Why are we obliged to obey the government?

If consent is the basis for political obligation, then why do we abide by laws that we have not explicitly consented to? If I have no means other than to abide by these laws, is the power that is being exercised over me legitimate? If a government is ruling without explicit consent, it cannot be governing in our best interests and therefore should not be allowed to punish those who choose to disobey it.

Do you feel that we should all be obliged to obey the government, with or without explicit consent?

 

Well if there was a land with no law surrounded by a huge wall, then I'd say you can choose what you do. Stick with law, or take your chances.

Law is good, most laws generally stop people from fucking other people over. So most of them are good. Yes it sucks that paying taxes etc are laws, but if you didn't abide by them, there would be no money for police etc. Meaning there would probably be thousands of murders etc each day.

 

Ideally the government will be there to enforce your contracts, and generally laws are there to keep your contracts enforced or to prevent someone from depriving you of your rights. I am sure you use a road, attended a school, or used some other government service. The government allows the mass organization of people that most other entities are not capable of.

 

We're not debating over whether or not laws can be beneficial to upholding a social contract. We're discussing whether or not I should have to abide by these laws if I have not explicitly consented to them. Yes, the majority of laws are in place to protect the masses and to 'uphold justice'. However, why should I have to adhere to them if I have not consented to them?

Neither of you have actually proposed why I should oblige by the laws that a government sets, you have only addressed what the laws are there for.

 

The government is one big gang,
laws are laws, abide by them, deal with it, live your miserable life as a slave to the puppets.

 

Because you'll be penalized and punished otherwise?

People follow laws, because let's face it, they have a gun to their back. If the conditions aren't bad enough to warrant revolt against these laws, the majority will think of no reason to not follow them and risk the blow back.

Another reason to follow most laws is to not encroach on others rights, ideally.

 

Threat of force. There is no other reason.

 

This pretty much sums it up.

Whether we choose to accept it or not can be based on numerous reasons.

 

True that.

Theoretically though it is the implicit and explicit consent of the majority.

 

Agreed.

 

The mere threat of force is not enough to warrant political obligation as it does not legitimise the power that the government is exercising over you.

There is a distinct difference between political duress and political obligation.

 

It's the same way that we comply to authority figures, it's what we do. With the government it's mainly because of the consequences that can come from 'breaking the law'.

Btw, a really interesting psychological study conducted about obedience to authority -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

 

I think law is good and I couldn't imagine a world without it I feel like it would just be chaos and ruin.

 

There is no such thing as legitimate governments. The "legitimate" government is the one that has the most force on its side.

 

Please refer to this; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_legitimacy

 

Please actually debate or just leave. "Legitimacy" comes from power. Power comes from having the most physical force.

 

I will not debate semantics with you. You are arguing a fallacious point. Political "legitimacy" is not an abstract concept, it has a widely accepted definition and I would advise you to read up on it before returning to this thread.

 

Of course it is an abstract concept. Can you hold a "political legitimacy"? No. Is it a concept? Yes. Therefore it is an abstract concept.

 

Not all concepts are there by abstract. An abstract concept refers to an idea with no physical referents, such as "love" or "freedom". Yes, political legitimacy is a concept, but it is concrete in its definition and understanding.

 

It isn't physical and therefore it is abstract. That really can not be argued. x = 2 is abstract even though we know exactly what it means.