Kevin Gowen wrote:

> >>>>> You accept
> >>>>> problematic or flawed decisions as law?
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes. What other choice is there?
> >>>
> >>> Obeying or doing what is actually right.
> >>
> >> I see. So private citizens or public servants who disagree with a
> >> court decision should disregard it in order to do what is actually
> >> right.
> >
> > If a law is wrong, as laws have been in the past, or as seen in other
> > nations or forms of government.
>
> Whoa. What a bizarre statement, especially the part about other nations.

Why? Should we obey "oppressive" laws instead?

> >> Got it.
> >
> > Why would that be a problem?
>
> It's only a problem if you don't want the National Guard showing up at your
> doorstep. Just ask George Wallace.

Depends on the seriousness of the improper law disregarded, and the will to do
what is right in face of any penalty.

> > It was you who posted "It is indeed true
> > that 'later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and
> > proper in fact serve only to oppress.'"
>
> Yes, I did, a statement that refers to the legislative process, not obeying
> and disregarding law as one damn well pleases.

It is not disregarding law as "one damn well pleases", it is doing what is
actually right, in spite of what one would actually like to do.

Why are you not mentioning Kant of late?

> >>> But the decision of the court and what is written in the
> >>> Constitution
> >>> do not determine reality.
> >>
> >> They most certainly determine the reality of what the law is.
> >
> > The law does not determine reality of a single proper speed limit on
> > your street, any more than it determines whether anything else is
> > proper.
>
> I never said anything about proper. I only talked about what the legal speed
> limit is.

Would you care to talk about what the proper speed limit on your street is,
under any given conditions, for you and your car?