issue17：【jet小组第八次作业】

LITTERBOULDERUID: 2367811

Issue17  第5篇让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：56分25秒     539 words
从2008年1月15日15时5分到2008年1月15日16时56分
------题目------
There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws.
------正文------
Considering two types of laws whether just or unjust, is it our compulsory responsibility to obey just laws while disobey and resist unjust ones, as the speaker contends? As far as I am concerned, laws play a pivotal role in regulating our behaviors and ensuring societal progress. However we social beings, especially in democratic societies with critical thinking and sense of logic and equality, should never categorically comply with unjust laws imposed on us, which threaten the public’s interests by satisfying such autocracy authorities.

Admittedly, a myriad of factors, criterions and evaluating methods are applied to justify the fairness of laws. After all laws always amount to fairness and justice, and to a contracture of human thoughts and beliefs .Yet, all attempts to examine the fairness of laws are inevitably to be a failure, for the limitation of social environment, historical experience as well as our value system. Considering the argument on monogyny and polygamy, history tells us the responses to the same law can be different even conflicting in various time periods. Considering people's or nation’s attitudes towards Euthanasia, this controversial issue conveys a hint that different social environment can lead to various perspectives toward one thing. Furthermore, our value system, especially religious belief, also affects our justice to the law such as premarital pregnancy and abortion.

Although it is hard even impossible to draw a final conclusion on the fairness of a particular law, which in the first place should take every individual's interest into account, we must believe, for whatever reasons, any democratic authority will put the public's interest over privilege persons or groups. Doubtlessly, these authorities establish laws according to the demands from the citizenry, which guarantees the laws established is representative of public wills, furthermore guarantees the stability of our society and nation. Yet, any laws no matter how rigorous of its logical system or how well discussed before its establishment, some flaws inextricably exist. To optimize it, we should contribute our wisdom and endeavor, not through disobeying even violence which would bring nothing beneficial to the evolvement of our laws. Take Nixon's excuse to the Watergate cover-up for example; who wanted to depend on so-call 'executive privilege' or 'imperial presidency' in laws to beg questions. However, our sensitive and open-minded authority forced him to resign and strengthened the Freedom of Information Act to require prompt responses to requests for information from government files.

Another significant problem which would be easily ignored is that, in certain time period, our authority is totally controlled by demagoguery or brute forces—those place their own interests above the public and are against the principle that bring their power. For example, Stamp Act and Sugar Act imposed on Americans by Great British ,who want to get more benefit from its colonies irrespective of public's interests such as living condition and business situations , are most compelling, which cause a chain of reactions from Boston Tea Party to the Independent War.  At such circumstances we should violate these unjust laws, in ways of non-violent resistance even violent struggling, just as Mahatma Gandhi and American founders.

To sum up, I agree with the speaker that it's our duty to find out flaws in laws. After all, it is the responsibility that our laws ensure us. However , as to how we express our disagreement , I insist a case-by-case basis, at least to democratic authorities, some gentle forms such as advising is more suitable more violent disseverance.