3 ms·

That is correct. I think disobeying the law in all forms is a good idea. Excellent strawman. Or perhaps it is simply because 2,500 regulations including distan

That is correct. I think disobeying the law in all forms is a good idea. Excellent strawman. Or perhaps it is simply because 2,500 regulations including distance signs can be from the curb because one person tripped over a sign while not watching and then sued the city leads to a ridiculously over-litigated atmosphere.

theonething 10y ago
Well, the reason why I came to the conclusion that you don't value obeying the law is because of your example about the hassle it would be if someone kept notifying the authorities about you violating Section such and such. It's a hassle because someone is forcing you to obey the law. The implication is that when no one reports you, then it's fine for you to conveniently violate that law because you think it's a bad law. If that is the wrong implication, then please correct me. I meant my rhetorical question about obeying the law to be in the context of your example. But I should have been more clear about that. A better revised question is "so you don't think you should have to obey laws you disagree with?" Our opinion of a law does not have any bearing on our responsibility to obey it. If we think a law is stupid, we can try to get it changed, but until then, we obey it. That's how rule of law works. I have no doubt that your industry is ridiculously over-litigated. But I'd rather all businesses obey all the laws (and work to change the stupid ones) than decide for themselves which ones they'd like to obey and which they get to violate with impunity.
- icelancer 10y ago
  I see, yes. Do you feel the same way about sodomy laws and other non-executed laws on the books about oppressing minorities and such that went ignored instead of actually changed under litigation? I assume that those should be obeyed to the letter as well.
  - theonething 10y ago
    Regardless of whether or not I agree with a law, I as an individual, should not have the right to decide whether I should obey it. In the case of a law that I vehemently disagree with on moral grounds, the proper form of protest is in the context of group; e.g. organize group protests, petitions, etc. The difference here is individual vs group. If a critical mass of people think a law is wrong, there's a good chance there's something to that. A group context offers accountability and helps filter bad thinking/decisions, etc. I'm operating under the assumption of a working democracy here (working but far from perfect). If tomorrow, the government passes a law commanding everyone to kill children, I will not obey it. Why? Because it's wrong and I'll know it's wrong because there's going to be a heck of a lot of people agreeing with me. Letting individuals alone decide leads to undesirable results. A cook thinks the requirement to wash his hands after using the bathroom is ridiculous. So he concludes it is immoral for the government to impose on his freedom to choose when to wash his hands and he disobeys this law. Yuck! This example is not far fetched as many cooks are immigrants from countries that don't hold to that practice legally or culturally. If we leave it up to the individual to choose which laws to obey or not obey with impunity, then law becomes meaningless. They are not laws, but nice suggestions.
    - icelancer 10y ago
      OK then. Let's get to work on executing all those laws, such as: Washington: It's illegal to walk around in public while sick with the common cold or anything you can transmit through the air. Anyone who is sick can no longer leave the house. It's also illegal to buy meat on Sundays. Texas: Illegal to own six or more dildos. North Carolina: Oral sex is a crime, so get on jailing them. etc, etc.
      - theonething 10y ago
        We both agree that there exists stupid laws. That is beyond a doubt. Our disagreement revolves around what to do about the fact that there are stupid laws. Your argument is individuals should be allowed to decide which laws are stupid and obey/disobey accordingly. But I'm not sure what your premise is. My problem with your argument is that it renders the concept of law meaningless. Then, for example, doctors are free to decide whether they want to follow certain required safety procedures based on their own opinion, etc. My argument is an individual should not be allowed to decide which laws should and should not be obeyed. Instead, that decision should be made in a group context, whether than be Congress, referendum, organized protest, etc. My argument is based on the premise that letting groups decide what is a good law is better and safer than letting an individual decide. A group context (in general) is self-correcting. I'd rather put up with the hassle/ potential injustice of having to obey stupid laws (with the option of trying to change those laws and in the case of egregious injustice, the option of group civil disobedience) than risk the possibility of a biomedical company skipping some important tests because they think they're frivolous and know that they won't be held accountable. So again, I'd apply this group decision making principle to the laws you just listed. Btw, I don't have time to research all your examples, but in the case of the law against walking around with a cold, I believe you are referring to this law[0]. I see it as you can't purposely sneeze on someone or donate tainted blood, etc. But that's beside the point. Well, I think that's all I have to say on this topic. You have your opinions on it and I have mine. Although, to be honest, I'm not clear on your arguments and premise. You just list examples of stupid laws. The implication is why should anyone have to obey these stupid laws? My answer is they shouldn't if a critical mass of people decide they are stupid/unjust etc. Thanks for the discourse. Also, I need to apologize to you for my uncharitable first comment. [0] http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=70.54.050 http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=70.54.050
theonething 10y ago
My response was flagged for some reason. I don't think that is a fair flagging. It skews the discussion and is tantamount to censorship. I believe I responded to the counterpoint in good faith. To whoever did it, I welcome your explanation as to why you felt it was justified. Here is my original response that was flagged: Well, the reason why I came to the conclusion that you don't value obeying the law is because of your example about the hassle it would be if someone kept notifying the authorities about you violating Section such and such. It's a hassle because someone is forcing you to obey the law. The implication is that when no one reports you, then it's fine for you to conveniently violate that law because you think it's a bad law. If that is the wrong implication, then please correct me. I meant my rhetorical question about obeying the law to be in the context of your example. But I should have been more clear about that. A better revised question is "so you don't think you should have to obey laws you disagree with?" Our opinion of a law does not have any bearing on our responsibility to obey it. If we think a law is stupid, we can try to get it changed, but until then, we obey it. That's how rule of law works. I have no doubt that your industry is ridiculously over-litigated. But I'd rather all businesses obey all the laws (and work to change the stupid ones) than decide for themselves which ones they'd like to obey and which they get to violate with impunity.
- icelancer 10y ago
  I think that was a poor flagging/deleting (not really sure how it works) as well.

