# Illegal vs. Wrong - Where to draw the line



## WoadWarrior (Oct 10, 2012)

Yep... I'm proposing another prepper morality question: Just because something is illegal, does that make it wrong?

For example, it's illegal to concealed carry without a permit.... but is it wrong? That ties into the dilemma of "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6." As preppers, we are preparing for any contingency... and realize that the laws and rules of today don't apply in a real world post event situation (the recent power-station thread back and forth should emphasize my point).

I'm sure we would all agree that scavenging a home right now would be both wrong and illegal. But... in a SHTF situation one could argue the rule of law no longer applies because 1) the cops are all home protecting their families and 2) the entire population is technically under duress.... So... post-SHTF, you run across an abandoned Wal-mart, power station, govt office, house, etc.... it's still technically illegal to scavenge... but is it wrong? Now... up the ante... the owner of a grocery store is standing on the roof with a shotgun... defending his stuff. You... your family... and the rest of your group are starving. It's technically illegal to shoot him and take some food.... but is it wrong? When does our civilized morality change and the end justify the means?

I only propose this because we live in the opposite mentality every day in or normal lives... we make something legal and assume it's right.

I think Walter Williams summed it up best: "How does something immoral, when done privately, become moral when it is done collectively? Furthermore, does legality establish morality? Slavery was legal; apartheid is legal; Stalinist, Nazi, and Maoist purges were legal. Clearly, the fact of legality does not justify these crimes. Legality, alone, cannot be the talisman of moral people."

So... back to the original question... does duress (e.g., your starving child) justify any actions you take to get food for him/her? Where, as preppers, do we draw the line? Or do we?


----------



## Fuzzee (Nov 20, 2012)

Something is only both illegal and morally wrong if you feel wholeheartly that the lawmakers are both infallible morally and a 100% for the freedom and good of people with no corruption.

Otherwise no. Not feeling that way myself and seeing the state of our country, I feel it's just an amount of time before normally law abiding people will have no choice but to break the law.


----------



## badey (Nov 9, 2012)

I think legality and morality are not necessarily the same thing.

Some things that are immoral by my standards are legal (e.g., abortion, charging excessive interest). Some things that are moral by my standards are illegal (e.g., concealed carry in IL).

I think that while we are able to, we should try to live both morally and legally. It does us no good to break the law, even though it may not be immoral, if it winds up landing us in jail. If someone is prepping to survive when the SHTF for himself or his family, he is not doing himself any favors by putting himself in a legally precarious position.

Also, while I wouldn't blame anyone for stealing food to feed starving children, it still boils down to the fact that he is morally responsible, because he did not prep well enough when he could have...

However, if the government passes a law that you truly feel is immoral and unable to be obeyed, I think you are obligated to not follow it. It would take a very extreme law for my criteria to be satisfied though.


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

WoadWarrior said:


> ..the owner of a grocery store is standing on the roof with a shotgun... defending his stuff. You... your family... and the rest of your group are starving. It's technically illegal to shoot him and take some food.... but is it wrong? When does our civilized morality change and the end justify the means?..


Depends on the severity and type of the SHTF and whether it's likely to last short or longterm, we'll just have to call the plays as we see fit.
For example King John passed a law banning ordinary folk from killing and eating "his" deer in Sherwood, but Robin Hood and his mates said _"F*** you Jack!" _and arrowed all the deer they wanted..

Here are some "moral dilemma" clips from Survivors 1975 (a plague has wiped out nearly everybody on earth)-

1- A petty tyrant called Brod (Brian Blessed) is keeping a group prisoner, are they "legally" entitled to kill him to escape? (pick up the action at 2:50)-






2- Are the group "legally" entitled to help themseves at a derelict supermarket, or leave it to the rats? (6:20)-






3- Are the group "legally" entitled to execute somebody who they think is a murderer? (It starts with them taking a vote on whether to kill him or banish him)-


----------



## Leon (Jan 30, 2012)

Fuzzee said:


> Something is only both illegal and morally wrong if you feel wholeheartly that the lawmakers are both infallible morally and a 100% for the freedom and good of people with no corruption.
> 
> Otherwise no. Not feeling that way myself and seeing the state of our country, I feel it's just an amount of time before normally law abiding people will have no choice but to break the law.


