Law and Order

[RWStanding]

Law and Order
It has long been a mantra of the Conservative Party that they stand for law and order. A mere slogan perhaps. It is impossible for that to be the limit, for law must have a social-political purpose. With current events across the world [59 killed in shooting, and unrest in Spain] it is no wonder that so much emphasis is placed on rigorous law, and that often extending out from religion. To provide order out of social chaos, law must be imposed. Whatever kind of society we have, there must be a degree of law that seeks to prevent actions by citizens that may reduce law to chaos. The freedom to bear arms is therefore rational, where this may be organised so as to protect society. That people should bear arms as individuals apart from society, is a recipe for chaos.
But the real debate in ethics-politics is at a level above that, as between elementary types of society, as based on sets of consonant values. Any actual society or polity is virtually certain to espouse values that are not all very consistent. Britain has values related to individual freedom, to equality, social responsibility, et al, that do not quite gel together.
In the present context people fall back on religion. And indeed basic forms of society may be expressed religiously. God is Love. God is Law. God is Everyman. [Love is a poor generalised term, and these days barely gets above mere passion]. Real society as it exists is no doubt a mix of each, and will always be so. The question is in the proportions.
As in Spain and Catalonia, there is a moral conflict. There a rigid constitution may be blamed and also what is generally referred to as freedom of speech. In fact no country has such entire freedom, and is what we should claim is freedom of expression. In altruistic democracy they should be able to express a wish for self determination and separation from Spain. There should be channels for this to be discussed in Spain and the EU on a pragmatic basis. The 'freedom' of Catalonia, Scotland, Tibet, Palestine et al. is something that should be determined within a global 'altruist' society. As matters stand this only applies regionally for Catalonia and Scotland. Assuming even there that Britain maintains ethical links with Europe.
At what point is it legitimate for citizens who espouse altruist democracy to actively revolt against government. If we accept that altruist global democracy is based on semi-autonomous cultural polities or countries, then that is one of the elementary forms of society and any move away from it would be an abandonment of the implicit constitution.

[Seleucus]

At what point is it legitimate for citizens who espouse altruist democracy to actively revolt against government. If we accept that altruist global democracy is based on semi-autonomous cultural polities or countries, then that is one of the elementary forms of society and any move away from it would be an abandonment of the implicit constitution.

I suppose there is a contest. In the past. when one house acquired sufficient power they would move to challenge the ruling dynasty. Either they were defeated or proved themselves superior. Democracy attempts to mitigate some of the blood involved in this struggle through peaceful transitions of power. None the less we can no doubt anticipate that considerable violence will continue to be wreaked even in our modern times as older orders are contested and overthrown by new superiors.