Useless Digression About Law

Refactored from DoNotLie, which it was cluttering up.

In reference to text on that page, somebody wrote:

Was it your intent to suggest that there should be some cost-benefit analysis in lying? In some cases this seems right, for example if a woman runs down a road and a gun-carrying man runs along later and says "which way did the running woman go?" it would seem appropriate to lie. Other cases are not so clear:

You are asked to swear allegiance to the Monarch to sit in parliament, even though you were voted in on a mandate to abolish the monarchy. (several UK politicians do this, the rules say they must to be able to sit in parliament).
A colleague reveals that they are using confidential information (insider trading) to gain on the stock-market, but donating all gains to charity. You are asked to sign a form saying that you do not infringe the rules, and are unaware of anyone else infringing them.
Your wife says "you don't mind the kitchen being a bit untidy do you?", when there are large piles of washing around. Believe me, there is a considerable cost to giving a truthful answer!!!
You are selling a car that you have found noisy and uncomfortable. A prospective buyer asks "how do you find it on long trips?".

The last point is probably easiest to classify as wrong, as you are the only one to benefit. Would it be different if you were present when your wife sold her car?

It is my own belief that lying is justified in precisely one situation: When being threatened, unjustly, with the use of force against yourself or your belongings. By far the best example of this is when a mugger asks if you have any cash besides what's in your wallet, and you refrain from mentioning the pocket inside your coat. How does this principle apply to the examples above? When your wife asks "do you mind the kitchen being dirty?" a proper response would be something like, "Yes, but I can't ask you to clean it when I don't want to either." When you're selling a car, and asked a direct question, you should answer honestly. When your wife is selling a car in your presence, you are not morally obligated to the potential buyer - but you are obligated to yourself and your wife to help her be a moral person, which means you shouldn't let her get away with anything you wouldn't do yourself. It would be best, obviously, to tell her that prior to meeting the buyer!

Insider trading is a straightforward case but a more difficult one. It is legitimate to lie to avoid prosecution under an UNJUST law, one which exceeds the proper moral bounds of the government's authority; the reason for this is that all law is necessarily backed by force. Mandatory recycling, for example, is ridiculous; so if you were credibly threatened with a lawsuit, it would be legitimate to claim you were in compliance with it when you actually drop your cans down the chute. Speeding IS within the government's legitimate purvey, so if asked you should certainly confess that you do it sometimes.

It would be interesting to know how you're deciding the government's proper bounds here. Alas, this margin... Sigh... okay, okay. See below.

Insider trading is immoral if and only if stockholders had a chance to learn that it might someday occur when they bought the stock - that is, if it was written in the appropriate policy document. Before you say that nobody reads these documents, they SHOULD, because not all stock has the same terms - there can be very complex anti-takeover provisions and similar oddities, which differ widely between companies. The law does not allow corporations to make that their policy, however; thus it is unjustly infringing freedom of contract. (My terminology is that of the philosophical basis of law; it does not correspond to how a lawyer would say this, though I'd welcome advice from one...)

With all that groundwork laid out, you might think that I'm going to say it's okay to participate in or allow insider trading. But it's not, because regardless of the fact that corporations should be allowed to make it legitimate by setting the terms of their stock appropriately, all stock today was issued with the understanding that insider trading is illegal. It doesn't matter that corporations were compelled to use these terms, because it's not the stockholders who compelled them. To conspire to allow insider trading would be to commit fraud against the stockholders. So, if your buddy confesses to you, you should tell him to stop, and report him if he doesn't.

