issue17 persistfor

persistforUID: 2283957

TOPIC: ISSUE17 - "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."
WORDS: 533          TIME: 01:00:00          DATE: 2008-3-26 21:13:21

The assertion included in the passage asserts two facts: The first is that all laws can be divided into two kinds--the just and unjust ones. The second is that individuals have responsibility to obey the right and disobey the unjust laws. However, in my opinion, the laws can not simply recognize as just laws and unjust laws. Hence I have different opinion with the author on the second point which is built upon the first point. My opinion lies on the following aspects.
The opinion that whether laws can be divided into two opposite kinds is doubt. Different cultures around the world exist in different countries and as a result of sorts of different opinions, the laws carried in different area are different. For instance, the rate of consumer tax in Hong Kong is very low which is a sharp contrast to that in the mainland of China. Can we get our conclusion of which law if more justifiable? Actually what the policy taken in Hong Kong is due to it position on world where it is an international port. While the policy carried in most area of China is matched with the current situation. Disobeying either law of the two area with the excuse of disobey the unjust law may have a negative effect on the society and even worse such behavior may hamper the right of other people which is protected by the law. In fact, in democracy country any law executed has its opponent. The reason is just because of different people stand for different groups whose interests may mutually exclusive. In this point, we can say that any law carried by society has been preponderated between its benefits and its flaws which means the final conclusion is that what it can bring to us outweighs its inconvenience. Consequently, the idea that the law can be separated into two parts is not acceptable.
To the second place, even we concede that all the laws can be divided into two parts; will the disobeying of the law be a right way to express our discontent with the laws? In any open society, people have their way to express their opinion and any unjust law will not last for a long time. What is claimed by the author implies that the only way to change the current situation is to taking an opposite activity while he or she ignores some consequences which may have a harm effect on the innocent people. When people complain about the high rate of the personal income tax, they may pay little attention to the proper use of this money. If more and more free-riders emerge in America, the government may do not have sufficient money to accolade for its budget which means the unemployed and sick people may lost their opportunity to survive. Even worse, riot may happen if the wealth of society is not accolade fairly. In that case, most of people' life will be mass and the original purpose can never be targeted.
In sum, I strongly disagree with the author' opinion and in my opinion the only way we can make our life better is that following normal way and appealing to legislate institute.