Friday, February 5, 2010
Unjust law
I think that the third choice is the best choice. I think this because if we act out against the law congress would listen to our thoughts better. I think this because it would bring more attention to the law. This can be seen when drinking was made illegal. People acted against the law and brought attention and it was amended. The first choice would never work because it would not bring any attention to the unjust law and we would continue to live with the unjust law. The second choice would not work because congress would not take as much consideration into the law.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with your point. It's just the fact that it will turn violent and corrupt. The second choice is best because it states that the law will be amended later. If we follow that, then we would not get on their bad side. Besides, the time when we should take action is if the government decides to NEVER amend the law.
ReplyDeleteBut there is also several circumstances in history like Britain colonizing India for example where when the people (India in this example) rebelled the law was only made more strict by the suppressors (Britain). I think both 2 and 3 are acceptable depending on the situation and who is inflicting the option and it is also dependent on if they are trying to imperialize and are greedy or they are just trying to contain their community.
ReplyDeletelike kim said, i agree with your concept but the way you go about trying to have it fixed would result in violence and a severe rebellion
ReplyDelete