Truer words are rarely spoken. Me? I currently make a point of disobeying any law that isn't in the constitution. I regularly trespass on supposedly 'private' public works land because I know that when the cops get there, that is IF someone cared at all, the only thing they could do because of a supreme court ruling is ASK me politely to leave. And I am free to come back after they leave as many times as I like. I tear the tags off mattresses. I refuse to talk to census workers. I run red lights when cop cars aren't around. I roll through stop signs. I water my lawn on even numbered days. I even throw the recyclables in with the regular trash and snigger maniacally while doing it. :shock: As far as I am concerned and as far as I can tell legally, the constitution supersedes and preempts any other law as the supreme and undeniable law of this land. So what if the ass backward state of GA tells me they got a law that says I can't grow tobacco without paying a bond? What uncle Sam don't know can't hurt him. Been that way a looooong time for me and I never so much as had a traffic ticket. I know it is the duty of every citizen to disregard and ignore any law that is not just AND constitutional AND practical / successful. What the communist in chief and his satan worshiping ilk are trying to do is legislate a net of laws so vague and broad that anyone can get arrested and made a felon for anything they do in their daily lives. It's our duty to disrespect and disregard these draconian laws that were never intended for America.

Founding fathers, baby. 1776 all the way


----------



## shotlady (Aug 30, 2012)

i dont know i tend to not make any waves. if it was long term shtf. we'd all be different people in different land, just trying to survive. i would hope i do everything morally/ethically/legally right.
and those arent always the same. i dont have an honest answer. but one thing i can tell you i hope i never find out.


----------



## fedorthedog (Feb 28, 2012)

Morals are a societal belief, cannibals thought they were morally and legally correct. When there is no society there is no law and property rights are what you can claim and control.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

They tell you that it is not possible to legislate morality, but that is not true. That is _exactly_ what a law is!

Think about it. Leon runs red lights whenever the cops are not around. Is it inherent not to run that light? Of course not. it is a commercial code. It is not part of your divine engineering to know that the red light dangling in the middle of the intersection means you must stop.

On the other hand, we all know theft, murder, rape, etc. are not only illegal but immoral. Morality. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That is the fundamental teaching of Christianity, other than salvation through the blood of Christ.

Beyond that, we have standards of morality that is a matter of societal health, although these mores and norms may not be a matter of legality. For example, while homosexuality and adultery might not be illegal, we know they are wrong and are unhealthy for a society that wants to stand the test of time.

Common sense will lead the wise. Can you break the glass and retrieve a candy bar from that machine when the crap is being spread by the fan? Sure. There'll be nobody who is going to profit from the machine, anymore. Can you kill someone in order to take their candy? Of course not.


----------



## fedorthedog (Feb 28, 2012)

Heres a question for you if rape is wrong why did god make it so a man can rape a woman, I am certain he could have found a way for reproduction to occur where rape would not be possible.

The answer perpetuation of the species must occur no matter how.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

fedorthedog said:


> Heres a question for you if rape is wrong why did god make it so a man can rape a woman, I am certain he could have found a way for reproduction to occur where rape would not be possible.
> 
> The answer perpetuation of the species must occur no matter how.


Some may be able to do that. I personally can't. Flat out, it's wrong. When God said be fruitful and multiply, he stated that to partners. He failed to say, "if you want it, go for it". Rape is not for anything other than personal pleasure.


----------



## WoadWarrior (Oct 10, 2012)

Let's add fuel to the fire and hear what the Supreme Court has to say... (Yes... I have a background in criminal law... I'm geeky that way.)

