The question was put to me recently as the topic for my term paper in English. The "State" refers to whatever government one lives under; the United States, for most of us here. The question is general, though, talking about people anywhere/anywhen. Doesn't have to refer specifically to people in your State, now. I will post my paper as an attachment when I finish it.
It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protestor to burn the flag. - Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, USMC
Depends entirely upon the specific situation, and the people or groups involved. As I understand it, the State is in fact supposed to represent the populace in a democratic society. Realistically that isn't always the case given the diversity of people within any large country. So people tend to grudgingly accept dictates from the government they don't personally like if they feel those laws are important for the good of the country overall. If people feel any particular law is motivated more by personal interests or the misguided beliefs of one individual or a small minority of people, then there tends to be civil disobedience.
Go to the library, find the section on social contract theory, observe the thickness and impenetrability of the many, many, many, many books on the topic...and you will know why I am NOT going to venture an opinion on this one!
I might be doing my Masters this coming year on this exact topic so I already know the answer: there IS no definitive answer and never will be :) I'd like to see your essay though, I can consider it my first piece of research and stop feeling guilty about not doing any work.
Originally posted by Swordsman The question was put to me recently as the topic for my term paper in English. The "State" refers to whatever government one lives under; the United States, for most of us here. The question is general, though, talking about people anywhere/anywhen. Doesn't have to refer specifically to people in your State, now. I will post my paper as an attachment when I finish it.
If you are specifically referring to the United States as "The State", the answer is no. No, we, US citizens, are not bound to obey the government of the United States.
That's the short answer. Your paper will probably go more in depth to support your answer. That will be interesting to read.
Originally posted by Swordsman The question was put to me recently as the topic for my term paper in English. The "State" refers to whatever government one lives under; the United States, for most of us here. The question is general, though, talking about people anywhere/anywhen. Doesn't have to refer specifically to people in your State, now. I will post my paper as an attachment when I finish it.
Read John Stuart Mill. He writes about The State, and ones obligations to the state, and postits his theory of the Greatest Good, also of course you need to re-read Plato, and the great Statesmen of ancient Greece who put forward the theories of Democracy. Then you need to turn to the Romans, who wrote pommulgate the theories of the City-State and autocratic governments, with a Senate. Good luck!
Originally posted by three_hundred_fifty_five If you are specifically referring to the United States as "The State", the answer is no. No, we, US citizens, are not bound to obey the government of the United States.
That's the short answer. Your paper will probably go more in depth to support your answer. That will be interesting to read.
Well, as an ardent patriot, going off to join the Air Force Academy in a few months, I believe we ARE bound to obey the United States as citizens. That is because as citizens of a democratic republic we have the freedom to (1) change laws we don't like and (2) leave if we get too fed up with things. I can also point back to Plato's writings, and the idea of the "implied contract" - that by staying and accepting all the benefits of the state, we implicitly agree to abide by its rules. Basically, the old "I put clothes on your back and food in your belly so you'll obey my rules or you can leave" addage.
Now - back to your first question. No, I am not referring to the US when I say "the State". I explained that in my first post. Here is an excellent definition of "the State", by Benedictus de Spinoza, a Jewish Dutch philosopher of, if I'm not mistaken, the 1800s:
Society can be established, so long as it keeps in its own hand the right, possessed by everyone, of avenging injury, and pronouncing on good and evil; and provided it also possesses the power to lay down a general rule of conduct, and to pass laws sanctioned, not by reason, which is powerless in restraining emotion, but by threats. Such a society established with laws and the power of preserving itself is called a State, while those who live under its protection are called citizens."
It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protestor to burn the flag. - Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, USMC
Originally posted by Swordsman Well, as an ardent patriot, going off to join the Air Force Academy in a few months, I believe we ARE bound to obey the United States as citizens. That is because as citizens of a democratic republic we have the freedom to (1) change laws we don't like and (2) leave if we get too fed up with things. I can also point back to Plato's writings, and the idea of the "implied contract" - that by staying and accepting all the benefits of the state, we implicitly agree to abide by its rules. Basically, the old "I put clothes on your back and food in your belly so you'll obey my rules or you can leave" addage.
A fair position. However, historically speaking, laws are often changed by the very act of disobedience; for example, the repealing of Prohibition.
Slavery is an example of a case in which neither point was valid; slaves had no say in politics and certainly were not free to leave, thus they had no incentive to obey the state whatsoever. Therefore, one could argue that a citizen's obligation to obey is directly proportional to the amount of freedoms and priveleges they are granted by the state...
