Authority rules!

[Sheepy]

At present, we live in a reasonable democracy, which is not perfect. However it is a lot more perfect than some regimes, such as Iran, North Korea, as examples. If an authority impinges upon basic human rights, then I would suggest there is an argument to either defy them, even if it means doing it in secrecy.
For example, in Iran where Christians are persecuted, why shouldn't they hold services in private? But it is against their laws and against authority.
Freedom to travel is a right, but that one is pretty curtailed in North Korea.

There must come a point where a democracy curtails activities which have been previously legal.
Hunting with hounds is an example. The majority have made a previously legal sport illegal, which did no harm to that majority which probably took no part. That seems unfair and anti-democratic.

On a local level, PP mentions streets suddenly being blocked off to traffic, where it has been allowed before. Even electric cars for no real reason. Personal freedoms are really high on my list of rights where authority should not be able to interfere. That should include travelling in streets which belong, not to the authorities, but to us.

There are good laws, those covering assaults, killing others, thefts, damage, plus lots of different methods of thieving are great.

I was reading something in the media earlier, which said when politicians and the media have their backs against the wall, when people start to wake up, they immediately fall back on, we might be rubbish and don't care about democracy but take a look at these others, as though that actually changes a thing.

[T00ts]

No, really, I am not. I don't think it is right to break the law in general.
However, if they made it a law not to share your faith (any faith) would we keep to it?

Are we talking about just this country? We are fairly unique in that we tolerate religious freedom by law. Aren't other countries who are not tolerant usually Communist or Dictatorships? There is a massive difference between their regimes and ours that hardly bear comparison. If I lived in a Communist country would I see my 'freedoms' in the same light. Perhaps not. Would I be strong enough to go against such a regime? Possibly not. We see Christians just as one example, put under extreme pressure worldwide, even here faith, any faith, is often accused of being some sort of sinister doctrine not appropriate for the modern world. I would hope that if our Parliament was to attempt such restriction that I would have the strength to stand against, but that would be a freedom lost in my lifetime.

Otherwise laws are made for our benefit although unexpected consequences engendered by lack of forethought and commonsense seems to be the norm these days. But as commented earlier we are fortunate in this country to have a built in change structure. Hopefully we will always enjoy that, although I sense there are those commonly known as Woke who would happily do away with many freedoms in favour of their doctrine.

[cromwell]

But no man is an island. What you feel is a theft of your rights may not seem the same to me. Are you really saying that each man should defy a law if they don't agree with it? Isn't it the case that this attitude has been at the root of the continued Brexit disagreements and antagonism? Surely the whole point of our system is that it has built in change. If we don't like the current plans then come Polling day we can change it. However I do feel that Councils are running amok and their increasing devolution of power especially through local Mayors and Police Superintendants has really gone to their heads. They do need reigning in since local opposition doesn't seem to be relevant.

Councils have always been so from time to time,the police too, North Wales had the Traffic taliban under chief Brunstrom "do 31 in a 30 and we'll have you" here in Manchester we  had James Anderton,I thought he was a nutter and much preferred his deputy who was stitched up John Stalker a good copper who IMO was badly treated.

We now have a Mayor who is intent on blocking off roads imposing stupid bike lanes hardly used under the guise of social distancing and causing jams which will enable him to impose a congestion charge.

He doesn't give a stuff about Manchester but has an eye on no 10......god help us if he gets there.

[Barry]

But no man is an island. What you feel is a theft of your rights may not seem the same to me. Are you really saying that each man should defy a law if they don't agree with it?

No, really, I am not. I don't think it is right to break the law in general.
However, if they made it a law not to share your faith (any faith) would we keep to it?

Isn't it the case that this attitude has been at the root of the continued Brexit disagreements and antagonism? Surely the whole point of our system is that it has built in change. If we don't like the current plans then come Polling day we can change it.

Yes, absolutely, but that was complicated by the issue of parliamentary sovereignty and their view over the reffo.

However I do feel that Councils are running amok and their increasing devolution of power especially through local Mayors and Police Superintendents has really gone to their heads. They do need reigning in since local opposition doesn't seem to be relevant.

Yes. You make a good point. If laws are different in different parts of the country, or on different days of the week, it makes it very difficult for us plebs to follow.
Perhaps ignorance of the law will become an excuse.

[T00ts]

At present, we live in a reasonable democracy, which is not perfect. However it is a lot more perfect than some regimes, such as Iran, North Korea, as examples. If an authority impinges upon basic human rights, then I would suggest there is an argument to either defy them, even if it means doing it in secrecy.
For example, in Iran where Christians are persecuted, why shouldn't they hold services in private? But it is against their laws and against authority.
Freedom to travel is a right, but that one is pretty curtailed in North Korea.

There must come a point where a democracy curtails activities which have been previously legal.
Hunting with hounds is an example. The majority have made a previously legal sport illegal, which did no harm to that majority which probably took no part. That seems unfair and anti-democratic.

On a local level, PP mentions streets suddenly being blocked off to traffic, where it has been allowed before. Even electric cars for no real reason. Personal freedoms are really high on my list of rights where authority should not be able to interfere. That should include travelling in streets which belong, not to the authorities, but to us.

