Do you always obey the law?

[dmancornell]

Every little bit counts. What have you done lately?

 

[hariph creek]

I already said. I do obey the law.
When and if I choose to defy on the grounds of moral, ethical or religious reasons. I'll do what I can to fix the problem or move to a different location.

I don't disagree with you, the whole set-up is rigged. I was, and thought we were, speaking on a much broader plane than just the speed limit.

Take for instance the need to have a carry permit, in most states, to fullfill the Second Amendment.
I'm sure most of us agree, that's an illegal requirement.
For me, the best option is to play the game, jump through the hoops. Get the permit(s), wait and hope, that with time things will turn around for the better. If they don't? Well, we'll see?
BUT, I'm not going to flaunt the authorities and use the ''2nd Amendment is my permit!'' defense.

On behalf of committee, I thank you for staying with topic so long. We have lock on your location.
Consider yourself DENOUNCED!

 

[hariph creek]

I don't know what speeding counts towards? At best it's crime, no violation (maybe?) for the sake of convenience. If they made a movie based on speeding as a form of rebellion. It would be called...''Rebel without a sack.'' Sorry I couldn't resist after that ridiculous statement you made. No not that one. One of the other ones. You know, about sacking up to speed, or else staying off the road?
Yep, takes a real man's man to press that little pedal on the right.

Sorry dmancornell, I can't play more, right now.
I've got to navigate 70 feet worth of 80,000 pounds through Seattle/Tacoma/Olympia rush hour traffic. Of course, I do this everyday. Mountains, rain, ice or snow. Don't even get me started on inner-city traffic and backing. To bad I don't have the testicular or mental facilities to drive a cute little car fast. Then I too, could do my part.

 

[MarkAd]

Speed limits are safety devices from a road engineers point of view. When road systems are engineered the speed limit is an 80% limit of a average cars ability to maintain control on the roadway.

 

[chariot13]

Do you always obey the law?

No of course not. Imagine if Slavery was ever legal..... Or if it was ever legal to FORCE your wife, Mother or daughter to NOT get a chance to vote because of the gender they were born with. I'm much more suspicious of the people that say to follow and obey ALL laws at ALL times than someone that happens to be normal. Doing whats right isn't always on the cool kids side but its on the Right side. The biggest peer pressurer in the world is 'The Law'. It not only controls popularity contests, it'll control you when you're deemed unpopular

 

[C1PNR]

I can guarantee you that I am much more law abiding than our current president and the vast majority of the "Inside the Beltway" elite.

 

[VW_Factor]

I don't know what speeding counts towards? At best it's crime, no violation (maybe?)

I believe overall in the US minor traffic violations are considered just that. A violation of traffic "code". Rarely does it become criminal unless lives were put at risk such as Eluding Police, Reckless Endangerment, etc.

On topic of thread.

I don't "speed" in town. Occasionally I'll make a U-Turn where its not prohibited, however in Oregon there is a lot of leeway for a LEO to write you up for illegal U-ies.

Oh, and two of my vehicles don't have their front plates attached. One there isn't a place to put it, and the other it keeps falling off.

These are only the things I know of, however given the criminal law/code here in the US, I'm sure there is likely plenty that are broken and none of us are aware of it.

 

[chariot13]

"I don't always obey the law, but when I do, I prefer Dos Equis. Stay legal, my friends"

 

[Misterbill]

I started to high jack another thread with this. The issue was exceeding the speed limit. I thought I'd pose the question here.

So, do you?
Do you feel you can pick and choose which laws apply to you, which don't?
Do you expect protection under the rule of law?
Do you hold the powers that be to that standard?

I'm not blind to corruption in the political/legal/social/etc...establishment. But, we're not living in a third world country either.

I feel, those excercising the second ammendment, have a responsibility to be ''upright.''

So do you speed? Maybe steal? Cheat on your taxes? Whatever...where do you draw the line?

How can we trust someone, if their sense of right and wrong, is determined by what's convenient?


Edit: I'm not speaking of hypothetical grand situations. No zombies or SHTF. Just day to day, life.