From the 16th American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177:

“The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment , and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. As unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”

Any court, government or government officer who acts in violation of, in opposition or contradiction to the foregoing, by his, or her, own actions, commits treason and invokes the self-executing Sections 3 and 4 of the 14th Amendment and vacates his, or her, office. It is the duty of every lawful American Citizen to oppose all enemies of this Nation, foreign and DOMESTIC.


----------



## Medelwr (Jun 10, 2012)

When it comes down to it, might makes right. Every law has probably been made that way. I don't just mean physical might but also might through numbers too. Think of it, if a SHTF scenario happened, I'm sure we'd keep some laws such as cold blooded murder and the right to defend your property but I'm also sure that a lot of them would just fly right out the window (think of jay walking  ). Laws are just extensions of the results of war....so when it all comes down to it stand by your morals more than the old laws.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

fedorthedog said:


> Heres a question for you if rape is wrong why did god make it so a man can rape a woman, I am certain he could have found a way for reproduction to occur where rape would not be possible.
> 
> The answer perpetuation of the species must occur no matter how.


We are not animals. That rape is possible does not make it moral. Murder is also possible as well as theft. That they are possible does not make them moral.

You did not ask a question, you allowed insight into your mind. I didn't like it, to be honest.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Medelwr said:


> When it comes down to it, might makes right. Every law has probably been made that way. I don't just mean physical might but also might through numbers too. Think of it, if a SHTF scenario happened, I'm sure we'd keep some laws such as cold blooded murder and the right to defend your property but I'm also sure that a lot of them would just fly right out the window (think of jay walking  ). Laws are just extensions of the results of war....so when it all comes down to it stand by your morals more than the old laws.


"Might makes right" is a catchy slogan used by those who prefer democracy or brute capability over law - or G-d, who is the author of true law.
You say _we_. _We_ will keep...
If there is a _we_, there is no reason to not keep law. If there is merely a you, there is no reason to behave like an animal. You are still a creation of G-d, and the laws of nature and nature's G-d as mentioned in our Declaration of Independence is the same.

If you want to act like an animal just because the lights go out for an extended period of time, there is a good chance you will be taken down just like any other wild animal.


----------



## Medelwr (Jun 10, 2012)

Denton said:


> "Might makes right" is a catchy slogan used by those who prefer democracy or brute capability over law - or G-d, who is the author of true law.
> You say _we_. _We_ will keep...
> If there is a _we_, there is no reason to not keep law. If there is merely a you, there is no reason to behave like an animal. You are still a creation of G-d, and the laws of nature and nature's G-d as mentioned in our Declaration of Independence is the same.
> 
> If you want to act like an animal just because the lights go out for an extended period of time, there is a good chance you will be taken down just like any other wild animal.


I agree with you saying that there is no reason to act like an animal, my morals wouldn't allow me to act like some out there that would be willing to rape a woman just to propagate the species. I maintain though that our laws have only come into being because there was a whole whack of people out there willing to band up and set their ideals as something to live by.

I was postulating that in a SHTF situation and (I guess I didn't make myself too clear) society as we know it was NOT coming back, then those who come to power and create new laws will inevitably be those we consider strong. It has been that way all through history and still to this day is happening and will only be too true with no government to rule.

I don't condone idiots who are willing to destroy others' lives for sh*ts and giggles and my morals wouldn't allow me to join them or even let them continue unabated. My morals are not based in religion either since I don't prescribe to any theology but are based on my empathy (I was raised in a Christian society so I do have a "do unto others as you would done unto you" view in life). My reasoning on my whole post is if there were no longer a society to keep law so I keep mentioning "we" because I would do my very best to bring order into the chaos around me, I would be willing to stand up and be one of the strong ones trying to help those around me.

Don't forget that not every country out there has the same religion or has a Declaration of Independence. Canada has more immigrants than natural born citizens and is home to many many religions. It would be unfeasible for me to think that in a time when SHTF that the laws I am used to would continue (especially while I live in a city that is mostly people from Hinduism and Islam).


