When is it reasonable to disobey the law?

Legal General Legal Matters
1

forumosa.com/3/viewtopic.php?p=88596#88596

[quote=“http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk/violent.htm”]When is it reasonable to disobey the law

      When  the law is made by made without  democratic  authority,
      when  the law is  not equally  applied,  when the  law  takes
      away a man's living,   when the law disadvantages one man but
      not  another,  when  the law amounts to  treason.   When,  in
      short,  the law is incompatible with a  free,  self-governing 
      society.[/quote]

Ok, does it apply to the discussion in this thread, if so, how?
forumosa.com/3/viewtopic.php?p=88592#88592

This site is good anywhere.demon.co.uk/

2

Legally, no.
Ethically, yes (IMO). But on a case by case basis.
Morally, yes (IMO). Also on a case by case basis.

Is it right (morally, legally, ethically) for a school to be run without all of the necessary paper work?

Is it right (morally, legally, ethically) for a school to knowingly hire a teacher that is violating the laws and regulations that surround the ARC system in Taiwan?

3

How about this one Bossman: when it’s a stupid law.

Why is it legal to smoke one plant, tobacco, that kills millions of people ever year, and not to smoke another, marijuana, that has never killed anyone?

If I choose to grow a few pot plants and smoke them in the privacy of my own home, what harm have I done?

Or prostitution. If a grown woman decides she wants to earn a little money by having sex with consenting adults, what harm is done?

Or if one lives in a jurisdiction where it is legal to stick your thing in one of your wife’s orifices but not another, what harm is done if you do the forbidden act in the privacy of your bedroom?

Where do these concepts of right and wrong that you speak of come from? Aren’t those issues of morality that are derived largely from religious beliefs that others may or may not share with you? Aren’t right and wrong subjective notions on which reasonable minds will differ?

4

I know SO much better than any of the half-witted, thumbs-up-their-butts sleazy gangster buffoons that make the laws here that I sleep easy at night knowing its my bounden duty as a normal person to break as many of the local laws as I can. If they catch me, tough titty on me, but I’ll STILL be totally in the right, morally and ethically.

5

[quote=“Mother Theresa”]How about this one Bossman: when it’s a stupid law.

Why is it legal to smoke one plant, tobacco, that kills millions of people ever year, and not to smoke another, marijuana, that has never killed anyone?
Both are stupid and cause needless harm

if I choose to grow a few pot plants and smoke them in the privacy of my own home, what harm have I done?

Only to yourself, that’s your choice, but still legally wrong.

Or prostitution. If a grown woman decides she wants to earn a little money by having sex with consenting adults, what harm is done?

Spread of disease and let’s face it contributing to the decay of society. If it were your mother how’d you feel?

Or if one lives in a jurisdiction where it is legal to stick your thing in one of your wife’s orifices but not another, what harm is done if you do the forbidden act in the privacy of your bedroom?

Gosh, Americans have it real bad.

Where do these concepts of right and wrong that you speak of come from? Aren’t those issues of morality that are derived largely from religious beliefs that others may or may not share with you? Aren’t right and wrong subjective notions on which reasonable minds will differ?

No, I don’t think so. Everyone has a moral compass and knows what is right and wrong. However, due to a selfish society the line between right and wrong has become unclear and people wish for things to be open to interpretation, largely to suit their own desires. My concept of right and wrong has nothing to do with religious beliefs but ,regardless of religion, that commonality that prevails in civilized societies about what is right and wrong, with the exception of Holland which has lost the plot..[/quote]

6

but I will admit that in some cases legality, morals, and ethics, are separate issues.

7

I simply don’t see the harm in working illegally in this case.

Taiwan isn’t trying to limit the number of teachers. From everything I’ve read here, they need more.

Taiwan isn’t trying to prevent criminals from infiltrating the schools.

Collection of taxes? Maybe valid, but the illegal worker doesn’t get benefits such as a health insurance card, so I’d guess it’s a wash for the government anyway.

From what I’ve read here and elsewhere, the main thing about an ARC is that it ties you to one employer, who then has significant power over you – which the employer often tries to abuse. I’d say that provides a reasonable justification for violating the law.

Personally, I would rather stay legal – but from what people have written, I’m already illegal just because I am thinking about moving to Taiwan and THEN looking for a job, rather than paying half of my expected salary to an overseas recruiter for as long as I stay, just to get a job and work visa before landing, which is the only legal way to start working in Taiwan.

Sheesh. What’s a sleazeball like me to do?

8

On the stupid law front. Who decides when a law becomes stupid? My view point of a stupid law could by breaking that law allow me to do horrible things to others, but then it was a stupid law (in my opinion), so that’s ok then, right?

I think that when a law no longer serves the people (the majority) then it could become a “stupid” law just begging to be broken.

In this case and by my definition of a stupid law the ARC laws are not so stupid. This is despite the fact that I personally feel that they are stupid.

9

BH, it’s not always a good idea to follow laws too slavishly (note the adjective).

10

I intentionally named what I feel are stupid laws that don’t harm others. That would be a criteria for me. Laws that protect a person from harming others, in my opinion, are not stupid. Thus, laws against murder, rape, child molesting, etc, are obviously good laws.

But laws that prohibit an adult from engaging in conduct that he wishes to engage in and that harm no one are stupid. For example: laws against homosexual practices? Why is it anyone else’s business? Or laws against adultery? What if my wife and I are swingers and enjoy having sex with other couples. You may find that distasteful, but why should we be branded as criminals for living our lives as we choose without harming others?

On the other hand, some “consensual crimes” (others call them victimless crimes) are tougher because they are not so victimless. For instance, it may feel great to ride a motorbike without a helmet, and I’m all for free-spirited rebellion, but I don’t want my insurance rates to go up due to helmetless motorbike riders.

The theory behind consensual crimes is that the government is supposedly protecting citizens from themselves – that if they didn’t look out for us we’d all be shooting heroin, screwing prostitutes, driving without seatbelts, gambling and otherwise ruining our lives. But despite your disgust for marijuana (even though you’ve admitted to never having smoked it) many people smoke marijuana and use other recreational drugs frequently and are perfectly happy and well adjusted. The same goes for violators of many other consensual crimes. In fact, the fact that many of these activities are illegal causes a lot more harm than the activities themselves. Check out the link to Peter McWilliams book; he explains it much better than me:

mcwilliams.com/books/aint/toc.htm

I’m not arguing about visa laws specifically, but I find absurd your proposition that it is always wrong to violate laws. Isn’t it a little timid and sheeplike to believe that all laws are wise and prudent and to advocate strict obediance to them all? It seems to me that a person with a little brains and courage might say, I believe in many laws but I don’t believe in this law and if I disobey it no one will be harmed, so I choose to disobey it and if caught I will face the consequences. If no one is harmed it will hardly lead to anarchy or whatever other dire consequences you warned of.

11

Every country has this problem. New Zealand has its employment contracts bill slavishly binding people to companies and if you don’t like the contract then don’t take the job. It’s the same thing here, if you don’t like it, don’t work here. Fair enough?

12

[quote=“Boss Hogg”]I think that when a law no longer serves the people (the majority) then it could become a “stupid” law just begging to be broken.

In this case and by my definition of a stupid law the ARC laws are not so stupid. This is despite the fact that I personally feel that they are stupid.[/quote]

MT,

See above. I do give some place for breaking the law and don’t support blindly following the law. We are talking about working in Taiwan without an ARC aren’t we?