There was a time — long ago now — when this theoretical situation would have been an interesting dilemma worth holding a long discussion over: You’re in a position where doing a good deed involves breaking a multitude of laws. What do you do?
Back in the day, “breaking a multitude of laws” would likely have meant you were breaking laws against doing harm. So you’d have to balance not only possible penalties of lawbreaking but also the chance of doing bad to one party while trying to do good elsewhere.
Now? It’s not even worth talking about. Laws are nearly all mala prohibita, created for the sole purpose of giving one group power over a less politically influential group. Other than the risk of getting caught, who gives a damn?
A year or so ago I was in a position where doing the right thing, possibly even the lifesaving thing, meant breaking I don’t even know how many state and federal laws. Not one person anywhere would have been harmed by the lawbreaking. But an individual could have been harmed, and IMHO a friendship betrayed, by hewing to the damn stupid laws.
It was a no-brainer — nothing more than a matter of deciding to exceed the standard American citizen’s quota of three felonies a day. Ho hum.
I’ll bet every one of us has been in a similar situation. And we’ve all known what to do when it really mattered — when something personal to us or crucial to our friends was at stake.
As El Neil said so eloquently, “Of course I’m above the law. And so are you.”
So now the only real debate is whether it’s a bad thing or a good thing for our culture (society, freedom, tradition, civilization, whatever) that we multi-felonious Americans routinely hold law in such contempt.
Or perhaps it’s better to say “hold law in such disregard.” Because unless the penalties and/or the chances of getting caught are unusually formidable, I really don’t believe I know a single person any more — including Sunday school teachers, scout leaders, retired old ladies, librarians, and hyper-honorable businesspeople, political or non-political — who considers the law to be any more than a mild annoyance.
We do the right thing because it’s the right thing. Or because we want people around us to respect us. Because we have a moral center or a place in society that we want to keep. Sometimes that puts us on the right side of the law, sometimes on the left side of the law. But I’d never say the “wrong” side of the law, because law is so completely disconnected from concepts of right and wrong. And everybody knows it.
“I really don’t believe I know a single person any more — including Sunday school teachers, scout leaders, retired old ladies, librarians, and hyper-honorable businesspeople, political or non-political — who considers the law to be any more than a mild annoyance.”
That’s an interesting hypothesis that I would never have come up with. Maybe you have a subset of unusual people where you live. I usually think that most people are too fearful to think of breaking laws but maybe I’m wrong. Certainly the monied are “above the law” in reality and in their own minds but the rest of the folks….IDK.
Most of the people I know are enthusiastic about making others follow the “laws” that they would find reasons for themselves to ignore. “The law obviously isn’t meant for me in this situation, but for Those People“. Statists are hypocrites.
—
Off topic: for my weekly newspaper column the newspaper published the letter I wrote to the guy who caused the accident which killed my daughter a year and a half ago. I was invited to submit a letter to be read at his sentencing, so I sent the one I wrote a couple of weeks after her death. It was still what I wanted to say. Obviously, such things can’t be said in a government courtroom, so my letter was not presented to him, so I am doing everything I can to have as many people as possible read it. I sent it to the guy’s mother as well (she had written soon after the wreck with her condolences and sincere regret for both our families). She seemed to appreciate the letter.
This is the kind of statement that should be sent to every representative, every judge, and every local official in the country.
They wonder what we think of them, and why we vote the way we do (or why so much voter apathy exists). They get upset at our anger at town meetings, and think it’s because we are simply being “political” and oppositional – like them. They demand to be stroked by “the sanction of the victim” – but this tells them the sanction is denied, and more, WHY it’s being denied: because they aren’t doing their “job” (whatever that is), they aren’t living up to their promises, they aren’t worth respecting, and their laws are no longer applicable to a moral society.
StevefromMA – Most people may be fearful of breaking the law, but they still know the difference in right and wrong, and know when the breaking point has been reached – in themselves and in others. The reason for much psychological conflict today is because of the disconnect between the individual’s values and his actions, on both personal and national levels.
America may be the only country that was deliberately founded on a rationally-conceived honor system – a system of individual freedom based on human rights. But those “rights” carry responsibility, and loss of freedom is the punishment when responsibility has been dropped or neglected. No matter how it’s run, as a “republic” or a “democracy”, America has lost its “mission” and the people know it.