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Denton said:


> We are not animals. That rape is possible does not make it moral. Murder is also possible as well as theft. That they are possible does not make them moral.
> 
> You did not ask a question, you allowed insight into your mind. I didn't like it, to be honest.


I agree.

I have seen both sides of the fence. I was very young and stupid then and did not like what I did or saw. I got out. I like this side better. I have a conscious and I can sleep at night. To me doing the right thing is not because it's the law, it's because of respect. Respect for myself and others. What goes around, comes around.

Would I hesitate to protect my family? Absolutely not. I would take out the gangbangers/raiders in a heartbeat. My family is worth more than the life of a raider. Would I kill for any other reason? Don't think I could do it. It's because of my morals, my beliefs and my relationship with God. The actual translation of one of the 10 Commandments is not Thou Shall Not Kill, it's Thou Shall Not Murder. I will not take a life because I choose who lives or dies, I will only do it for self defense.

Don't get me wrong, I am a capitalist at heart. I have had my own business in the past and maybe will again. But greed is what got us in this mess in the first place. Greed and selfishness. Taking what you want regardless if you need it is about both. What you brought up is both. I will not take something from someone because I want it. If it's something that is abandoned, that's a different story.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

To MedelwrYes, your notion of right and wrong is based on religion. You said it, yourself.
Western civilization is based on that same religion, as a matter of fact. That is why we are different than, say, Saudi Arabia. Were you born in Medina, your notions about gender equality, for example, would be very different. 

If you live in a Muslim enclave of Canada, guess who will set the norms, mores and taboos for you? You'd better hope you are in a Christian area. We're pretty tolerant people. We are so tolerant we even let other people in so they can take over.


----------



## Medelwr (Jun 10, 2012)

Denton said:


> Yes, your notion of right and wrong is based on religion. You said it, yourself.
> Western civilization is based on that same religion, as a matter of fact. That is why we are different than, say, Saudi Arabia. Were you born in Medina, your notions about gender equality, for example, would be very different.
> 
> If you live in a Muslim enclave of Canada, guess who will set the norms, mores and taboos for you? You'd better hope you are in a Christian area. We're pretty tolerant people. We are so tolerant we even let other people in so they can take over.


No, I'm scrwed. I'm a typical Caucasian so I'd have to hope that enough people who live locally around here have similar morals......or book it!


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Inceptor, glad to see you switched sides.

By the way, there is no reason to hesitate if confronted by gangs or individuals. There is nothing immoral about dropping someone who is threatening you and your family. Matter of fact, if you extend your umbrella to others around you such as neighbors or strangers, you are acting in a selfless manner. Those who die in the act of attacking others have nobody to blame but themselves.
That goes back to common law and the laws of nature and nature's G-d that is at the foundation of common law.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Medelwr said:


> No, I'm scrwed. I'm a typical Caucasian so I'd have to hope that enough people who live locally around here have similar morals......or book it!


Come on down here to Alabama. We are typical and normal, we have a lot of fresh water sources, a lot of fishing area, plenty of small game and a lot of us who bristle at the thought of tyranny.


----------



## Leon (Jan 30, 2012)

I'm more worried about being stripped bent over and raped by another MAN! Screw woman rapers, they tend to be more easily shot. It's the ones that want to rape my grown man ass that keep me up at night! WTF is wrong with these people?! That ambassador that got killed in the middle east recently- those crazy devil worshiping muslim loonies RAPED that guy! I mean..._damn_...I got enough trouble as it is without worrying about a big trucker-ass guy in SHTF wanting a slice of my rosey-red cheeks...WTF is wrong with these ppl? Women be aware that your HUSBANDS can be raped, too by a big enough man who has help. I bet when SHTF the prison keepers either run off and leave the prisons to fend for themselves or destroy the whole shebang with fire. I am betting on running away and letting them go knowing our current leadership. Hell, knowing who our current leaders are- they will probably let them go with a pat on the back and give them blankets and hatchets and send their sick asses off to the wilds with a smile. Heartwarming thought, ain't it? I tell you there's no end to this s*** once you get looking.


