When is it okay to break the law?

That's a spook.

No, it's not.

What the fuck is law derived from then?

When you don't get cought.

The self interest of the person enforcing the law.

Morality is derived from the ego, ergo laws are derived from nature ----> Natural laws come from the Universe=God.

Checkmate atheists.

Laws are purely pragmatic compromise between a state and it's citizens.

When it contradicts your higher standards.

But for that to work you must keep higher standards and ethics, it doesn't work if you are a promiscuous degenerate and claim "muh conscience" to keep breaking the law.

When a law is unjust. Anything that prevents you from an action that doesn't harm anyone else, for example.

Willful deviation from the natural state.

Why should there not be laws to protect people from themselves? How do you define harming someone? Is say pumping a bunch of coal into the air and not paying attention to what waste goes into the water harming someone?

This, as long as you do not get caught, everything is fair.

A society ideally restricts the liberties of its members as little as possible while maintaining as high a quality of life as possible. Using these, and some common fucking sense, yes pumping shit into the environment without regard for the effect the pollution will have is indeed harming not just someone, but many people.

Laws influence morals, and morals influence laws.
One is not inherently derived from the other.

But how do you define liberties?

When it is to seize power.

When you feel like it

It never is. The Gods care not a whit what we do and morality is a comfortable fiction.

t. Shang.

This

>When the law is being used to perpetuate an injustice against society any any specific group therin
>When the law is nonsensical and the breaking of that law neither harms nor inconvieniences anyone.
>When your immediate survival is at stake. Stealing a loaf of bread to avoid dying of starvation, for example.

All legal alternatives to such an action should be explored thoroughly, and one should seek to inflict as little harm/annoyance as possible.

You mean, when you feel like it AND it benefits you.

people

When you're marlon brando or elvis, then you actually made the law at one point. Luckily, i'm neither.

What people, or more likely their governing bodies, decide what beneficial or harmful to do. Good governments make laws to protect society and deliver justice to those in need of it, bad ones to enrich those in power at the expense of the public. Though in the case of the latter, it is common for your basic 'common sense' laws (no murder, stealing) to be enforced (selectively) to maintain public order.

How to "best" make a group of humans function together as a single unit. In Enlightenment-based Western principles, anyway. Laws are, of course, as often as fallible, culturally subjective and imperfect as humans are.

Still, the origins of codified law have to do with how to make humans living together not all kill each other or act totally selfish. Look at Hammurabi's code, the Ten Commandments, etc. All early codes/laws were dealing with humans who were relatively new to living in inter-connected villages.

>Universe=God.
Wow, how convincing. Check out this christfag logic everyone.

Most things will arguably harm someone in some way, though.

>Not praying 5 times a day, growing a beard and keeping your baby-mama in the house under a bedhseet all day is an injustice to Allah

>Not praying 5 times a day, growing a beard and keeping your baby-mama in the house under a bedhseet all day is nonsensical and inconvenience to your soul's eternity, and offends Allah besides

>Stealing bread or not praying 5 times a day, growing a beard and keeping your baby-mama in the house under a bedhseet all day is vital to your soul's eternity, and is irrelevant to Allah. Thieves will not taste the pleasures of paradise in the afterlife

It's funny, because defying Islamic law pretty much meets all three of those qualifications at once. Mostly by the virtue of wanting to avoid a religious flavored IngSoc society.

actually it isn't, read the book.

What? No.

I'd let her protest in my cellar all night long

When the benefits outweigh the consequences, when you think you are doing the right thing, or when you perceive the law to be unjust.

However, when you break the law, expect to get punished.

>okay
i assume you meant legal

when youre in a country that doesnt have those laws or in international waters or on another planet

And their laws in consequence are also different, so that's not a strong argument against it.

At best it's a bunch of compromises, at worst it's a way for one group to oppress another.

I personally believe that the law works best when it's not derived from people's moral opinion, but provides a framework whereas people can act based on their moral opinions.

>that middle aged-ness setting it
He's starting to look like a blonde Bam Margera

Best answer

When they disobey God's Law.

law is derived from the desire of the elite to mantain their power structures

please re-evaluate everything

not true at all, some laws yes, all law no.

NO

Law != justice.

Sometimes justice takes precedence over law. Just how it is.

name ONE law not derived from morality

When the law is protecting criminals and by breaking it you're helping bring Justice.

The laws of physics

dumblaws.com/

I think that the movie "Higher Principle" (1960, Czechoslovakia - a period of time (until 1968) when our movie industry way making some good shit) is basically about this question and it's consequences, you should czech it out.

>autistic german nigger obsessed with positivism
>right about anything ever

Whenever you can get away with it, or whenever the good that can come of breaking the law outweighs the suffering you will endure for breaking it.

Trafic laws.

when the law is shit