For my Canadian friends

Shiftless2 said:
Governments do decide whether something is legal or not - after all, they're the ones that pass the applicable laws.

That said, the simple fact that something is legal doesn't mean it's ethical (morally right if you prefer).
Click to expand...

The reason I disagree, is not only because governments violate the basic principles of legal justice sometimes, but that we have prosecuted those who we consider guilty of war crimes like those simply "following orders" in WWII.

Since they were prosecuted and executed, what they had done then could not have been legal.
There has to be higher standards than mere legislation.
Because if we use legislation as the standard, then there were no prosecutable war crimes in WWII.
 
Rigby5 said:
"But there is a huge danger in allowing government to dictate right/wrong." R5 #780
Click to expand...
The distinction the ancients made:

malum in se: evil; wrong by itself

malum prohibitum: wrong by prohibition

There's a huge danger in government dictating malum in se. Murder is bad, we don't benefit from government confiscating taxes from us, and then telling us otherwise. Conversely
there's a huge danger in government NOT attending to the public safety demands imposed on it by maintaining "domestic tranquility", the term used in the Constitution's preamble.
If government fails in this fundamental public safety obligation, the consequence is practical anarchy.

Rigby5 said:
"And then only 30 years later we illegally murder a half million Iraqi, as if we had learned nothing from Vietnam." R5 #780
Click to expand...

This is the tragic, horrific distinction between individuals, and cultures.
Individuals can remember, particularly the combat vets that have applied a tourniquet to a friend's leg,
knowing it may save the friend, but is sure to lose the leg.

The handicap of cultures is, they have to re-learn these ghastly lessons, as we've been warned:

Those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it. attributed variously, inspired by George Santayana / The Life of Reason (1905)

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history." Hegel

"Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind." JFK

"Only the dead have seen the end of war." Plato
 
sear said:
The distinction the ancients made:

malum in se: evil; wrong by itself

malum prohibitum: wrong by prohibition

There's a huge danger in government dictating malum in se. Murder is bad, we don't benefit from government confiscating taxes from us, and then telling us otherwise. Conversely
there's a huge danger in government NOT attending to the public safety demands imposed on it by maintaining "domestic tranquility", the term used in the Constitution's preamble.
If government fails in this fundamental public safety obligation, the consequence is practical anarchy.



This is the tragic, horrific distinction between individuals, and cultures.
Individuals can remember, particularly the combat vets that have applied a tourniquet to a friend's leg,
knowing it may save the friend, but is sure to lose the leg.

The handicap of cultures is, they have to re-learn these ghastly lessons, as we've been warned:

Those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it. attributed variously, inspired by George Santayana / The Life of Reason (1905)

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history." Hegel

"Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind." JFK

"Only the dead have seen the end of war." Plato
Click to expand...

The idea being that to deter acts of evil, there has to be the threat of punishment.
And that can not just be limited to average citizens, but then must also apply to legislators when then deliberately cause harm.
So what is legal or not can not be arbitrarily based solely on written legislation.
Legislation that is intentionally contrary to civilized ethics must also face the same deterrent if we want a civilized society.
 
Rigby5 said:
"The idea being that to deter acts of evil, there has to be the threat of punishment." R5 #784
Click to expand...
Within a population exceeding 100 million, there are sure to be some that are deterred by threat of punishment.
Probably not 100% though.
So what deters the rest?

Morality?
Self-image?
Reputation?

Rigby5 said:
"Legislation that is intentionally contrary to civilized ethics must also face the same deterrent if we want a civilized society." R5 #784
Click to expand...
?
I've reread this several times. ?
You mean, malum prohibitum should mirror, address malum in se?
 
Rigby5 said:
The reason I disagree, is not only because governments violate the basic principles of legal justice sometimes, but that we have prosecuted those who we consider guilty of war crimes like those simply "following orders" in WWII.
Click to expand...
In that case the individuals in question were being prosecuted under a legal system supported by a different government than the one who issued the orders they "were following".
 
sear said:
Within a population exceeding 100 million, there are sure to be some that are deterred by threat of punishment.
Probably not 100% though.
So what deters the rest?

Morality?
Self-image?
Reputation?


?
I've reread this several times. ?
You mean, malum prohibitum should mirror, address malum in se?
Click to expand...

I am not a Latin expert, but I don't think that fits.
I think what malum in se means is the acts is obviously criminal, like rape, murder, robbery, etc. due to a gross violation of rights.
I think what malum prohibitum means is that acts that would not normally be considered wrong individually, can become prohibited in order to make a society better organized, like parking tickets.