----------



## HarshGeometry (Nov 17, 2012)

First thought I had when I opened this thread.
"there is no right or wrong but thinking makes it so" - Shakespeare

Morals are ideas created by us humans to determine what is right and wrong in regards to our own person and mind.

Laws are the morals of those with the most influence (some would call them the majority, or you can call them the wealthy if you live in 2012) packaged into documents and dictated with little to no consent based on the fact that those who make them have the power to enforce them (even if they are rational and voted upon and good and all that. Its just what they are.)

When there are no Laws after society falls. Each man is his own court until laws are created and criminals are made examples of (the laws actually work when people are scared of the repercussions). Therefore... unfortunately I'd say our society would sink raper murder pillage as soon as the power to enforce laws is gone. Hell that's how it is already in localized areas of our planet. 

I'd say my line between the two is pretty damn fine.


----------



## Leon (Jan 30, 2012)

You, sir are a very sharp man. You just tickled one of my favorite nerves. Shakespeare was not to be taken lightly, not at any point in this timeline. Shakespeare fans always prick my ears up- they, almost uniformly, are fiercely aware people whom understand the _where_ and _why _of our world because they have thoroughly investigated the past through his works. Sometimes it's not so much a matter of having, as it is _understanding_ things. Will did a good job at peeling back the human soul and exposing its flesh to the light of intelligence. Most of what he wrote about still dominates our struggles today.


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

Shakespeare used to be an actor himself, and it gave him a good grounding in human nature by having to "think himself into the part" and all that; then when he turned to writing he used the same technique to put himself into the minds of the characters.
For example when Macbeth hires a couple of hitmen, one of them says-

_"I am one, my liege,
Whom the vile blows and buffets of the world
Have so incensed that I am reckless what
I do to spite the world."_

And the other one says- 
_"And I another
So weary with disasters, tugg'd with fortune,
That I would set my life on any chance,
To mend it, or be rid on't."_

In other words Shakespeare brilliantly paints them as malcontented vicious spiteful uptight ne'er-do-wells with massive chips on their shoulders against the whole world, or to put it bluntly- sick f**ks!
Their modern-day equivalents are lefty pinkos, godless heathens, anti-patriotic traitors and similar assorted low-lifes..


----------



## StarPD45 (Nov 13, 2012)

I guess this is the bottom line:

Malum in se-- Means something which is evil in and of itself.

Malum prohibitum-- Means something is illegal because someone says it is.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

I look at it this way, sometimes it is easier/ better to beg for forgiveness than to ask permission.


----------



## pakrat (Nov 18, 2012)

Some laws are written on paper, others are written on the heart. If you’re not sure which ones are real or matter, you need to figure that one out, cause times getting short.


----------



## AquaHull (Jun 10, 2012)

In the interest of a civilized society, one is supposed to obey the laws made by man unless the said law violates the law of The Eternal.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

legal and moral to different things Legal is mans idea of how things should be they often have nothing to do with what is moral or not. Moral is what is right and expected in Gods eyes. Moral and legal often conflict.
My legal right to defend myself ,Family, others or property is decided by others who may not even face the threats I do. It often has no bases in right or wrong but is decide by PC of the day or some groups current agenda.
My Moral right to do so is not given nor take away by mans laws. I am not bound by it.
As moral citizens we try to live with in rules even if we disagree with them, But there is a limit. Each must decide for themselves where the line is crossed.
1. I will defend my family above all else
2. I will defend others close to me the best I can
3. You will not take what is mine with out a heavy price. I will not allow fear of the law or any man made moral questions to slow my actions. I will strike before you have a chance.
The difference between me and many others ,I know this. I will extend charity to those that are in need when I can, but it will not cause me to let the guard down. Do not make the mistake of confusing charity with weakness.
4. I will maintain a position of strength , the weak will be in no condition to help anyone.
5. I already have prepared my replacement for the time I can not longer lead, and they will pick up right where I left off down the same path without fail.
6. I will answer to God for the decisions I make, I will not bow to man.
7. I will pray everyday of my life it never comes to this.
There a some of you out there that have been tested you know what I speak you know my heart, you know what I will do. I also know the same about you.
God save the sheep that have for to long believed they held dominion over us they have mistaken our compliance with weakness and are about to push to far.
μολών molōn


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Our law is founded on the law of nature and nature's God. It is not based on the whims of man.
Knowledge of that law is not based on legislation. Any legislation that violates that precept also runs contrary to the constitution.

