5 ms·
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
by 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 agoThat'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 agoI 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 agoBecause everyone can see exactly what the supermarket is doing, whereas the shoe guy did what he did by sneaking around.
- Gormo 16y agoWhat'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 agoIs 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.