{Quote]So now the only real debate is whether it’s a _bad_ thing or a _good_ thing for our culture (society, freedom, tradition, civilization, whatever) that we multi-felonious Americans routinely hold law in such contempt.
Or perhaps it’s better to say “hold law in such disregard.”[End quote]
A good thing. Because people have to be aware of a situation before they can act on it. And this contempt/disregard is a sign that awareness is here. Who knows where their action will take us?!
There is truth in your statement. I no longer know what is legal or illegal. The thousands of laws and ordinances that we live under are by-and-large unknowable just due to the sheer quantity and complexity. Even ‘experts’ in the law have to specialize in one area because knowing the totality of the law is beyond any single person’s ability.
So if we can’t know the law in every circumstance, or even in most circumstances, then the logical thing to do is to operate as if there is no law….thus the three felonies a day for which almost no one goes to jail. If we didn’t, we would literally not be able to live.
Slightly off topic, maybe, but my favorite Useful Idiots in this regard are the ones who want to feel they’re special by virtue of some licensing law that gives them a privilege denied to everybody else, and they live for the chance to use that law as a club against any encroaching proles. Ham radio operators used to be notorious for this; let them find somebody without a call sign playing on their precious reserved frequencies, and letters to the FCC would fly. Several years ago I was appalled to learn the extent to which people with gun collections on the NFA registry cooperate “in partnership” with ATF, including in matters of enforcement. And I’ve even encountered people with concealed carry licenses bragging on fora about throwing ‘unlicensed carriers’ under the legal bus.
Hell, I’ve even run into people expressing schadenfreude when they hear of somebody getting busted for driving without a license as if a great evil had been removed from society. Quislings, every single despicable one of them. The reason we can’t have anything nice.
“Most of the people I know are enthusiastic about making others follow the “laws” that they would find reasons for themselves to ignore.”
Some truth in that, of course. And in StevefromMA’s assertion that people are still fearful of breaking laws. Hypocrites are always with us and of course the law always has the power to induce terror, even (and especially) when everyone recognizes that the law is corrupt and arbitrary.
I also wouldn’t be surprised to learn that residents of the free-and-easy Northwest view law differently than the inheritors of Puritan mind-everybody-else’s-business tradition in Massachusetts.
Being an outlaw isn’t that rather American?
That part that goes;
…That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security….
….with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”
Methinks won’t about obeying the current law of the land, don’t ya know!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBdpINm9UBU
Everything’s illegal in Massachusetts.
I’m not sure about the NW hinterlands, but from what I hear Seattle has a nanny infestation.
We do the right thing because it’s the right thing.
Morality does not consist of “doing the right thing.” Morality consists of choosing to do the right thing. Therefore the law can never enforce morality.
In the proper meaning and application of the concept, law is not made, it is discovered. A corollary to this – as “Law” is presently construed, “Rule of Law” is a myth:
“For with the acceptance of the myth of the rule of law comes a blindness to the fact that laws are merely the commands of those with political power, and an increased willingness to submit oneself to the yoke of the state. Once one is truly convinced that the law is an impersonal, objective code of justice rather than an expression of the will of the powerful, one is likely to be willing not only to relinquish a large measure of one’s own freedom, but to enthusiastically support the state in the suppression of others’ freedom as well.”
P.S. I just attempted to post this comment with the above quotation as a link [the URL (omit all the underscores) is ht_tp://zero_gov.c_om/?_p=4232 ] and after pressing ‘post comment’ the page reloaded with a URL in the address bar showing a comment number (. . . thing-is-a-crime/#comment-59652 ) as usual, but the comment didn’t post, nor was any error message displayed. I’ve tried to post a link with this URL to several other WordPress blogs on which I normally have little or no trouble posting comments, and exactly the same thing has always happened. Goofy WordPress bug – or censorship? You make the call.
“Goofy WordPress bug – or censorship? You make the call.”
Sorry, trying2b. Neither censorship nor a WP bug. Your first version went into the spam filter. It didn’t have the URL as you describe it. It had a whole paragraph turned into a hyperlink — and that’s the sort of thing that gets flagged as spam.
WP is a bit oversensitive about comments with URLs in them. But I see why the spam filter grabbed that one. Glad you were able to post an amended comment.
Long ago, during one of Chuck Colson’s three minute daily radio messages he described a couple kinds of dictatorships. There were those with no laws other than what the dictator decreed, and there were those with a myriad of laws which allowed for selective enforcement. He concluded way back then that we had the latter. Obviously, it’s only gotten worse.
