求大神来拍，字数有些长，不好意思。

yanyunfeiUID: 2732575

TOPIC: ISSUE17 - "There are two typesof laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility toobey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjustlaws."
WORDS: 998
TIME: 00:45:00
DATE: 2010/7/22 16:17:33

The first part of the statement dictatesnormatively that there are always laws that are unjust, but fails to specifythe rationales involved in judging the justice of a law, leaving the valenceassigned to a law susceptible to the differing perceptions and cultural valuesof the various sectors of a society. Such discordant interpretation on lawsfurther complicates the actions justifiable in either complying with orresisting such laws, and the absence of a common end of law enforcement rendersthe proclamation highly desirable as a theoretical ideal but hardly practicalin real life application.

Upon the very nature of law, I prefer tohark back to the enlightenment philosophers of John Locke and Jean-JacquesRousseau and ruminate on the concept of the general will espoused by both. Theprimal objective of a government is to preserve to the greatest extend and withits best efforts, the general will that speaks for the fundamental demand ofthe citizenry. The failure at defending and promoting the general will from itspossible threats, such as murder of an individual's life, robbery at anindividual's property and oppression of the individual's right of personaladvancement, is a failure at the government’s own subsistence, and one of itsprimal defense mechanism protecting the general will is through the enforcementof laws. The populace collectively articulates their demand in the general willand places their trust in the capability of the government who must in turnexercise its compulsory power to ensure that such will is free ofencroachments. Thus law, in this theoretical context, is deemed as the weaponrythat deters and disciplines the offenders in the country, for the continuanceof the trust and the preservation of the general will. Should we approach lawin this fundamental nature, the demarcation of justice and injustice in itsvarious provisions can thus be discerned.

With the establishment of a theoreticalstructuring, we can now fairly confidently say that the justice of law istestified by the law's high conformity to the general will of the populace, andthe injustice is mainly betrayed by the incongruity that deviates from thespirit of the will. However, this still leaves the situation a well-nigh chaosas the general spirit itself is a concept subject to multivalent interpretations,and the different components of the population exerts differing weight on therepresentativeness of the will in particular to their respective perspectives.Such complexity regarding the component of the general will may not force us toabandon it altogether, as the general will can be instead interpreted bysubordinating it to some of the most truthful principles holding true forvirtually all human beings in all civilizations, i.e., the right to survive,the right to seek materialistic gratification, the right to seek individualgrowth via opportunities that are justly distributed and safe from the manipulationby any body of privilege. After all, the general will of the populace, down onits fundamental sense, presents a strong calling for a level ground in whichall individuals must rely on their own vision and talent to achieve successwith all the systematic advantages and disadvantages largely minimized if noteliminated.

Perceived from this manner, the unjust lawsdo exist in their anti-human nature that prevents an otherwise ideal, justplaying ground that eliminates preexisting differences. But the response tosuch laws can hugely differ from the resigned resignation to the status quofrom the most violent upsurge of revolutions that radically change thelandscape of the country. Not surprisingly, those laws that directly interferewith the first two principles of the general will are met with most rebellion,whereas those in conflict with the third also the ultimate principle are quiteoften met with milder forms of opposition, and the amendment to such laws alsohappen in more civil and peaceful manner.

The past feudal imperialism of mankind haswitnessed many full-blown riots that eventually led to the overthrow of a royaldominance, and the very institutional indifference to the fundamental survivingrights of people lower on the social strata stands as the bane for the ruptureof the trust and the final leash of the popular anger. In particular, theancient Chinese dynasties are invariably overthrown by the pariahs at thebottom of the hierarchy that formed into a desperate army and replaced thepreceding imperialism with the one of their own. Unbeknownst to themselves, therebels are in essence disobeying and resisting the unjust law of a regime inits most violent and radical manner, and the huge change such disobediencecaused in history has given rise to the new possibility of a republic or ademocracy that night later replace the feudalism to fundamentally transform thepolitical format of the country.

However, the failure at ensuring a levelplaying ground that does away all systematic differences in advantages does notgenerate as much violent a resistance from the people in general. Indeed,people themselves are much less sensitive to such injustice than the moreconspicuous disadvantages of forced starvation and purposeful denial based onrace, as the offending provisions are either coupled with some more urgent needor that the existence of such systematic difference is intrinsically impossibleto totally evade. The purchase of a cell phone service package is usuallyaccompanied with the willy-nilly obligation imposed on the consumer that he/shemust use up to 70 dollars of fees per month to be qualified for futuresubscription, a case in which the more urgent need of cell phone utilitysurpasses the fundamentally questionable, unjust provision of compulsory usageto certain amount. Also, the health care coverage that must differentiate amongthe widest possible multiplicity of conditions and their origins which may bedue to natural lottery or knowing selection, brings about a highly complicatedjob even to the theorists, with distributional law proposed by Rawls modifiedby luck egalitarianism while opposed by other schools of thought. Thecomplicated nature of discerning the ideal standard of justice in the mosttroublesome cases of reality has in general prevented an infallible,all-encompassing theory to account for all possibilities, and people'stolerance to the breach of the third principle, partly from their inability ofunderstanding the issue and partly from the strategic compliance that preservesthe more desired end, seems not to elicit a wide range of resistance from thepopulace, and the statement that everyone must disobey and resist unjust laws ismost severely debunked in the analysis on this case.

yuanlinqinggreUID: 2755904

.....lz字数真多

dongyiranUID: 2731976

OMG！！！楼主写了1000字！！！！

zhangjunzjUID: 2658970

楼主太牛了，不用改了