4 ms·

There are so many laws and regulations, some contradictory, that at any given moment you are guaranteed to be in violation of some of them.

• dikaiosune 11y ago
  It could be an opportunity to force streamlining of laws. The bigger issue in my mind is that most social change involves breaking some laws. A lot of those changes have been for the better.
  • mc32 11y ago
    If the laws are voted in democratically, then there would be little need to break laws, just vote to amend or void them. Of course, beware the curse of the tyranny of the majority.
    • CamperBob2 11y ago
      If the laws are voted in democratically, then there would be little need to break laws, just vote to amend of void them. Of course, beware the curse of the tyranny of the majority. Which is it? Your two sentences stand diametrically opposed to each other. The history of civil rights in the US suggests that your first sentence is absurd, and your second dead on.
      • mc32 11y ago
        It's hard to reconcile, yes, so typically one relies on 'basic laws'. In the end, however, it falls on the majority, strictly speaking. If 95% of the voting public wanted to they certainly could change the Us constitution, and there is very little the dissenting 5% could do about it.
        • dikaiosune 11y ago
          Sure, but the way that historically the 5% has grown to 50%+ has involved a bunch of people willfully breaking laws. They can't just be static standards. Society changes, and for the laws to reflect that there has to be some wiggle room. If we just say "any time that 90% or more of society agrees on a law right now, it will be that way forever," we will stagnate.