How to Approach Unjust Laws
by G. Stolyarov II

            But how do we, as private citizens seeking justice, approach these unjust laws? What is the best way to act in order to ensure that the harms of these laws are minimized and that they are eventually repealed – without bringing harm on oneself or those for whom one cares?

            The first and most obvious response is to proclaim the injustice of such governmental mandates and restrictions whenever possible. Fortunately, speech in the United States is still largely free, and one cannot be governmentally penalized for expressing views that disapprove of the political status quo. If you consider any law unjust, spread the word by writing and speaking about it where you have a chance of getting a receptive audience. Engage in private discussions and publish your thoughts online; both methods cost virtually no money and might even enhance your reputation as a valuable voice in the political and social discussions of our time.

            Second, it is essential to recognize the counterproductive nature of openly violating unjust laws and thereby bringing harm upon oneself. Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King managed to engage in effective civil disobedience because of their prominence as public figures – which enabled them to turn an unjust arrest into an opportunity to promote their causes via large media channels. Most people do not have this resort. If they are arrested, fined, or otherwise inconvenienced by the government, few people will find out and fewer still will decry the injustice. Moreover, a person who has been penalized by the government is no longer as effective at combating injustices as he might once have been.

            Yet it is important to recognize two distinct classes of unjust laws. One kind only brings direct harms on the individual himself. Filling out government paperwork is an example of this. Certainly, this wastes hours of time and carries substantial opportunity costs. But it does not actively deprive anyone else of existing property, health, or freedoms. Since the costs to oneself of not obeying these unjust laws – the costs of paying huge fines or going to jail – substantially outweigh the inconvenience of these laws, it is best to obey.

            The second class of unjust laws, however, forces individuals to directly inflict harm on others. The clearest example of this could be found in Nazi Germany, where anyone who failed to disclose the location of Jews in hiding could be arrested as a traitor. In the antebellum United States, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was a prime example of such a law – requiring Northerners to cooperate with slave hunters who came into the Northern states. These kinds of laws ought never to be obeyed – but the disobedience should still be concealed from the public eye. Whenever an individual obeys an unjust law aimed at harming others, he becomes an agent in the injustice and perpetrates the very harm the government intends to inflict.

            Hence, obeying unjust laws is acceptable when it only implies carrying a personal burden, but not when it actively aids and effectuates the injustice.

            But there is a third and more ambiguous class of laws – one that does not force individuals to commit injustices against others, but gives them the option of doing so. Currently, it is legal for some individuals to become the recipients of wealth that the government unjustly expropriated from its producers. Any kind of transfer payment program – be it government poverty relief or corporate welfare – fits this designation. Here, the moral component of participating in such schemes is ambiguous. For instance, a recipient of Social Security paid money into the program against his will for much of his working life; it is only fair that he should receive back the money he put in – with proper adjustments made for the opportunity cost of not having been able to use that money during much of his life. If he only tries to get back from the government what is rightfully his, he commits no injustice.

            However, the entire point of wealth redistribution – in the eyes of government officials – is to have some people be net winners and others be net losers due to the redistributive scheme. If one is a net loser from a redistributive scheme, one obviously has committed no injustice; rather, one is the victim of injustice. If one is a net winner, however, some attempt to rectify the injustice needs to be made.

            It is, of course, crucial to never attempt to place oneself in the position of a net winner due to a government scheme. An individual seeking to avoid inflicting unjust harms on others ought never to apply for government “unemployment assistance” or special favors to his company. He should never try to cripple his business competitors in the form of tariffs, quotas, regulations, and subsidies to himself. If one happens to be a net winner from a government scheme by chance or out of some peculiar necessity, one should attempt to identify the losers of the scheme and compensate them out of one’s winnings. Then the harms of the redistributive program might be mitigated at least.

            For instance, a corporation that receives more in government subsidies than it paid in corporate income taxes might identify competitors that lose on net from government impositions and give them its excess subsidy revenue so as to render the government intervention neutral with regard to itself and alleviate some of the injustices imposed on others. A person who has for some reason had to accept government unemployment assistance in the past should find some net taxpayers to the government and give them the excess of his welfare benefits over his tax contributions. Or he might try to earn so high an income as to make the taxes he pays over his entire lifetime exceed his gains from the welfare system.

            Most importantly, it is necessary to recognize that much of the harm of unjust laws can be rectified through legal, private actions that effectively undo the harms of impositions such as wealth redistribution. This approach requires private commitment to justice and self-restraint from the temptation to feed at the public trough. But if it is followed through by enough people, continuing prosperity and effective freedom will result.

Discuss this Article (0 messages)