There are good laws, those covering assaults, killing others, thefts, damage, plus lots of different methods of thieving are great.

But no man is an island. What you feel is a theft of your rights may not seem the same to me. Are you really saying that each man should defy a law if they don't agree with it? Isn't it the case that this attitude has been at the root of the continued Brexit disagreements and antagonism? Surely the whole point of our system is that it has built in change. If we don't like the current plans then come Polling day we can change it. However I do feel that Councils are running amok and their increasing devolution of power especially through local Mayors and Police Superintendants has really gone to their heads. They do need reigning in since local opposition doesn't seem to be relevant.

[papasmurf]

You can't take a line from a post like that. It's not real debate. I agree the government lie and cheat (don't they all) but it has no real effect on the law-making process, unless you can think of some current bad laws.

Current bad news?  I started a thread on the latest example and got not one reply:-

https://pol-tics.com/united-kingdom-politics/2/-tory-suppression-of-dissent-and-protest-bill-get-voted-in-in-the-commons/3684/msg65965#msg65965

[Barry]

There cannot be a reasonable democracy when there are no controls on government lies and propaganda especially when it is assisted and/or not questioned by the media/press.

You can't take a line from a post like that. It's not real debate. I agree the government lie and cheat (don't they all) but it has no real effect on the law-making process, unless you can think of some current bad laws.

[papasmurf]

At present, we live in a reasonable democracy,

There cannot be a reasonable democracy when there are no controls on government lies and propaganda especially when it is assisted and/or not questioned by the media/press.

[Barry]

At present, we live in a reasonable democracy, which is not perfect. However it is a lot more perfect than some regimes, such as Iran, North Korea, as examples. If an authority impinges upon basic human rights, then I would suggest there is an argument to either defy them, even if it means doing it in secrecy.
For example, in Iran where Christians are persecuted, why shouldn't they hold services in private? But it is against their laws and against authority.
Freedom to travel is a right, but that one is pretty curtailed in North Korea.

There must come a point where a democracy curtails activities which have been previously legal.
Hunting with hounds is an example. The majority have made a previously legal sport illegal, which did no harm to that majority which probably took no part. That seems unfair and anti-democratic.

On a local level, PP mentions streets suddenly being blocked off to traffic, where it has been allowed before. Even electric cars for no real reason. Personal freedoms are really high on my list of rights where authority should not be able to interfere. That should include travelling in streets which belong, not to the authorities, but to us.

There are good laws, those covering assaults, killing others, thefts, damage, plus lots of different methods of thieving are great.

[papasmurf]

And yet when I read your posts I would have thought that you were a real stickler for rules

I am a stickler for rules and law as long as the people making them stick to them.

[T00ts]

Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men, the problem being currently the fools are in government.

And yet when I read your posts I would have thought that you were a real stickler for rules - at least when they apply to others. Your comment about the current Government is something that I would suggest is a culmination of the democracy that we as a nation have actively encouraged. No matter the colour of hypocrisy, each successive government, at least over the last few decades, has ruled not necessarily for the good of all but for the popularity vote of as many as possible. As a result we have not necessarily wisdom in high places but expensive PR.

Sometimes it is better to have strong values that cannot be swayed even if they are not popular. An example just today of 6th formers who don't like that their school has dictated that next year they should wear smart clothes. Chinos, jackets, shirts etc and the girls smart skirts and low heels. The reasoning is that in the working world often that is expected. The kids are up in arms and claim it reduces their freedom. I sincerely hope the school sticks to it's guns. Small fry perhaps in the scheme of things but a reasonable lesson to learn in my view.
The same goes for society as a whole.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9772205/Woke-sixth-form-students-revolt-new-smart-dress-code.html

[cromwell]

Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men, the problem being currently the fools are in government.

Well you would say that.....so predictable.

I was tempted to reply "no they're in Cornwall along with a tongue pulling emoji" but you'd have said I was nasty and it was personal attack 'cos you've lost your sense of humour somewhere along the way.

[papasmurf]

As good citizens we should follow all government laws and advice without question. We should obey authority.
Even if they don't themselves.
Discuss.

Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men, the problem being currently the fools are in government.

[T00ts]

Mmm Interesting! Life is made up of lots of rules right from God given ones to crossing the road. Most are for our safety in one way or another. Yet the manner of the OP suggests perhaps that to obey completely is to be mindless and somehow diminished.

Surely in a democracy we have elected a Government on the rule of majority (another rule) to then simply ignore all or some of the rules that we have authorised them to administer diminishes our democracy and the strength of our vote? We have allowed for dissent within the system with a Government opposition and freedom to protest.

I guess if I look at my beliefs then I would have to say that we have freedom to disobey God's laws so I guess we have freedom to  disobey manmade ones too. Whether we should or not is where the debate will come.  I can't help but feel that wholesale civil disobedience will lead us to wholesale disarray  and society is already showing signs of this.
Should we obey when politicians don't? Would you throw yourself under a bus just because your friend did? We are each responsible for ourselves within a plan that we have voted for. If the majority doesn't obey then society is a lost cause. I guess the proof will be at the next ballot.   

[Barry]

As good citizens we should follow all government laws and advice without question. We should obey authority.
Even if they don't themselves.
Discuss.