3 ms·

We live in a world of “sanctuary this” and “Do not comply with that” and “I will not enforce the other”. In other words, we live in a world where a nontrivial

by efitz 4y ago

We live in a world of “sanctuary this” and “Do not comply with that” and “I will not enforce the other”. In other words, we live in a world where a nontrivial percentage of the population, especially many in influential positions, have decided that they don’t need to obey laws they disagree with. How else are you going to get people to comply with the law? Note that I am not asserting that any law is “good” or “bad”. But the proper way to handle bad laws is to win elections and change them, or use public sentiment to pressure lawmakers to change them.

crooked-v 4y ago
The kinds of "using public sentiment" that actually get things often done tend to involve willfully and intentionally breaking the law, as wildcat strikers, civil rights marchers, and sit-in protestors can attest.
- efitz 4y ago
  And that still works. But in recent times it’s very overused.
  - crooked-v 4y ago
    Overused? Not at all. If anything we've got a critical shortage of real public action over real issues.
mindslight 4y ago
The largest topics you're alluding to (sanctuary cities and marijuana regulations) have to do with federal versus state jurisdiction. True advocates of small government support states' rights over the preposterous power grab of Wickard v. Filburn. Especially when it manifests as states not using their own resources to enforce the otherwise mostly unenforceable desires of the federal government.