After reading the OP I thought of some of the “dumb law” pages I’ve seen on the internet. The following are from Real Funny Dumb Laws in the United States
*In Oxford, Ohio, it is unlawful for a woman to appear in public while unshaven. This includes legs and face.
In Riverside, California, kissing on the lips, unless both parties wipe their lips with carbonized rose water, is against the local health ordinance. (Someone needed to be kissed!)
In Carmel, New York, a man cannot be seen in public while wearing a jacket and pants that do not match.
In the grand city of Ottumwa, Iowa, it is illegal for any man, within the corporate city limits, to wink at any female with whom he is “unacquainted.”*
There are quite a few “dumb laws” on the books. If I lived in Riverside, CA., I don’t think I’d have a supply of rose water on hand and I like to kiss.
I have no problem with lobbying to have a law changed.
My stance is simply that ignoring or disobeying laws willy nilly because you feel like it is not the way to behave. We need a commonly accepted standard list of restraints, that we all obey, so our nations will not collapse into chaos.
Did you bother to read the linked article? It’s a classic example of civil disobedience. And one of the reasons it worked was specifically because Gandhi broke the law he was lobbying to have changed. I’ll admit that it’s possible that tactics could have been found that would have worked to get the law revoked without having to break it. But, those would have taken much longer, IMNSHO.
Sorry Trunk, but that doesn’t hold up. You are a reasonable, thoughtful person; most Dopers would consider me a reasonable, thoughtful person as well. Yet, I can guarantee you our viewpoints will differ on such important matters as gun-laws, animal rights, and the desirable extent of government interference in public life.
It is a good thing the democratic process decides which of our reasonable viewpoints ends up being the law.
Yeah, but where you and I differ on those issues. . .I’m simply not going to obey those laws. I’m saying that there is simply nothing I do or don’t do because of a law (or at least nothing that easily comes to mind). There are things I don’t do because of the hassle – I wouldn’t smoke pot in front of the police station, but that’s no more illegal than smoking it in my living room – but that’s different than saying I won’t do something because of a law.
Though I got torched for it, I was dead serious a few months back when I asked people, “why don’t you just carry a concealed weapon?”
You either need it in an emergency, and in that case, fuck the law.
Thais are notorious scofflaws. I’ve come to believe there’s not a law on the books they won’t break just on principle, up to and including murder. This has rubbed off on me to a certain extent after all these years. Fortunately, I’m able to remember it’s not cool to offer authorities bribes and stuff like that when I’m visiting in the US.
Where does one draw the line, then? Between making a point, being part of a movement, and a whim of thoughtless anarchy? Your original position was that the law shouldn’t be broken, for any reason, after all.
I disagree with this, because I think it is an argument based on extrapolating to the extremes. Which I don’t think is valid. It seems to me that the lessons of Prohibition include if the majority of the populace thinks a law is bad, they will ignore it. Always have, and always will. Ignoring that reality, I think, makes the law more brittle, and weakens it. Like the example BlinkingDuck mentioned.
I still think that. I don’t think Gandhi should’ve broken the law either, there are other methods to get these things done. But then again, he was in a different time, and a different country, where perhaps there weren’t any other methods available to him.
I am lucky enough to live in a time where I can lobby to have a law changed, which, if enough people agree with me, will be acknowledged by the Government and possibly acted on. But if it’s not acted on, then I just have to go on obeying a law I think is inane, or accept the consequences should I break it. I do not have the right to ignore it at my will. Laws are there to protect people, even the stupid laws (which are possibly for protecting the stupid people), and they should be respected.
The concept of obeying the law – I mean laws on the books, not unwritten societal laws – is a Western concept, rooted all the way back in ancient Greece and beyond. It’s a Western concept. Over here, laws are obeyed only if it’s convenient to do so, and if you get caught breaking the law, there’s often an off-the-books deal that can be worked out with the authorities. Getting caught breaking the law is generally considered a major annoyance, and police are as a whole among the wealthiest people in Thailand.
I’ve read all of the comments above about how it would be total anarchy and a breakdown of society if people stopped obeying laws. Although I DO still believe one ought to make an effort to obey the law, I can tell you from first-hand experience that it’s not a total breakdown and not so bad. What we have over here, especially in Bangkok, is a state of semi-controlled anarchy. Things don’t work efficiently, but they do sort of work, eventually. And if they don’t, then maybe they weren’t meant to. The excitement of stepping outside and never knowing what you’re going to encounter is one of the things that make this such an interesting place.
I don’t feel it’s inherently immoral to break the law - in fact, there’s probably a moral imperative to fight an unjust law. And there are some laws which I don’t agree with that I’ll break if I think I can get away with them (speeding! downloads!) and some which I won’t because I’m afraid of getting caught (not paying taxes!). That said:
It’s probably best for society when people at least are inclined to respect laws that they don’t agree with. Selective and/or discreet law breaking that is illegal but not immoral can probably be tolerated without too much societal upheaval, but there probably is a breaking point.
Although I don’t share this view, I can empathize and see the perspective of people who think that breaking the law is an immoral act. By being a citizen, you have an implicit agreement to uphold the common law, and by breaking the law you are in a sense, being dishonest or breaking a promise or oath. So even if the illegal act itself isn’t immoral, just the fact that you are breaking a law could be seen as immoral. I can’t bring myself to completely believe this, but I understand it.
There is a strong impetus on the lawmakers to keep their legislative powers in check by not creating stupid ass laws. If your laws respect the people, the people will be more likely to respect the law. I think it’s much more immoral to pass a crappy law than to break a crappy law.
One thing about laws is they do not suddenly appear in a vacuum. There is always a reason, be it good OR bad, for a law being passed. You see lists of bizarre laws like secretaries cannot take a bath at work and such. Many turn out to be Urban Legends, but some are real. I believe there’s a town in Georgia that actually outlawed eating chicken with a knife and fork. But the background behind that is they have an annual chicken festival, and the law was passed for reasons of publicity. No one would really spend a night in the pokey for daring to break it. They might be held up to public ridicule, but it would stop there. Before I willfully break a law (in the West anyway), I try at least to understand the reason for it.
I love how people here are equating extortianate tariffs and other extreme cases of legislation with breaking traffic and other safety/health ordinance laws.
I believe that a society needs laws to function, in order to predict people’s actions. However, there are some laws that are broken commonly and it is easier to predict actions based on experiences.
I drive a road, on my commute home, that is very dangerous and consequentially it is a mandatory daylight headlight section. I follow this law because I believe it makes driving safer but I also drive at 7 mph over the speed limit because that is the speed where I don’t need to use my breaks to handle turns and I can set my cruise control. On average, I pass one person during this 100-mile drive and about five people pass me. Obviously a minority of drivers feel that the speed limit is the correct speed but the law remains he same so I don’t agree that the laws come from the citizenry.
Luckily, the cops agree with me about the speed limit and I drive by their speed traps without slowing down. If the people enforcing the laws believe that the law is wrong, or they would enforce it, and the people who are subject to the law believe it is wrong, or they would follow it, then why is it still the law? These are the situations where I have no respect for the law. The majority follows murder laws and the majority of cops enforces it, must be a good law. The majority of people don’t follow the law but a majority of cops enforce it, there might be a good reason the law is in place. Everyone ignores the law it’s probably worthless.