Interesting questions here.

I cannot forget that any logical system is a closed universe based in premisses. The result is that in any of those logics, being close systems, anything false or wrong can be proven true when inside its logic, just because they obey it's own premisses working like rules.

In other words, the Information Law "Garbage in Garbage out" is a good parallel.

Why this introduction? The cultural (premisses) basis of law.

Sudenly the question arises: What is law? Because law (in principle) serves an higher goal, the one of justice. And that is the point: When is a law the opposite of LAW? Because a law can be made to oppose the purpose of LAW. Is it LAW? No! Is it accepted as LAW? Maybe!

The problem that the video awaken in my mind is: Why do we make a LAW? As a way to obtain justice regadless of the situation (Treaky isn't it?) but also to serve the comunity.

We must understand and accept that the LAW is to serve the COMUNITY and NOT that the comunity does not exists to serve the law. The inversion of priorities is also a negation of the purpose of a LAW. Thus the question: when a law is a LAW is understandable.

An example: a law that is not a LAW... is just a DIRECTIVE forced as LAW that it negastes....Something very nasty like extermination or torture.

Is that the reason for an higher law: A constitution? I suppose so.

But The questions on the video also remind me another subject: The way SOME laws are made are just to circunvent real LAW. By opening ways to doubt and personal interpretations. And this leads to another question: If there such possibility why don't a LAW has the historial of the reasons to it's existence attached, so they may be a dirrection to avoid bogus interpretations?

An extermination of people CAN be approved in a insane context, but it really would have no value. The resistance in France was ILLEGAL under the NAZI rule. They would be classified as terrorist because they did NOT served an official  (i.e.)recognized by the nazis) army.

Well. I'm sure that many nazis "did what was done" in good faith. Many acctually believed they were the good guys saiving the world. And they were right by their premisses. That logical closed system had it's own (though perverted) coherence. Is it diferent today? I mean: Do people recognise the premisses, or they just accept arguments feed to them?

The manipulation of reasonning is MUCH more easy and spread today. Goebbels would be delighted with what advertisers do today (and specially with what psy-ops can do to distort the perception of a reallity). I just wonder if the psy-ops are aware they are the first victims of their own medicine, just like the nazis where. And like them "for a good cause".

Is it a good cause when the values and perception where distorted? That happens with laws. Then we do have an ANTI-LAW, writen side-be-side with real LAW. And maybe that is why a Constitution is so valuable and also a target.

Until then... wordding and confusion will be used with arguments to "prove" anything once the priorities are fogotten and words begin to aquire new meannings under the pressure of SOME press and the distortion they carry.

After all, people more than ever confuses information with knowledge, and have lost the hability to reason in the middle of so much conflicting arguments. As in the cultural example, it's all in the premisses,,, and these can be manipulated.

In short::

Is a law that does not respect the purpose of LAW (and Constitution) something to be accepted or a CRIME to be denounced with all the danger of defying the machine of the state that should serve the people through justice? Do not confuse crime with illegal, they are diferent things, as we saw, and it is a Very Bad sign that they are confused.

Thanks for the inspiration! You made me wonder.

DuLac (alias: Factor-h)

P.S. - I'm perplexed with the fact of simple things (that should be obvious) become to need so much wording to be understood. I suppose people are loosing focus of the real priorities of life and civilization. We live in an argumenting society were the meanning is subverted. Maybe we should exercise silence to gain in perception. And, apparently by the lenght of this one, I should very quickly consider to apply that exercise myself.