Legal Positivism is a doctrine about when laws are legitimate, from wikipedia:

Two examples of this outlook that I have seen on these forums:
http://www.peiinfo.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=421405#p421405

And
http://www.peiinfo.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=421268#p421268

There are at least 8 ways to judge laws as illegitimate:
http://www.clarionreview.org/2009/10/re ... n-thought/
via http://www.corbettreport.com/episode-20 ... tural-law/
See 'via' link to see how the American tax code breaks all of these.

Laws may also be judged illegitimate through their relationship natural law and morality. Such a post may follow after more research.

Just because you don't like a law doesn't mean its invalid. Buck up, suck it up and have some respect. Way too many people these days have so much disrespect for their fellow man but they don't even realize it. Didn't put your signal light on... disrespect, threw your litter out the window... disrespect, cursing in a public park with kids nearby... disrespect, thinking you are above the law and use a stop sign as a yield... disrespect.

No. Actually there is only one way to judge if laws are legitimated.
If our elected legislators have decided that a law will be written then that law is legitimate.

If they choose at some point to remove the law from the books then there is no longer a law to judge.

If you don't like a law then lobby to have it rewritten or removed. You are no hero when you act unilaterally to break the law. You are just another common criminal.

It is not "fare" that you can become a criminal for not wearing a seatbelt but that's as far as I go in this cab.

For those of you playing at home, this is the 'straw man fallacy'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Actually he directed your query directly. No strawman argument at all.
Perhaps if you were to present some of your arguments without the constant assistance of Wikipedia you would have more credibility?

It's a pretty lazy argument if all you can do is copy and paste web links with no coherent thoughts of your own on the matter.

Ok, I'll play. Which part of my reply was misrepresenting? I answered you directly with my first sentence and then gave examples of how people who think they can break laws/rules/social norms they believe are false are nothing but disrespectful persons.

Just because a person doesn't agree with your view doesn't make them wrong. Which is very very similar to 'Just because you think a law is bad doesn't mean you can break it'. Do you see a trend here?

edit to add:

Because you like wiki, read up and tell me which one I commited http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

Most LAWS aren't laws they are acts and statutes.
The law comes from the bible originally meaning it is LAW and we are in common law district which does not deal with money. Ask a Judge to produce his oath of office he swore to. I bet he won't produce it.

WRONG.
No law comes from the bible. Period.
Laws come from elected officials.

Are you a paid Gov. troll? can we people not think for ourselves? Seems you can't do anything without Gov. do they wipe your a$$?

Honestly. I try to give you the benefit of the doubt but there is no way in hell you can be this stupid.
Facts are facts. Whether or not I agree with it or YOU agree with it the government of the day decides our laws.
THE BIBLE DOES NOT. Get it? Can you at least wrap your head around that simple FACT?

You start a post - and refer to me because I question your ability to be driving a taxi?

You do not want to follow the laws. Fine and dandy. Don't.

Do not then place yourself in a trade that requires you to follow laws that are required to protect the rest of us from fools.

I have seen enuf bad taxi drivers in my time to know that the laws in place for them are required - and many of them need to be enhanced to pull bad drivers off the road.

You have been cited at least 4 times - at least 3 under the HTA. For me that would require a serious review of your driving ability and need to hold a taxi license.

I have lived in many cities across Canada - and travelled to many cities in North and South America. No where have I seen such blatant disregard for the rules of the road as here by taxi drivers.

Find another job. Tim's is hiring.

Phil

Lol!

You mean to tell me there were no laws before the bible came into existence?!

I am always tickled by people who say they always follow the law. I wonder how many of them could recite the over 300 offenses listed in the Highway Traffic Act alone! See fine schedule at the end of the act for a concise list.
http://www.gov.pe.ca/law/statutes/pdf/h-05.pdf

Perhaps my favorite is s214(a) that subjects you to a $500-fine if you have a blind on your car window to keep the sun out of your kids' eyes. If the letter of the law is your standard for punishment then you are insane.



The audio recording of my trial is very interesting if you keep this in mind.
http://libertypei.blogspot.ca/2012/10/p ... io_13.html

Children's sun shades are in fact semi-transparent and designed to conform to motor vehicle acts. You need to really think about what you are reading before you make a statement like that.

I managed to listen to some of the audio clip and the only conclusion that I Could draw is that you are a massive child and do not deserve to share our roads.

Thank you for providing me with 25 minutes of entertainment on a cold Sunday afternoon. The only way to make that more entertaining (something to think about) would be to go on Judge Judy.

The best part is that if you would have shown any respect for the court or law during the trial you may very well have got off with a minimum fine. Since you are an immature know it all with complete contempt for the judge rightfully gave you the maximum penalty. Good on her.

At the risk of putting words into AshleyJohnston's mouth I believe the point he is attempting to make is that in his opinion law requires a justification antecedant to it.

In other words does law define right and wrong or is law based upon an a priori understanding of what constitutes right and wrong or justice.

There are a number of controversial situations that revolve around this issue. The most obvious being abortion but we see assisted suicide mentioned more and more often as well. Laws restricting the use of marijuana also generate controversy.

Positive Law says you obey the law regardless of whether or not there is legitimate justification. The common extreme example usually involves Nazi Germany and their attempts to exterminate the Jewish population. Do you follow the law because it is the law or do you refuse to follow it because you feel that the law lacks a priori justification?

Anyway. I believe this was the question that the original poster was attempting to generate responses to.

The only thing wrong with that whole sound clip, is, that at the time, Judge Orr did not find this brat in contempt of court, and throw his sorry ass into sleepy hollow indefinatly until he learned to show some respect.