Post #3381308

My problem is that different people have different ideas on how things should be That’s where I see the problem as well. This also goes a long way to solving the problem of unjust laws, as every law that applies to a person would do so because they consented to be under those laws by entering that country. It’s not something that somebody who has broken the law can use to avoid consequences because once the law was broken on the land to which it applies then nothing can undo that. But… what if they are born in that land? Here is my problem. Your proposition is prescriptive. It is what you believe would lead to the best outcome. You makes subjective, moral judgements and state that those actions justify overthrowing a country or “punishing those who behave unconscionably”. How have you determined those judgements to justify such actions? The entire system is your ideal, not necessarily the ideal of everyone. It would have to be enforced to be feasible but what if not everyone consented to be in that system? You also seem to think that people can live in their own isolated societies that they consent to be ruled under, completely ignoring the unavoidable reality that everyone can impact everyone, regardless of whether they are neighbors or live in another country. Am I free to hoard rare resources other desperately need because my country sits on them? Am I free to utilize cuthroat practices to gain power for my country over yours? Who decides how these things are resolved and what is ok and what is not? If countries are working together to compromise, now both countrys’ citizens are forced to compromise on their utopia or forced to endure whatever neighboring countries might do to them.