When does a law become totalitarian?

The majority of laws are created off of the general societal beliefs; things like murder, theft, and rape are illegal, and they are closely in line with what the general populace believes in.

In fact, the main reason why such laws are enforceable is because they are accepted by the general populace. When only a very small percentage of the population breaks such laws, then the legal system is able to deal with most of them. If the number of cases are too large in volume, then the legal system becomes overwhelmed.

So what about laws that aren’t in line with the views of society? Probably the most famous case (for North Americans) is prohibition, where alcohol was outright banned. An extremely large percentage of the populace disagreed with the law, and a very large percentage broke the law. In the end, the legal system simply couldn’t deal with all the law breakers.

In the present day, we have things like Drug laws and Copyright laws that appear to be completely unenforceable, based purely on the number of people who violate those laws.

The question from this is: at what point can you call a law totalitarian? If a law is not agreed upon by a large percentage of a nation, and that law is continually broken, when can it be considered oppressive to enforce that law?

I can easily show you why some laws exist with which the majority of people does not agree with one law you pointed out yourself.

Copyright law. Nobody except the company who uses it wants the law. Everyone wants to have free games/music/whatever. They’re all breaking it, because it’s so easy. They don’t want it, but it protects the companies.

It is oppresive to enforce a law that the majority of educated opinion, and opinion in general, does not support.

That is, if 51% of regular people don’t support it, and 51% of people educated enough to have a valid opinion on the matter don’t support it, then the law should go.

Personally, i believe laws should only be enacted in the first place if this is the case.

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

I can easily show you why some laws exist with which the majority of people does not agree with one law you pointed out yourself.

Copyright law. Nobody except the company who uses it wants the law. Everyone wants to have free games/music/whatever. They’re all breaking it, because it’s so easy. They don’t want it, but it protects the companies.

Copyright law is a much deeper subject than you make it out to be, but this isn’t really the topic to discuss the ins and outs of it.

To put the argument in context, though, you say “They’re all breaking it, because it’s so easy”. That’s untrue. You’d be surprised at how many people violate copyright law without even realizing it. Even before the internet, tape-sharing was extremely widespread, and something that occurred frequently at any major music events.

Copyright just isn’t a “natural law”, as in it doesn’t extend itself from societal belief. Namely, it’s entirely contrary to current beliefs about property, ownership and being good natured in general. When you buy something, you own it, and you can do whatever you want with it, as long as you’re not breaking any other laws. Copyright runs contrary to this understanding, in that you actually don’t own the “intellectual property” that you purchase. And with anything else that you own, if someone asks to use something of yours, the initial reaction of most people is to agree. Like a neighbour wanting to borrow a lawnmower, or a friend wanting to borrow your bike. If someone likes a song you have, and asks if they can have it, very few people will even think that giving it away is illegal.

Not that I’m saying breaking copyright laws is good or bad. Just that it’s not even considered in daily life. When someone hears a song, they usually don’t stop to think about whether it’s legal or not. If you watch a clip on Youtube, you probably don’t think if the clip is violating some law, or if the music in the background has been properly licensed, etc.

So really, the question is this: If a law is broken by a large majority of the population on a daily basis without them realizing it, is it oppressive to enforce that law?

You can’t look at individual laws, you have to look at systems. There isn’t a clear cut definition that I am aware of, but it is mainly a measure of how many laws effect individual civil liberties.

Originally posted by SaintAjora:

You can’t look at individual laws, you have to look at systems. There isn’t a clear cut definition that I am aware of, but it is mainly a measure of how many laws effect individual civil liberties.

Hmm, fair enough.

Now, I hate to keep harping on the Copyright issue, but unfortunately I don’t know examples for other issues that are quite as good. So, since we’re talking about laws effecting individual civil liberties:

The damages awarded for Copyright infringement range from $750-$150000 per work infringed on (this range is bound by law). In two cases in the USA, the damages were assigned at $1.92million and $225,000 (I think). The former was for 30 songs, the latter for 20 songs. In both cases, neither defendant was a commercial infringer, and the actual charges were isolated solely to downloading and uploading music via KaZaa. Now, both defendants were undeniably guilty of infringement, so that’s not in question.

To sum that up, the punishment for Copyright infringement for individuals is bankruptcy. If bankruptcy wasn’t an option, then it would basically amount to more than a lifetime’s earnings.

And my second example isn’t a law in place yet, but one that’s being pushed for in many countries (and has actually been passed in France). The “3-Strikes Law” is basically a law that if someone is served three cease-and-desist warnings for infringement, then that person’s ISP is legally bound to kick them off the internet, without judicial oversight. In other words, Copyright law is allowed to assume that people are guilty until proven innocent, and ignore due process through the legal system.

I can find sources if you need them.

So really, the question is this: If a law is broken by a large majority of the population on a daily basis without them realizing it, is it oppressive to enforce that law?

Not enforcing them would cause an uproar throughout all of the companies having a weak spot there. It’s simply a law that should be there even though the majority of people is breaking it, intentionally or not. Perhaps the point you bring up that nobody actually even realizes what they do is illegal makes for a case that there should be information on copyright law available for everyone. Not as a passive source of information, but actively being distributed to people.

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

Not enforcing them would cause an uproar throughout all of the companies having a weak spot there. It’s simply a law that should be there even though the majority of people is breaking it, intentionally or not. Perhaps the point you bring up that nobody actually even realizes what they do is illegal makes for a case that there should be information on copyright law available for everyone. Not as a passive source of information, but actively being distributed to people.

Wait…so you are arguing that the wants of a select few should determine the rights of the population?