I don't follow laws because they are right or wrong. I follow them based them on justice, reasonableness and severity of consequences for breaking them and getting caught.

I don't speed, pretty much ever. I don't speed because I like having really cheap insurance rates and no ticket hassles and I'm not in that much of a hurry to be anywhere unless someone is bleeding in my car and I'm on the way to the hospital. I fail to see anything morally wrong with going 65 in a 60 zone (thinking of one stretch of highway) nor do I see the slightest difference between that stretch and the stretch immediately before and after it where the limit is 70, other than it's nice revenue generation for the government. I don't go 65 there because I don't like the consequences of getting caught. That's the ONLY reason I don't ignore that silly limit.

Other laws I ignore because either the consequence is small, the likelihood of being caught is infinitesimal and I see the law as an unjust or unreasonable one to start with.

I routinely ignored Massachusetts' "safe storage" law that required me to lock up my home defense weapon while I slept in my house with no one but myself and my wife in it. So do a large percentage of people there. It's a stupid law with very bad consequences for following it and an extremely small likelihood of getting caught. And the penalties aren't that severe if you don't mind moving 30 minutes north.

Everyone else on this board does pretty much the same thing whether they admit to it or not.

Speeding is a great example. VERY few people pay as much attention to the speed limit as I do. They're willing to deal with the ticket, the higher insurance rate or whatever, and see the limit as arbitrary and having nothing to do with safety. I don't feel that way so I obey the limit.

Ethics (the study of what's right and wrong) aren't based on what some clown in Washington DC decided was right (after being bribed campaign contributed to by whatever special interest group). I determine right and wrong using my own set of ethics, somewhat Kantian and somewhat Millesque in nature. I obey laws or don't based in part on these principles, but there are plenty of laws without victims I can think of that I'd break in a hot minute if the consequences weren't so severe for me.

The "rule of law" breaks down pretty hard when you make it a crime to remove a label from a pillow or smoke a plant that everyone, including the last three Presidents freely admit smoking or inadvertently use a LEGAL piece of wood without the correct paperwork (Gibson guitars) etc.

Philosophically, we can talk all day about the importance of complying with the law because that's part of a social contract. But when laws against everything from eagle feathers to MARITAL AIDS (can't say the D word, apparently) are the norm, that argument breaks down pretty fast.

 

[hariph creek]

Several very good points.
Much more coherent than, ''Everythings corrupt, I'll do what I want.''
I agree when laws violate our personal moral, ethical or religious convictions. It would be immoral to to blindly follow them.

I guess maybe law abiding with honor and honesty, could have been a better question? I still feel we should be upstanding. If anyone can justify breaking laws for the sake of convenience, not conscience, just because they won't get caught? I disagree. But, that's a personal choice, your's and mine.
To violate the letter or intent of the law over a matter of conscience? I see that as noble. At least to the person making the choice. That's enough for me.

 

[chariot13]

To violate the letter or intent of the law over a matter of conscience? I see that as noble. At least to the person making the choice. That's enough for me.

Exactly... I know someone that broke the letter of the law in its most True form right down to the T to be exact & he carried that T around for us all. The spirit of the law would of been much more forgiving but he was not given that. Thats why I always believe in the latter, not the letter.

 

[hariph creek]

chariot13...agreed, though I have been trying not to go down that road. Unless I'm mistaken, it's a forum taboo?
If I may for just a moment? The individual to which you refer also taught obedience to the LAW (of the land) so long as it does not conflict with the PRINCIPALS he represented.

This is the heart of my question(s). (Maybe a little more refined after X number of posts?)

-Do you obey the law?
-If not, is it convenience or conscience that is your motivation?
-Or, do you think either is relevant?

Your conscience can be driven by faith, ethics, morals, duty, or whatever. The principal you adhere to is not the point.

But, whining that it's not fair, so you shouldn't have to? That seems rather ill conceived as a guiding standard. It does a disservice to all gun owners.