Thomas Jefferson himself felt that governments should be overthrown every fifty years or so to ensure a healthy society
Well, as an ardent patriot, going off to join the Air Force Academy in a few months, I believe we ARE bound to obey the United States as citizens. That is because as citizens of a democratic republic we have the freedom to (1) change laws we don't like and (2) leave if we get too fed up with things.
The word obey can be applied in 2 different ways. To obey commands and to obey laws. If we do not obey laws, then we are subject to punishment by law. If we do not obey commands by the State that are not under the law, we are not subject to punishment because it is not under law. As one joining the US military, you will be bound to obey the commands of the US President (which will get passed down to you through the ranks and finally from your immediate supervisor), though not the State. In a dictatorship or monarchy, a citizen is bound to obey commans from the State (i.e the dictator or king/queen) or suffer possible punishment even if the commands are not under law. No?
Now - back to your first question. No, I am not referring to the US when I say "the State". I explained that in my first post. OK.
Ardent patriots tend to make great grunts. Great grunts usually have this line--" I vas just following odas"
Of those who question authority- Usually the first ones are shot and after a ceratain threshold is reached the others survive make changes in the status quo and are regarded as ardent patriots after the fires are out.
mmmh.... ... This is damn intersting........
"Kill the men, save the women, and by the gods, do not spill the wine"
Originally posted by Sildar A fair position. However, historically speaking, laws are often changed by the very act of disobedience; for example, the repealing of Prohibition.
Slavery is an example of a case in which neither point was valid; slaves had no say in politics and certainly were not free to leave, thus they had no incentive to obey the state whatsoever. Therefore, one could argue that a citizen's obligation to obey is directly proportional to the amount of freedoms and priveleges they are granted by the state...
Thomas Jefferson himself felt that governments should be overthrown every fifty years or so to ensure a healthy society
Exactly!! And should it not be so? I only wish you'd posted on Tuesday or Wednesday; I would have included this!
355 - I mean the laws of the state. If something is not law, the command is no more than a suggestion. Executive Orders, basically, are commands from the state. But issuing them as Executive Orders makes them law.
Attila - First of all, I'll be an officer. That takes a little away from the "just following orders" angle.
Second, the US has a nice little thing about NOT obeying immoral orders. That falls under what I discuss somewhat in my paper about a responsibility to disobey unjust laws. And while I didn't include it in my paper (religious points can be hard to base an argument on, so I tried to avoid them), I obey a higher set of laws first. I will obey the State (the US in this case) so long as the State doesn't require me to disobey the Higher Laws - the laws of God. Thankfully, the US was actually founded on these principles, and a large portion of its people - including leadership - follow these principles. Because of this, any law (or command, etc.) that goes against the major Higher Laws is also considered immoral in the eyes of the government. And even soldiers are exempt from having to follow immoral orders in the military.
Note: Commandment is "thou shalt not murder" when correctly translated, not "thou shalt not kill".
It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protestor to burn the flag. - Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, USMC
Not much, just a little. I would hope they hanged every private that chose to follow immoral orders.
It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protestor to burn the flag. - Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, USMC
<b>Not much, just a little. I would hope they hanged every private that chose to follow immoral orders.</b>
I would be interested in hearing your views on whether the USofA should join the International War Crimes Court. You seem to believe that impartial justice should apply to all who transgress the boundaries of decent behaviour.
It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protestor to burn the flag. - Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, USMC
It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protestor to burn the flag. - Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, USMC
K.. while reading it, i've come up with a question.
When you say Martin Luther King, Jr, Or Sr?? yes we all should know which one it is.. but for your teacher's sake/for your grades sake, add which one it is.. Might not make a difference either which way, but hey..
and teachers have a way of nit picking at this things too..
interesting ending too.. -shrugs- but i'm not much of a paper writer, so thats just my 2 cents...
Originally posted by Sildar A fair position. However, historically speaking, laws are often changed by the very act of disobedience; for example, the repealing of Prohibition.
Slavery is an example of a case in which neither point was valid; slaves had no say in politics and certainly were not free to leave, thus they had no incentive to obey the state whatsoever. Therefore, one could argue that a citizen's obligation to obey is directly proportional to the amount of freedoms and priveleges they are granted by the state...
Thomas Jefferson himself felt that governments should be overthrown every fifty years or so to ensure a healthy society
I have not read Swordsman's report yet, and I may digress here.
However, should a state have the right to kill it's own people? To put to death persons that have committed crimes, or the such? To insist people go off to fight in the military?
I wouldn't think so.
Once I get a copy of winzip, I look forward to reading swordsman's paper. Would it be correct to assume that the underlying theme is "America, love it or leave it." Just asking right now!
Could Swordsman's paper be posted in Adobe or some other format. Just in case I can't get winzip!
