We might just have a semantic disagreement, but Wikipedia supports the definition that I'm using [1]:
> A black market or underground economy is the market in which goods or services are traded illegally. The key distinction of a black market trade is that the transaction itself is illegal.
It's presumptuous to claim that "not every law is oppressive." What might be unnoticeable to many people could become oppressive to you. Ultimately, the subjective ethics and conscience of an individual is more valid than any arbitrary system into which that person is thrown, on an individual basis. In other terms, that which is "worth fighting for" -- worth resistance to oppression -- is, as always, relative and subjective. Fortunately, quite a lot of people feel that it's extremely oppressive to inflict restrictions, caging, and great violence upon nonviolent, consenting people. Oppression comes in many forms. Given this thread, I'll use drugs as the context. A single lone person who wants to grow and use drugs is still oppressed (according to my ethical framework) even if the entirety of all other people on Earth, all 7+ billion, summarily and vehemently want to violently restrict that person from doing so.
>Fortunately, quite a lot of people feel that it's extremely oppressive to inflict restrictions, caging, and great violence upon nonviolent, consenting people.
I would agree with you here. However, I wouldn't necessarily agree that all laws are necessarily oppressive or, if they must be oppressive by your terms, need to be resisted. After all, there are cases of theft, vandalism, murder, rape, fraud, conspiracy, etc - all of which would require 'oppression' through the force of law for the good of the community.
I have no problem with your lone person who wants to use drugs and is harming no one - but laws in general presume consequences for violating norms within a society. If on the other hand, that lone user has to commit violent acts or their use poses a danger to others, then in my opinion their right to personal liberty has to be limited.
Indeed. My issue of great concern is that many people are unable to admit nor even understand the nature and negatives of their own actions and beliefs when their morality is forcefully imposed on others. This is not to say there aren't subjective positives in a person or group's views. This is only to say that there are also negatives.
The more one selectively filters and dismisses the negatives of forcefully imposing [what one wants] on others, the more that person becomes conditioned to accept violence. The continued path of this mindset is easily one where imprisonment and economic suppression, and the overall appeasement of violent systems, increasingly becomes a rational response to even trite conduct. Disobedience by those who are different becomes itself vilified. Ends begin to justify means. Force imposed upon nonviolent people that would otherwise be heinous becomes common.
In contrast, I find that the more someone begins to examine, to self-assess, the negative nature of his or her own actions, the less willing he or she is to use force to impose those subjective views. It leads to admission and mindfulness. Recognizing the violence [of self] can take one on a path of peace and tolerance [of others], where one begins to seek more progress through culture alone rather than through law.
Laws by their nature are oppressive. We'd agree that there are many variations of systems and laws that we might mutually favor in principle. Though, in fewer words, the more a system lends itself to arbitrary law, the more a system lends itself to tyranny. That's because oppression and violence -- in law or in other forms -- in and of itself is no justification. Systems protecting people from violent actions certainly become a resounding cause when they use forms of oppression to protect people from great oppression (e.g. rape, murder, etc.). Though the way systems of justice do it is largely unjustified (to me), in light of the astonishing increase of a prison-military-police industry and the society that brought it into existence. It's one of many systems with systemic problems, in dire need of critical change, humanity, compassion, and transparency.