What I means is that "no one is above the law".
That includes legislators.
The actual law is not mere legislation, but a higher abstraction, based on what is necessary in order to defend inherent individual rights.
When legislator violate inherent rights, like segregation, Prohibition, etc., then they too must be punished, or else you have an evil dictatorship.

If you allow mere legislators to be the top of the legal hierarchy, then not only are the legislators illegally "above the law", but then you can't convict those who are "just following orders" anymore.

The abstraction that justifies any legislation has to be obvious, or the legislation itself has to be illegal.
Legislation is not self justifying, but must be able to show how the legislation is necessary in order to defend the rights of others.
That is because the legal authority for the legislation comes from the authority those protected by the legislation, that they dispatch and delegate to the legislators.
It is those protected by legislation who provide the authority of the legislation, not mere legislators who pen it.
What I am saying is that legal authority does not come from mere legislators but from those protected by their legislation.
 
Last edited:
Rigby5 said:
"I think what malum in se means is the acts is obviously criminal, like rape, murder, robbery, etc. due to a gross violation of rights." R5 #787
Click to expand...
I believe your definition is correct.
I believe claiming there's a substantial divergence between yours & theirs is incorrect.

I think of malum in se as intrinsic evil, your examples are as good as any.

Rigby5 said:
"I think what malum prohibitum means is that acts that would not normally be considered wrong individually, can become prohibited in order to make a society better organized, like parking tickets." R5 #787
Click to expand...
Think utilitarianism. Parking shouldn't be a problem. BUT !
Parking in the middle of an otherwise busy intersection can keep workers from their jobs, ambulance patients from life-saving rescue, etc.

Parking & blocking a fire hydrant may seem harmless enough with no conflagrations or fire trucks in sight.
But leaving firefighter access to the hydrant benefits society.

For me the obvious malum prohibitum example is Drug War.
It's bad because we say so, even though for most of human history there was no such prohibition, and we did just fine.

Rigby5 said:
"What I means is that "no one is above the law".
That includes legislators." R5 #787
Click to expand...
Nemo Est Supra Legis: No one is above the law.

The ancients were not stupid, they were technologically primitive.

Rigby5 said:
"The abstraction that justifies any legislation has to be obvious, or the legislation itself has to be illegal." R5 #787
Click to expand...
🪢
 
sear said:
I believe your definition is correct.
I believe claiming there's a substantial divergence between yours & theirs is incorrect.

I think of malum in se as intrinsic evil, your examples are as good as any.


Think utilitarianism. Parking shouldn't be a problem. BUT !
Parking in the middle of an otherwise busy intersection can keep workers from their jobs, ambulance patients from life-saving rescue, etc.

Parking & blocking a fire hydrant may seem harmless enough with no conflagrations or fire trucks in sight.
But leaving firefighter access to the hydrant benefits society.

For me the obvious malum prohibitum example is Drug War.
It's bad because we say so, even though for most of human history there was no such prohibition, and we did just fine.


Nemo Est Supra Legis: No one is above the law.

The ancients were not stupid, they were technologically primitive.


🪢
Click to expand...

I am willing to go out on a limb here and say the War on Drugs is inherently illegal.
While I do not necessarily claim the motivation by the legislators was inherently evil, I believe they were mistaken to pen drug laws.
The reason being that I believe people have a right to do things that may be detrimental to themselves, as long as they do not harm others.
Like skydiving, mountain climbing, scuba, motorcycle racing, etc.
I do not believe legislators have any legal authority to protect people from themselves.
And actually drug laws are what cause all overdose fatalities, since it is being illegal that causes drugs to be made in higher concentrations so they will be easier to hide.
And the fact they are illegal is what prevents safe dose labeling.
I also believe drugs are a medical problem police are incapable of properly handling, and they turned it into a money maker instead.
I know people whose homes have been confiscated by the police.
 
Link didn't work

S

Post in thread 'The Second Term of Donald J. Trump as President of the United States of America'

Canada produces roughly 3.3 million tonnes of aluminum every year and exports about 90% of it. Historically, the bulk of those exports went straight to the United States. But that relationship is changing, and Washington may not like what comes next.

Since March 2025, Canadian producers have redirected roughly 800,000 tonnes of aluminum to Europe. Under normal market conditions, exports to Europe would total just 100,000 tonnes over a comparable period.

That's no small shift.

By finding new markets, Canadian producers have managed to keep production running without slashing output or...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top