Link
Sorry again, trying2b. I was away from the computer all afternoon and didn’t grok that you’d never gotten that link to post. There it is above, and please forgive me for all the trouble you had.
I’ve seen for many years how people observe and even understand that the “laws” are absurd and irrational, yet still manage to continue to believe that the government has legitimate authority to make and enforce those laws. It’s called cognitive dissonance, and that dilemma is at the root of much of the “mental illness” around us.
Human beings can’t actually hold conflicting beliefs without stress and serious threat to their well being. But we can pretend it if we need to. 🙂
“So now the only real debate is whether it’s a bad thing or a good thing for our culture (society, freedom, tradition, civilization, whatever) that we multi-felonious Americans routinely hold law in such contempt.”
MamaLiberty has a good comment.
I believe that this attitude, for most people, is bad. The majority of my friends and acquaintances disobey traffic laws if there’s little likelihood of getting caught. But, they still have this nagging feeling that legal = moral and vice versa. The multiplicity of conflicting laws generally results in moral confusion rather than a desire for liberty.
Even those with strong moral standards may be faced with a dilemma: if there is a strong possibility that I will be punished for doing the right thing, will I do it anyway? A person who risks physical danger for another is lauded as a hero. If he risks prison for his right action, he can look forward to slander and contempt, even loss of job and family. Whether convicted or not.
Given our current legal environment, how can people escape from this problem?
Good points, Claire, but here perhaps is where I as an occasional ‘Bible thumper’ will part company.
We don’t hold the LAW in contempt, just the fake gods who claim to make it.
The Law of YHVH is still what matters — from “thou shalt not murder” to avoiding “abomination” like fiat money (would that it were even remotely possible any more!)
The proper legal term is still “choice of law”.
Some of us will just “choose this day Whom we will serve,” and know what that means, and what the consequences of both choices are.
Claire @April 27, 2017 10:16 am:
>It had a whole paragraph turned into a hyperlink
That’s how I originally set it up. I can see why that might get flagged as spam, although I’ve done it before (with other URLs on other blogs) and while it may have gone into mdrtn. / spam, it was eventually released. But every time I have attempted to post the zero_gov link, even with only one word as the link text, the comment never appeared. So I’m going to try an experiment: enter the URL in this comment as a short-text hyperlink – which I’ve done here (with other URLs) before with no problems – and see what happens. If it posts, people will have a link to click and won’t have to copy edit paste the URL. If it doesn’t, I’d say there’s something funny going on. In that case, I’ll wait awhile to give you a chance to check the spam filter before commenting again about it. [hyperlink removed]
I attempted to post the above about 4 hours ago, and it failed in exactly the same way (comment # was 59657). I’m wondering whether that post went to the spam filter or just disappeared?
Link
Sorry again, trying2b. I was away from the computer all afternoon and didn’t grok that you’d never gotten that link to post. There it is above, and please forgive me for all the trouble you had.
Claire, I apologize for putting you through all the hassle, and I appreciate your efforts. I’ve tried to post that particular URL at a number of blogs (it is a really good article) and it has never worked. I was just trying to figure out why, not worrying about it not being posted. I hope I didn’t take up too much of your time with my experiments.
No, no. You were fine, trying2b. I’m just sorry I wasn’t on the ball today.
Strange that the link wouldn’t work in so many places. I guess after all you’ve gone though to finally post it here I should go and read it.
… Oh. I did. And yes, it’s a good one. 🙂
Most of the confusion about “Law” and the ‘Rule of Law’ is the intentional blending of “mala in se” and “mala prohibita”. As you have said Claire, “mala in se” and the statutes pertaining to it is the true “Rule of Law”. Those pertaining to “mala prohibita” are merely the law of rules.
This misunderstanding has led many, including most of todays youth, to throw out their respect for all laws.
“We don’t hold the LAW in contempt, just the fake gods who claim to make it.”
Do you really refrain from murder primarily because God orders you to? Do you think most other people do? If so, why aren’t we non-believers going around knocking off all our enemies? Rhetorical question, that last one. Having a moral compass and desiring peaceable relationships is enough motive for refraining from aggressive violence.
Do you believe fiat money is bad primarily because God says it’s bad, or because real-world evidence has shown time and again that it’s monumentally destructive?