 

[Misterbill]

chariot13...agreed, though I have been trying not to go down that road. Unless I'm mistaken, it's a forum taboo?
If I may for just a moment? The individual to which you refer also taught obedience to the LAW (of the land) so long as it does not conflict with the PRINCIPALS he represented.

This is the heart of my question(s). (Maybe a little more refined after X number of posts?)

-Do you obey the law?
-If not, is it convenience or conscience that is your motivation?
-Or, do you think either is relevant?

Your conscience can be driven by faith, ethics, morals, duty, or whatever. The principal you adhere to is not the point.

But, whining that it's not fair, so you shouldn't have to? That seems rather ill conceived as a guiding standard. It does a disservice to all gun owners.

You fail Ethics 101.

I am ethical and honest. I need no law to do right. I do right because it's the right thing to do, logically.

This is the entire basis of ethics. Legal and Ethical often, sadly, have little to do with each other. Claiming that people taking a subjective view of laws they will and won't obey is some kind of cop-out is a non-sequitir. As long as government, over my objections, despite my efforts, continues to pass laws banning marital aids, sodomy, marijuana and on and on, making criminal normal, everyday behavior, I will ignore stupid laws to the extent I can. I will violate them without a moment's remorse or hesitation unless the penalties are severe enough to deter me.

Malum Porhibitum used to be the rare case in this country. Nowadays, damn near EVERYTHTING is illegal in one way or another. Judas Priest, we're putting 16 year-old kids in jail with sex offender records for sending their boyfriends dirty pictures of THEMSELVES from their cellphones!

As long as the law continues to be arbitrary, grossly unjust, disproportional to any harm done and serving in many ways merely to profit a few well connected people, and narrow ideological groups I and many others will have contempt for the law MERELY AS LAW. If you need a law to make you refrain from robbing a bank or raping your neighbor's daughter, you are a poor excuse for a human being. If you use law to put forth some narrow definition of bizarre morality (marital aids bans? Seriously?) or to criminalize behavior that doesn't hurt anyone (like consensual sex between adults) people will think you're a nut and ignore the laws they think are stupid.

"The law is the law" is a ridiculous argument. I suppose next you'll tell us how immoral those people who ran the underground railroad were. After all, they were in violation of the fugitive slave act.

 

[fd15k]

Take for instance the need to have a carry permit, in most states, to fullfill the Second Amendment.
I'm sure most of us agree, that's an illegal requirement.

On behalf of committee, I thank you for staying with topic so long. We have lock on your location.

I disagree. Supreme Court said it is okay to regulate concealed carry, and it is okay to require permits.

 

[fd15k]

No of course not. Imagine if Slavery was ever legal..... Or if it was ever legal to FORCE your wife, Mother or daughter to NOT get a chance to vote because of the gender they were born with. I'm much more suspicious of the people that say to follow and obey ALL laws at ALL times than someone that happens to be normal. Doing whats right isn't always on the cool kids side but its on the Right side. The biggest peer pressurer in the world is 'The Law'. It not only controls popularity contests, it'll control you when you're deemed unpopular

Right, let's compare extreme cases to average factor of convenience. Because you know, its the same thing in the book of a wannabe patriot.

 

[Burt Gummer]

Deeper thought; not my words; why those in power are not subjected to morality/laws .....

"People fail to realize that morality is not needed for those in power. Only the weak masses need morality, because they are not in complete control of their own destinies, and thus can be punished for any of their unsavory actions. So, when it comes to the matter of dispensing the truth, the ruling elite elect not to tell the masses the real truth about reality because they have absolutely no reason, motivation, or obligation to do so.

If one takes a step back and looks at the general attitude of authority figures, they will see that these authority figures do not exude the truth. Rather, when it comes to such tasks as disclosing information, these authority figures have an aura of shadiness. Instead of divulging all of the information that they know, they divulge as little information as possible.

So, getting back to the matter of the ruling elite dispensing the truth to the masses, a great analogy for this would be that of a lion nonchalantly swatting away a fly with its tail: The ruling elite will invent any bogus (yet still within reason) religion or scientific theory just to keep the masses from questioning reality. However, more than just temporarily quelling the masses, these bogus belief systems are actually able to control the masses because people foolishly end up believing in them and taking them to heart.