If the vast majority of a population perform an act without even realizing it, and a small minority want that act stamped out, how is that not oppressive?

Wait…so you are arguing that the wants of a select few should determine the rights of the population?

The wants of the majority of people is to have companies willing to provide products for them. They also want everything for free. Either of these wants has to go and considering only the first will ever arise, the second has to be put up as a law. Companies are not willing to “sell” their products for nothing, they will therefore have to be protected from what destroys a company.

If the vast majority of a population perform an act without even realizing it, and a small minority want that act stamped out, how is that not oppressive?

The problem is that if it was legal, you’ll pretty soon have companies stopping their productions left and right. It’s not an oppression either, if you look at what I said above. The actual want of people is to have products provided to them. This will not happen if they can just get everything for free, eventually not being able to get anything at all.

Naturally, this won’t happen with very physical products (even though you can still borrow them from others), but any CD can be copied. Any song can be downloaded.

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

The wants of the majority of people is to have companies willing to provide products for them. They also want everything for free. Either of these wants has to go and considering only the first will ever arise, the second has to be put up as a law. Companies are not willing to “sell” their products for nothing, they will therefore have to be protected from what destroys a company.

The problem is that if it was legal, you’ll pretty soon have companies stopping their productions left and right. It’s not an oppression either, if you look at what I said above. The actual want of people is to have products provided to them. This will not happen if they can just get everything for free, eventually not being able to get anything at all.

Naturally, this won’t happen with very physical products (even though you can still borrow them from others), but any CD can be copied. Any song can be downloaded.

Ergh, you’re making it awfully hard not to turn this into a Copyright debate.

Companies and businesses do not have a right to exist, or to make a set amount of profit. In any other industry, it is the companies duty to follow the flow of the market, not the other way around. When the market comes to a state where those companies can no longer turn a profit, then they close down. That’s capitalism and the free market.

What you’re suggesting is that when the market starts to go sour for a certain industry, that laws “have to be” enacted to force the population to maintain business for that industry.

The market is actually one of the few places where you can see true democracy at work, namely that all decisions rely on the mass of individuals acting in concert. When an industry improves or declines, it’s because the masses have “decided” it.

I will say this directly about copyright though: The claim that “if it can’t be sold, it won’t exist” is doubly false, because there are proven examples of groups giving away their product and making huge business (Google anyone?) and many proven examples of content being created without any intent to profit.

I would define a totalitarian law as a law that violates natural law; whether the support for the law is a majority of the population or not. The basis of natural law that I believe is that everyone owns themself. By extension, they own the fruits of their own labor. The things people own may be exchanged under terms that are mutually agreeable – force or fraud violate these terms.

Many people have many different reasons to impose their own opinions on others in ways that violate natural law. I would call all of these totalitarian. Laws against drugs, prostitution, copyright infringement, smoking, etc. are all cases of people imposing their own desires on others in ways that violate natural law. Not that I like drugs or prostitution or any of the others; but I think it’s wrong to impose laws regarding them.

I know this is a legal thread and not a piracy thread, but why don’t lawnmower companies start requiring RFID chips in equipment so that your neighbor can’t use it unless his personal ID is pre-programmed in by proprietary lawnmower technology? Seems indifferent from the way software has been treated. If there was some kind of commercial theft of software everywhere, I’d start to agree with those laws. Realistically, a company won’t survive if everyone steals their work, so digital piracy only reflects the popularity of a product and doesn’t necessarily count as a lost sale.

Well I think everything should be free… but back on topic.

We should only have one law, a golden law, if you will:

Do what you want as long as long as it doesn’t impede on another’s freedom.

Which freedoms are these?

Originally posted by pmr0078:

Well I think everything should be free… but back on topic.

We should only have one law, a golden law, if you will:

Do what you want as long as long as it doesn’t impede on another’s freedom.

Well, let’s question that for a moment. What happens when the majority of society says that it is okay to impede on a specific group’s freedoms?

If 70% of a country thinks that it’s okay to steal from left-handed people, is it possible for the law/government to stop such behaviour without being an oppressive force?

Freedom is not defined by the opinion of the majority. See my earlier post for explanation.

If 70% of a country thinks that it’s okay to steal from left-handed people, is it possible for the law/government to stop such behaviour without being an oppressive force?

If said government doesn’t stop such behavior they become an oppressive force.

Freedom is not defined by the opinion of the majority.

Maybe, but unless you can enforce that when the majority disagrees then you are just blowing hot air.

Originally posted by Iggyshark:

If said government doesn’t stop such behavior they become an oppressive force.

You still haven’t answered the question: How can the government force the majority of a population to act a certain way without being oppressive?

Preserving the rights of it’s citizen’s is oppressive now?

Originally posted by Iggyshark:

Preserving the rights of it’s citizen’s is oppressive now?

Do you even understand the question?

Do you even understand the question?

I don’t think you do. It is the government’s responsibility to protect the rights of it’s citizens. Including the left-handed.

Originally posted by Iggyshark:

I don’t think you do. It is the government’s responsibility to protect the rights of it’s citizens. Including the left-handed.

So you’re saying that forcing the majority of a population to act a certain way against their wishes is not oppressive?

The argument is not whether the law and the enforcement is justified.

Oppressive means unreasonable burden, and I don’t see anything unreasonable in what Iggy suggested.

Originally posted by SaintAjora:

Oppressive means unreasonable burden, and I don’t see anything unreasonable in what Iggy suggested.

And what is an “unreasonable burden”?

What does right and wrong have to do with how a person feels? If the majority of a country feel that something is right, and that their government is fining them, sending them to jail, and generally punishing them for that they feel is right, are you saying that they would not feel oppressed?