Topic: News: Bulgaria's Boevski Abused by Prisoners in Brazilian Jail - Lawyer

[Arturo Gómez]

But, Boevsky in not a militant for freedom. So, he is not a hero. He only tray to make a money with the drug. Independent of respetable people who have a discrepant opinion with drug politic today. A man must assume the risks of his acts. Everyday have here people in prission for cause of cocaine.

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

His motivations are irrelevant, though the desire to make profit through voluntary trade is completely moral. His acts are moral. The acts of those who initiated the use of violence to search him, steal his property, and put him in prison are immoral. In fact, he would have been completely within his moral right of self-defense to shoot anyone who violated his rights in this manner.

[Arturo Gómez]

Ok, I am not lawyer, but my friends lawyers says that moral and law are different things. Law may be inmoral. And moral may be against the law. So, the actions of the people should be to moralize the laws. Certainly.

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Absolutely. Every government in the history of the world has passed numerous unjust laws and nearly every government in the world rejected the assertion by Nazi Germany that "just following orders [law]" is an excuse for committing such injustices. Thus the only moral option, according to world consensus, the golden rule, the principle of equality under the law and the non-aggression principle is for each individual to decide if a law is moral or not. Incidentally, this proves the utter senselessness of having written law [which must always ignore context and merely establishes the oligarchy of attornies] beyond the non-aggression-principle. If the law is immoral, it is not only moral but, according to world consensus, ethically mandatory to at least not cooperate with it if not to violate it. The only objective way to determine whether a law is moral or not is to decide whether it violates the non-aggression principle, the principle that it is never moral to initiate aggression, coercion and fraud against others. The drug war requires the initiation of violence to enforce and is thus objectively demonstrated to be an unjust law, not to mention the police state necessary to enforce it which violates almost all individual rights or the racist way it is implemented [disproportionately imprisoning "blacks" more and longer for the same "offenses."]

Anyone who fights against the drug war is a hero; anyone who supports and enforces the drug war is a criminal.

[Arturo Gómez]

But I think exist a difference between
1) violate a law
2) fight against a law, face to world

Both may coincide, like  some of the Ghandi movements. If tomorrow, somebody proclames a walk carryng 100 kgs of cocaine, to protest against drug war, they are fighting against the law. If other people try to pass with cocaine in his clothes in an aeroport, only is violating a law for personal vantagens. Probably loves drug war, because gives him more oportunities of money wins.

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Possessing private property and participating in voluntary trade for personal profit is completely moral and lawful [in a just society]. It is the interference with this basic right which is immoral and criminal. What the criminals write down as "law" is of no consequence morally. Criminals never have a problem with crime obviously so its not surprising they "legalize" their crime whenever they can get away with it.

[Arturo Gómez]

I desist.
Boevsky is not my friend, is not my enemy. I don´t receive anything for attack or defend him.
Unhappily, I cannot show that I think, probably for language problem.

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

No worries Arturo. I wasn't trying to argue with you, just trying to make the fantastic importance of the non-aggression principle clear. ;)