So, in other words, instead of people interpreting a bogus belief system as simply being a possible theory or possible explanation of reality, people totally succumb to (that is, adopt) the bogus belief system because not only is the belief system within reason, but it also came from a very powerful authority figure.

The ruling elite are not anchored down by morality. They set the rules, invent the religions, invent the gods, invent the scientific theories, and do as they please. On the other hand, the masses are, by necessity, slaves to morality: If the common man does not behave properly, then, via the ruling elite's rules, he may be punished.

The logic of a common man is not the same as that of a man in power, because the common man's logic is infected with morality. "

Simply put, laws and morals only apply to us PEE-ONs.

 

[Redcap]

Deeper thought; not my words; why those in power are not subjected to morality/laws .....

"People fail to realize that morality is not needed for those in power. Only the weak masses need morality, because they are not in complete control of their own destinies, and thus can be punished for any of their unsavory actions. So, when it comes to the matter of dispensing the truth, the ruling elite elect not to tell the masses the real truth about reality because they have absolutely no reason, motivation, or obligation to do so.

If one takes a step back and looks at the general attitude of authority figures, they will see that these authority figures do not exude the truth. Rather, when it comes to such tasks as disclosing information, these authority figures have an aura of shadiness. Instead of divulging all of the information that they know, they divulge as little information as possible.

So, getting back to the matter of the ruling elite dispensing the truth to the masses, a great analogy for this would be that of a lion nonchalantly swatting away a fly with its tail: The ruling elite will invent any bogus (yet still within reason) religion or scientific theory just to keep the masses from questioning reality. However, more than just temporarily quelling the masses, these bogus belief systems are actually able to control the masses because people foolishly end up believing in them and taking them to heart.

So, in other words, instead of people interpreting a bogus belief system as simply being a possible theory or possible explanation of reality, people totally succumb to (that is, adopt) the bogus belief system because not only is the belief system within reason, but it also came from a very powerful authority figure.

The ruling elite are not anchored down by morality. They set the rules, invent the religions, invent the gods, invent the scientific theories, and do as they please. On the other hand, the masses are, by necessity, slaves to morality: If the common man does not behave properly, then, via the ruling elite's rules, he may be punished.

The logic of a common man is not the same as that of a man in power, because the common man's logic is infected with morality. "

Simply put, laws and morals only apply to us PEE-ONs.

Only if you let them.

 

[hariph creek]

fd15k...the 2nd amendment is a right. Right? Like the 1st amendment? What if we needed a permit to engage in free speach? That would just as wrong as needing a permit for the 2nd.
That's my view, anyway.

 

[hariph creek]

Misterbill...I fail (Misterbill's) ethics 101. We all have to live by our own ethics.

Why can we not have a rational discussion, without regressing to outlandish accusations.
I have not, here or anywhere, anytime, advocated for slavery.

If you've read what I've tried to say. I understand anyone who is in defiance of rules or laws...based on conscience issues. We all have to decide for ourselves, where the line is.

I agree with you, most laws are not just.

I live by PRINCIPALS. Among those is to obey the laws of the appointed authorities. As long as those laws don't contradict the principals I believe in.

I can assure you I need no legaslation to keep me from robbing my neighbor or rapeing the bank or whatever...

If you have issues you feel are worth defiance of the law. Than by all means, follow your conscience.
Who am I to say you can't, get high and sodomize your marital aid. Have at it.

My question pertains more to ''crimes of convenience'' not conscience.

 

[chariot13]

fd15k...the 2nd amendment is a right. Right? Like the 1st amendment? What if we needed a permit to engage in free speach? That would just as wrong as needing a permit for the 2nd.
That's my view, anyway.

I agree and they do ask or 'demand' that you get a permit on occasions to excercise the 1st Ammendment, which is unconstitutional in my opinion & why i dont mind when people blow off what the bureaucrats want. Doing what you know is right, doesn't follow suit with those that want to have complete control over other people.