I hope you do not live in areas of the country that have abandoned this in favor of humanism. People with carnal, hardened hearts are very violent beings.


----------



## shotlady (Aug 30, 2012)

think of a piramid-minimum standard of behavior
base is legal-middle is ethics-standard of behavior
top is morals- your personal standard of behavior

always treat people not because of what they deserve.... but because who you deserve to say _you_ are.


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

Here's yet another "moral dilemma" clip from Survivors; a guy is dying and asks for his rifle to be brought to him (1:55) so he can shoot himself, but the other guy refuses.
Should we bring him his rifle, or should we even "illegally" shoot him ourself to put him out of his misery?


----------



## Southern Dad (Nov 26, 2012)

After a SHTF situation, I think we still have to keep our morals and whits about us. Scavenging from a home that you know to be abandoned or the owner deceased is different that stealing from someone else just because they aren't at home at the moment. On the question of the CCW, maybe this is the time to get that squared away so that you can carry in the event of a SHTF situation. I can tell you that if the SHTF my DD10 would be carrying even though I know it to be illegal. I don't see law enforcement spending a lot of time checking permits after a SHTF...


----------



## rob (Dec 5, 2012)

To start with, concealed carry laws are an irony. Have you ever studied the Protestant Reformation? One of the issues involved became translating God's word into local languages. Roman had little issue with people reading the Bible in it's original script, but translating it into Germany, French or English was prohibited, under penalty of death. While Rome and it's supporters argued that translation left the Word open to mistranslation, those arguing for translating put forth that the church was preventing lay persons from reading scripture and understanding what it really said for itself. Because the Bible was in Hebrew, Latin, Arameic ancient Greek etc, most people depended on the Catholic preist to tell them what was written. I feel that so many in Washington wished that our Constitution were written in Latin or Greek, but it isn't. It is written in basic English that anyone who can read can understand. The second amendment, for instance, says that the right of the people (notice that the right isn't granted to the militia, alone) to keep and bear (for those spying on this thread from the NSA, "Bear" means "Carry" as it relates to guns) arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say that except for arms people don't see or are in your pocket etc. Unfortunately for those who hold office, the Constitution was written so that anyone able to read can understand. 

That said bear in mind that laws are as valid as the authority that issues them. If the state is unable to enforce a law or any law due to the National Guard has been called up and deployed to Armagedon, does the state actually have the authority? I personally believe in God. His law is issued with ultimate authority (notice any one carrying a passport from Sodom?). I don't support anarchy, yet, I can not deny that as the government overextends it's ability to enforce that law, they kick open the door to vigilance societies. Inorder for laws to be legal in this country they must meet the requirements set forth in our Constitution, which almost none of our gun laws do.


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

Then of course there are natural laws to back us up-
_"The right of self defense is the first law of nature"- US judge St. George Tucker (1752-1827)_

Even Jesus's right-hand man Peter drew his sword and whacked the high priest's flunkey across the head with it, slicing off his ear; Jesus told him off, but the fact remains he allowed him to carry it in the first place (probably as a deterrent to robbers on their travels), thereby proving weapons are not 'evil' in themselves.

Shane: _"A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it"_


----------



## punch (Nov 6, 2012)

I'm sure that there was more than just Peter was packing. I think the thing with the ear was to confirm that Jesus is the Christ and I'm sure all present knew the arrest was wrongful. At the very least the fellow who got his ear back knew this...

punch


----------

