Good People Disobey Bad Laws

I will now proceed to point out flaws in my opponent's argument before presenting my point of view on the issue as Con. Context"We see non-violent individuals fined and/or locked up for owning bits of vegetation"Firstly, Pro has not sourced any of his arguments but simply makes generalised remarks which have no evidence. Furthermore, how would one know whether an individual was inherently "violent" or not? Just because they are locked up "for owning bits of vegetation" does not necessarily mean they aren't violent. ""for owning a pistol magazine with one-too-many- rounds. for selling raw milk to a neighbor, and for feeding the homeless in Florida's parks" etc. etc. I continue to strongly urge my opponent to correctly source his arguments in order to substantiate his claims and so that I may argue in regards to the actual legislation my opponent is criticising rather than generalised claims. However, the context is simply a small issue and for the rest of the debate I will aim to challenge my opponent's "Basic Philosophy" and try to convince both you and my opponent that it is not justifiable or right to disobey "bad laws". Basic Philosophy"In essence, one has the natural right to engage in any activity of their choosing, so long as it does not infringe upon another individual's natural rights in the process. "As "natural rights" have not been defined up to this point, I will use the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the basis for this debate. [1] This may be challenged/discussed by my opponent if they so wish. However, many actions do not necessarily infringe on another's natural rights directly, but rather, indirectly. For example, in the raw milk case that my opponent has pointed out, the prohibition of distribution of raw milk is to ensure the security of person. [2] Every person not only has the right to liberty, but also the right to security, and allowing raw milk to be sold clearly threatens such security. I will draw on this example later on. "Even if the individual has never threatened or harmed another. "Threats and harms, again, may not necessarily be direct but could in fact be indirect. Furthermore, just because a person hasn't harmed a person yet by breaking a law, does not mean there will not be consequences later on. By prohibiting certain activities, the government seeks to significantly reduce the risk of this happening. My argument My argument will be structured into four different sections in order to clearly show why "Good people should not have the right to disobey bad laws. "1. Why have laws?2. Laws are a reflection of society3. Different perceptions of "good" and "bad"4. Alternate solutionsWhy have laws? Laws, and indeed, the legal system as a whole, acts as a measuring stick for the rest of society. They are in place to ensure stability and peace within a society. In order to answer the question, "Why have laws? " one simply needs to consider a place without laws at all. People would be able to do anything they want, most likely resulting in widespread chaos, anarchy and disorder. Laws let people know what they should and shouldn't do, for the greater good of society. This is an important point. Laws are a reflection of societyLaws were made in order to reflect the values and attitudes of society. As society is continually changing, so too is the legal system. If one were to look back a few centuries, the practice of witchburning was actually recognised by the legal system. [3] Luckily, attitudes and values in society have greatly changed since then. Therefore, the laws that are in place today are also constantly changing, trying to keep up with the pace of society. It is irrelevant to examine past examples of unjust laws as values were a lot different back then than they are now. While those laws may seem horrid now, they may have been seen as perfectly acceptable by society at the time. It would be like me saying rape should be legalised and going on to going against the law because I deem it to be a restriction of my personal freedom, as well as believing that sex itself is not something sacred but simply an act of pleasure. Different perceptions of "good" and "bad"As my opponent sufficiently demonstrated in his Context section, not everyone can discern what is right and wrong. In fact, the ideas of right and wrong are themselves social constructs, reflections of attitudes and values as previously discussed. Pro did not recognise the dangers of raw milk, so if he "Disobeyed this Bad Law", he could have seriously threatened someone's health and wellbeing, all the while thinking that he has the "right" to sell the milk. That is what laws are for. They are not made out of a whim but rather go through a complex procedure in order to be formed. There are also agencies for law reform which push for reformation of bad, or outdated laws. Thus the law acts as the definition of what should and should not be done, as individuals may not have the ability to discern the consequences of certain activities, as already demonstrated by Pro. If one were to disobey laws based simply on their logic and morality, then this may lead to innocent people's security and wellbeing being threatened. Good people do not necessarily have to disobey bad laws in order to put forward their perspective on existing legislation, which leads me to my next point;Alternate solutionsPeople do not have to necessarily disobey or break bad laws, but rather participate in discussion with the various mediums that necessitate change in law. Further actions they could take include peaceful protesting and writing letters to council, rather than breaking the law itself. Over time these laws will change to reflect the different attitudes in society, and by simply breaking said laws, individuals actually slow down the process, as well as the fact that simply breaking bad laws may put you behind bars or face other consequences. Why not participate in protests that actually abide with the law? Furthermore, protests and active discussion may actually put law reform into action a lot faster and efficiently than simply breaking the law. [1] . http://www.un.org...[2] . http://www.fda.gov... [3] . http://law2.umkc.edu...