4 ms·

I have to disagree. If an official puts up a barrier and tells you to pay him to pass through it, but you can easily walk round the barrier, do so. It's his job

I have to disagree. If an official puts up a barrier and tells you to pay him to pass through it, but you can easily walk round the barrier, do so. It's his job to make the barrier more difficult to get round. I would say that there ought to be no expectation that people should meekly adhere to the spirit of stupid laws. If officialdom wants to implement stupid laws, let them at least make the effort to do it properly :) @davidw "To do otherwise leads to corruption and disdain for the rule of law." Maybe, but bad laws do that too. In the real world, people want to get things done rather than go into politics to replace the eedjits that are stopping them.

davidw 16y ago
The proper thing in a democracy is not to meekly accept stupid laws, but to abolish them. To do otherwise leads to corruption and disdain for the rule of law. You can hit the 'reply' link to reply to comments. In reply to your observation that people "just want to get stuff done" - great, they can elect politicians who will try and make it possible to do so. Otherwise, they should obey the law. It's there (or should be) so that one person's "getting stuff done" doesn't impinge on the rights of other people, or society as a whole. Clearly, people have different ideas about what laws are just and so on, but just ignoring whatever laws don't suit your fancy is not a recipe for a healthy place to live.
- paulgb 16y ago
  Sometimes finding ways to skirt those laws can be a more effective way of having them abolished. Case in point, the province of Nova Scotia was one of the last places in North America to ban shopping on Sundays. An exception was made for stores under a certain square-footage. After unsuccessfully lobbying the government to overturn the ban, the major grocery stores started re-branding themselves as shopping malls and registering the deli, produce, fish market, etc. as separate businesses which fell under the square footage requirements. Soon after they started doing this, the government caved and overturned the law. I don't see it as breaking the law so much as demonstrating that it can't effectively be enforced.
  - davidw 16y ago
    That's more up front about it though, rather than simply being sneaky. It's a direct and public challenge to a bad law. Something else along those lines might be Rosa Parks and her refusal to sit in the back of the bus. I suppose it's not always cut and dried, but what I see in Italy is a broad disregard for rules and laws, and it's a very unpleasant aspect of the country.
    - Gormo 16y ago
      I don't see the direct challenge in the supermarket example. It challenged the law in the same way as the left shoe example: comply with the explicit provisions of a bad law in such a way as to render its object unattainable. Rosa Parks deliberately violated the law - this was a direct challenge, and one justified because the law was not just bad, but intentionally malicious.
      - davidw 16y ago
        Because everyone can see exactly what the supermarket is doing, whereas the shoe guy did what he did by sneaking around.
        Gormo 16y ago
        What's the difference? The shoe importer complied with the established laws as written (assuming that there was no prohibition on the original intended recipient of the merchandise bidding on the auction once the customs period has expired).
        davidw 16y ago
        Is it that hard to see? The shoe importer is just doing something sneaky for his (and his customers - let's not forget the import duties are a net loss) gain, but he's not really doing anything at all to publicly challenge the law. Whereas the supermarket guys are quite blatant in what they're doing to the point where the local government either had to relent or crack down.

davidw 16y ago

The proper thing in a democracy is not to meekly accept stupid laws, but to abolish them. To do otherwise leads to corruption and disdain for the rule of law. You can hit the 'reply' link to reply to comments. In reply to your observation that people "just want to get stuff done" - great, they can elect politicians who will try and make it possible to do so. Otherwise, they should obey the law. It's there (or should be) so that one person's "getting stuff done" doesn't impinge on the rights of other people, or society as a whole. Clearly, people have different ideas about what laws are just and so on, but just ignoring whatever laws don't suit your fancy is not a recipe for a healthy place to live.

paulgb 16y ago
Sometimes finding ways to skirt those laws can be a more effective way of having them abolished. Case in point, the province of Nova Scotia was one of the last places in North America to ban shopping on Sundays. An exception was made for stores under a certain square-footage. After unsuccessfully lobbying the government to overturn the ban, the major grocery stores started re-branding themselves as shopping malls and registering the deli, produce, fish market, etc. as separate businesses which fell under the square footage requirements. Soon after they started doing this, the government caved and overturned the law. I don't see it as breaking the law so much as demonstrating that it can't effectively be enforced.
- davidw 16y ago
  That's more up front about it though, rather than simply being sneaky. It's a direct and public challenge to a bad law. Something else along those lines might be Rosa Parks and her refusal to sit in the back of the bus. I suppose it's not always cut and dried, but what I see in Italy is a broad disregard for rules and laws, and it's a very unpleasant aspect of the country.
  - Gormo 16y ago
    I don't see the direct challenge in the supermarket example. It challenged the law in the same way as the left shoe example: comply with the explicit provisions of a bad law in such a way as to render its object unattainable. Rosa Parks deliberately violated the law - this was a direct challenge, and one justified because the law was not just bad, but intentionally malicious.
    - davidw 16y ago
      Because everyone can see exactly what the supermarket is doing, whereas the shoe guy did what he did by sneaking around.
      - Gormo 16y ago
        What's the difference? The shoe importer complied with the established laws as written (assuming that there was no prohibition on the original intended recipient of the merchandise bidding on the auction once the customs period has expired).
        davidw 16y ago
        Is it that hard to see? The shoe importer is just doing something sneaky for his (and his customers - let's not forget the import duties are a net loss) gain, but he's not really doing anything at all to publicly challenge the law. Whereas the supermarket guys are quite blatant in what they're doing to the point where the local government either had to relent or crack down.