This argument is complete nonsense. Nobody in their right mind seriously expects insider trading to not occur. In fact, any semi-educated half-wit should be able to tell you it's common practice. So what does the fact that it's illegal have to do with anything? Apparently, the above author thinks that morality derives from law in some manner. Perhaps he believes that there exists a moral law obliging people to obey governmental laws. Well, this is nonsense but it's completely natural from a Utilitarian or other such type who doesn't distinguish between moral and governmental law too closely. In fact, everything the above writer says is complete nonsense. Starting with "all law is backed by force" which is not just false but nonsense. Consider just the case of speeding. Will a cop club you over the head for speeding? If you're white, no he will not. So what force is involved in it? Is being fined now included as "force"? If it is, it only makes the concept of "force" a useless distinction. Presumably, the author means that if you do not pay the fine then you are subject to another law and so on and so on until you hit a law, completely different from the initial law, which is backed by force. So what he means is not "all laws are backed by force" but "Law is a single interlocking system ultimately backed by force". And even then it is false. Law is not a single interlocking system. There are many interlocks between laws but they don't make it into a single system. Rather, there are criminal procedures, civil procedures, family law, et cetera. Each of these has a different character and only criminal law is typically backed by force. And in fact, even though criminal law is backed by force in most human societies, it's easy to imagine societies where this is not the case. In fact, there was a Twilight Zone episode about it; the criminal was marked as "invisible" and everyone treated him as such.

The most intriguing example is the member of parliament. Being from the US, I have no idea what this oath is or what its terms are, but I'll reason the situation out as far as I can without knowing that. First, the politician certainly has not gained anything from the voters through deception; he advertised his intent freely. That takes care of that obligation. Does he have an obligation to the government? Yes, to implement his own beliefs to the best of his ability. This is the proper job of every politician in any legitimate government, and the citizens have a right to elect officials who are allowed to perform it. The government cannot morally impose a limit on what goals a politician may seek while in office. What if the oath of office were, instead of loyalty to the throne, "I shall sponsor no legislation which would be financially harming to Joe Hendrick, who lives at 97 West Avenue"? Clearly it would be perfectly correct for a politician to take this oath with the intent to violate it.

"To implement his own beliefs to the best of his ability, is the proper job of every politician in any legitimate government"? Nonsense! The only proper role of a delegate is to speak for those people whom he represents. Period. No more and no less. It is insane to require every voter to be knowledgeable of the beliefs of all possible candidates before choosing one. Given this, candidates will be voted for even if they have beliefs which none of the populace agree with. And this isn't even going into the fundamental problem of public choice.

Somebody asked about the government's proper bounds. I am not, not, not, not, let me repeat, not interested in discussing this, but in the spirit of AnswerAllQuestions I guess I should at least describe my view. The sole legitimate purpose of government is to protect the three fundamental rights, to life, liberty, and private property. See fuller discussion on some other wiki page which I can't recall (EditMe if you care). This necessitates the existence of a military (for outside threats) as well as a police force (for inside threats). A system with multiple branches of government, as well as checks and balances between them, helps a lot in protecting the rights from the government itself. As to the actual laws which this system is to implement, there are two possible types: Effect-based ("murder is illegal regardless of how it is performed") and cause-based ("the possession of guns is illegal"). Which is appropriate depends on applicable risks, and on how willing people are to comply. Unless there is some reason that it is insufficient, effect-based is preferable. Speed limits are cause-based legislation, but necessary. Recycling has nothing to do with protecting the fundamental rights, so it's wrong to mandate it. Don't anybody dare start a discussion of rights on this page, there are other pages for that.

There are several such pages at LetsDefineRights? but they're a mess. And your position that rights are "life, liberty and private property" has been argued and been soundly defeated.

It is significant that you consider the appropriateness of a law to be judged only on how effective it is likely to be, conspicuously neglecting whether or not the laws have harmful side-effects which impinge on people's rights.

I could answer that... but no means no. Why is the opening gambit always "Your position has been argued and disproven conclusively?" Surely that wasn't the most inflammatory thing which could have been said. Perhaps it's an attempt at self-reassurance?

Here's the proper analysis of the oath-of-office situation:

Does taking an oath magically cause people to believe that you're telling the truth despite having blatantly stated that you intend to do the exact opposite? If not then there is no problem; the oath is just a fairy tale to you and your saying it does not deceive anyone. If so then, taking the oath is lying and thus immoral.

Does a politician have any right to be elected to the government? Not at all! Given this, is there a mechanism by which the voting population can be represented in government when it wishes the abolition of the monarchy? If so then this alternate mechanism must be employed.

If not then, is representation in the government necessary to secure the population's rights? If so then it is moral to lie, because the right to the truth is just about the lowest priority right. If not then is it possible for the population to abolish the government which does not represent them without being represented in it? Yes, it is. In fact, that's the only way to cause any significant social change.