theonething 10y ago

Well, the reason why I came to the conclusion that you don't value obeying the law is because of your example about the hassle it would be if someone kept notifying the authorities about you violating Section such and such. It's a hassle because someone is forcing you to obey the law. The implication is that when no one reports you, then it's fine for you to conveniently violate that law because you think it's a bad law. If that is the wrong implication, then please correct me. I meant my rhetorical question about obeying the law to be in the context of your example. But I should have been more clear about that. A better revised question is "so you don't think you should have to obey laws you disagree with?" Our opinion of a law does not have any bearing on our responsibility to obey it. If we think a law is stupid, we can try to get it changed, but until then, we obey it. That's how rule of law works. I have no doubt that your industry is ridiculously over-litigated. But I'd rather all businesses obey all the laws (and work to change the stupid ones) than decide for themselves which ones they'd like to obey and which they get to violate with impunity.

icelancer 10y ago
I see, yes. Do you feel the same way about sodomy laws and other non-executed laws on the books about oppressing minorities and such that went ignored instead of actually changed under litigation? I assume that those should be obeyed to the letter as well.
- theonething 10y ago
  Regardless of whether or not I agree with a law, I as an individual, should not have the right to decide whether I should obey it. In the case of a law that I vehemently disagree with on moral grounds, the proper form of protest is in the context of group; e.g. organize group protests, petitions, etc. The difference here is individual vs group. If a critical mass of people think a law is wrong, there's a good chance there's something to that. A group context offers accountability and helps filter bad thinking/decisions, etc. I'm operating under the assumption of a working democracy here (working but far from perfect). If tomorrow, the government passes a law commanding everyone to kill children, I will not obey it. Why? Because it's wrong and I'll know it's wrong because there's going to be a heck of a lot of people agreeing with me. Letting individuals alone decide leads to undesirable results. A cook thinks the requirement to wash his hands after using the bathroom is ridiculous. So he concludes it is immoral for the government to impose on his freedom to choose when to wash his hands and he disobeys this law. Yuck! This example is not far fetched as many cooks are immigrants from countries that don't hold to that practice legally or culturally. If we leave it up to the individual to choose which laws to obey or not obey with impunity, then law becomes meaningless. They are not laws, but nice suggestions.
  - icelancer 10y ago
    OK then. Let's get to work on executing all those laws, such as: Washington: It's illegal to walk around in public while sick with the common cold or anything you can transmit through the air. Anyone who is sick can no longer leave the house. It's also illegal to buy meat on Sundays. Texas: Illegal to own six or more dildos. North Carolina: Oral sex is a crime, so get on jailing them. etc, etc.
    - theonething 10y ago
      We both agree that there exists stupid laws. That is beyond a doubt. Our disagreement revolves around what to do about the fact that there are stupid laws. Your argument is individuals should be allowed to decide which laws are stupid and obey/disobey accordingly. But I'm not sure what your premise is. My problem with your argument is that it renders the concept of law meaningless. Then, for example, doctors are free to decide whether they want to follow certain required safety procedures based on their own opinion, etc. My argument is an individual should not be allowed to decide which laws should and should not be obeyed. Instead, that decision should be made in a group context, whether than be Congress, referendum, organized protest, etc. My argument is based on the premise that letting groups decide what is a good law is better and safer than letting an individual decide. A group context (in general) is self-correcting. I'd rather put up with the hassle/ potential injustice of having to obey stupid laws (with the option of trying to change those laws and in the case of egregious injustice, the option of group civil disobedience) than risk the possibility of a biomedical company skipping some important tests because they think they're frivolous and know that they won't be held accountable. So again, I'd apply this group decision making principle to the laws you just listed. Btw, I don't have time to research all your examples, but in the case of the law against walking around with a cold, I believe you are referring to this law[0]. I see it as you can't purposely sneeze on someone or donate tainted blood, etc. But that's beside the point. Well, I think that's all I have to say on this topic. You have your opinions on it and I have mine. Although, to be honest, I'm not clear on your arguments and premise. You just list examples of stupid laws. The implication is why should anyone have to obey these stupid laws? My answer is they shouldn't if a critical mass of people decide they are stupid/unjust etc. Thanks for the discourse. Also, I need to apologize to you for my uncharitable first comment. [0] http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=70.54.050 http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=70.54.050

theonething 10y ago

My response was flagged for some reason. I don't think that is a fair flagging. It skews the discussion and is tantamount to censorship. I believe I responded to the counterpoint in good faith. To whoever did it, I welcome your explanation as to why you felt it was justified. Here is my original response that was flagged: Well, the reason why I came to the conclusion that you don't value obeying the law is because of your example about the hassle it would be if someone kept notifying the authorities about you violating Section such and such. It's a hassle because someone is forcing you to obey the law. The implication is that when no one reports you, then it's fine for you to conveniently violate that law because you think it's a bad law. If that is the wrong implication, then please correct me. I meant my rhetorical question about obeying the law to be in the context of your example. But I should have been more clear about that. A better revised question is "so you don't think you should have to obey laws you disagree with?" Our opinion of a law does not have any bearing on our responsibility to obey it. If we think a law is stupid, we can try to get it changed, but until then, we obey it. That's how rule of law works. I have no doubt that your industry is ridiculously over-litigated. But I'd rather all businesses obey all the laws (and work to change the stupid ones) than decide for themselves which ones they'd like to obey and which they get to violate with impunity.

icelancer 10y ago
I think that was a poor flagging/deleting (not really sure how it works) as well.