>>>>>If not, why not?
> >>>>>>Distinguish your potential case from their potential case on an
> >>>>>>abstract, moral, basis without relying on your moral judgment being
> >>>>>>seen as more sound than theirs.
>
> >>>>>You're shifting the goalposts with great alacrity!
>
> >>>>I am doing no shifting at all. You have simply not answered the
> >>>>questions as to which laws you mean and/or whether it is any law or
> >>>>just a selection of laws,
>
> >>>I have repeatedly made the point that not all laws are the same, that
> >>>that is the flaw in your whole argument.
>
> >>You have sought to make that point, but you have not suggested any
> >>method for deciding which laws are in one category and which in
> >>another. It all seems to boil down to which ones you like and which
> >>ones you don't. You have certainly suggested no objective system for
> >>deciding the matter. Unless you would be willing to accept other
> >>peoples' choices as to which is in which category (and I certainly
> >>wouldn't be), your argument is self-defeating, because there would
> >>obviously be very many practical instances in which you would not
> >>accept the choice of others and would offer the view that this or that
> >>law was not one they could opt out from.
>
> >>>That's the very argument I've
> >>>been making to you these last few days. If you have somehow failed to
> >>>grasp that point,
>
> >>I grasped your point on its first iteration. Since then, I have
> >>pointed out the flaws in it, several times.
>
> >>>then I am going to go away and bang my head against
> >>>a wall on the grounds that it would be more pleasant and fulfilling
> >>>than continuing the discussion with you.
>
> >>You said (earlier):
>
> >>"Your argument treats all laws as being the same."
>
> >>You said that as though it was a bad thing.
>
> >>So I asked you to propose a method for distinguishing them. You have
> >>not provided one, because you can't. No-one can, except on the basis
> >>of personal preference.
>
> > The Human Rights Act sets out an objective set of criteria by which to
> > distinguish between laws. Numerous ethicists through history have set
> > forth external criteria to distinguish between laws. As a very
> > different example, there are those laws that remain on the statute
> > books but which are never enforced or kept, providing another way of
> > distinguishing between laws that isn't simply about personal
> > preference.
>
> > But I'm just repeating myself here. *head* *wall* *head* *wall* *head*
> > *wall* *head* *wall* *head* *wall* *head* *wall* *head* *wall* *head*
> > *wall* *head* *wall* *head* *wall*
>
> Well, at last!
>
> So Clogg will, in your view, be justified in breaking the ID cards law
> (if we ever get one) as long as the courts strike it down as in breach
> of the ECHR. Fat chance of that since every other European state has
> an ID cards system, eh?

That's not what I said or implied. I'm still waiting for you to
concede that we can distinguish between laws. Then we can get on to
discuss Nick Clegg's situation.
--
Henry