I guess I’m not real clear on the concept of natural law. It seems totally subject to interpretation by humans, unless, like, Og starts striking them dead and stuff.
What’s the worst that could happen?
Where’s the option that gets at the philosophy behind “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath”?
If it’s 3 o’clock in the morning and I’m driving and the only one on the road, I am not sitting at a red light for 2 minutes for no reason besides “it’s the law”.
Or I’m sitting in my home on a Saturday night with my wife and want to smoke some pot. No reason not to besides “it’s the law.”
You end up making out with your mom while doc figures out how to get 1.2 jigawatts of electricity?
There you get at the essential difference between liberal and conservative morality. The libs put people before rules; the cons, rules before people.
I would like to add a fourth: stupid laws. A law whose compliance is impossible to enforce, or one which goes against the customs of the people who receive it, are stupid.
The law should be broken (not “can” be broken, but should) when keeping it would cause greater harm than breaking it. “Law is for man, not man for law”. This applies to all levels of “law”: laws, regulations, ordinances, guidelines…
I think this better than the options in the poll, but it doesn’t seem have any upper limit in terms of harming other people. Unjust laws should also be an option here, and irrelevant laws should probably have a separate option other than ‘whenever you feel like it.’
Poor choices, can’t vote. As a general rule, I’d say only when the law is clearly unconstitutional (apparently unconstitutional laws may be disobeyed, but I would not say they should be disobeyed) or blatantly out of line with advances in human understanding (like bans on SSM, which are based on the long-debunked belief that homosexuality is a disease or psychological defect).
I went with “When the law is irritating” because that seems to cover the most ground. An immoral or unjust or outright stupid law would be “irritating,” so there you go.
The laws that bug me most are the ones that prohibit “vice.” Want to buy liquor on Sunday? Frequent prostitutes? Smoke some pot? Gamble? All fine with me. Just don’t get drunk and jump in your car to get to the brothel where you’re going to get high and blow your cash on sex and craps.
The first law of vice should be “handle your fucking high, man.” Whatever it is that gets you going or mellows you out, just do it responsibly and don’t fuck up my day with it. And, for Bog’s sake, let the government tax you for doing it… we could certainly use the money to fund cops to handle REAL crimes. If we made enough from taxing hookers and blow, maybe they’d stop handing out tickets for speeding. 
Curtis, this is one of those polls that would have been better if the results were kept anonymous. It might also benefit from the ability to change more than one option.
No vote.
A law should be disobeyed when the costs of disobedience (including the effects on the societal view of the supremacy of the law in general) are lower than the costs of compliance.
People should only disobey the law in the face of massive injustice, or in my own case, minor inconvenience. Sorry, guys, I have different rules for the rest of you than I do for myself. It’s not that I think I’m special, it’s that I respect you all so deeply that I expect better of you.
When you can get away with it.
It’s always an extra plus to bend a cop over and send him home with an “I just violated the neighbor’s dog” look on his face.
I honestly think Curtis is right at that point where you discover that the world isn’t black or white, and is soliciting opinions to help him make up his mind on what he believes. As such, I don’t think it’s a bad thing not to vote in the poll.
The only time I think a law should unambiguously disobeyed is if it is immoral. The rest are on a case by case basis.
I voted “when it’s immoral” myself. I’m thinking pre-civil war underground railroad scenarios. It was the law not to help escaped slaves and actually required that law-abiding citizens must turn them in. I like to think I’d have the courage of my convictions and help them get north, (or wherever) to freedom. Not so many clear-cut examples today.
When it doesn’t apply to my safety or well being for a start. I’m not going to wait at a red light at 3am in my soft top jeep driving alone if there’s a risk some chancer could jump in. It’s all about the spirit of the law anyway isn’t it?
When it’s the right thing to do, not just the easiest or the most fun, but the right thing.
When it is unjust or stupid.
The law is irrelevant, per se. It doesn’t factor into my decision-making (though of course the possibility of punishment does). NOTE: This only applies to me. Everyone else should be following the rules, because I don’t trust you to know when it’s ok to disregard them.
Off-topic, but i.e. means “that is.” What you meant to use was e.g. (“for example”).