Why do people think the law doesn't apply to them?

[SteveA]

The disrespect for the law, comes from laws the deserve no respect. The more laws there are enforced that deserve no respect, the more the general disrespect for the law. You want people to be respectful of laws, start helping to insure that only respectful laws are created and enforced, without favoritism.

Ditto me a copy of that, Osborn. Excellent point.

It's almost like inflation for laws. As the supply increases, the value of each is diminished, because they have little inherent value attached.

I've assumed we had a time when people were more law abiding, but not only was it easier because there were fewer laws, the laws that existed addressed more primary concerns people had and so people had a greater respect for these in general, even if they didn't understand the exact intent of every one of them, they still assumed a general wisdom lay behind their creation, so took the good with the bad.

(Sidenote: I wonder if private schools are typically better in this regard also - assuring parents have an easier time dropping off and picking up their children?)

[belverron]

Quote by: SteveA I've assumed we had a time when people were more law abiding, but not only was it easier because there were fewer laws, the laws that existed addressed more primary concerns people had and so people had a greater respect for these in general, even if they didn't understand the exact intent of every one of them, they still assumed a general wisdom lay behind their creation, so took the good with the bad.

Exactly how mysterious is a law against leaving a car unmanned in a fire lane?

[Cephus]

Quote by: belverron Exactly how mysterious is a law against leaving a car unmanned in a fire lane?

Apparently pretty mysterious. It's also apparently pretty mysterious that some people are incapable of comprehending that we are a nation of laws and consequences and that you don't have to agree with a law or like a law, you are still obligated to follow it while it is in effect. Maybe you can park 99 times in the fire lane and have nothing happen, that doesn't mean that he one time where there is a fire and they need that lane clear, you're somehow justified in taking that chance the other 99 times.

Now you're certainly welcome to park there if you want, but you accept the consequences when you are caught violating the law. They had one of those three-wheel parking enforcement cart-thing out there today as well as two motor officers and a squad car and apparently they were writing up tickets galore for all the people who can't quite figure out basic traffic laws.

Seems we have a lot of those people here too.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Cephus Grow up.

SPEAK FOR YOURSELF!

You go around thinking your some kind of authority figure!


The sooner you accept that you're nothing more than an average guy who means nothing to the world, the less you will feel like a insecure loser who has to go around policing everyone.

[RickSp]

Common sense is so much preferable to dogmatism. But that is OK. I won't get all worked up about jaywalking or a parent dropping off his kid at school. Far better for the blood pressure and outlook.

[Matt W]

Tman, debate properly rather than hurling insults, or leave well alone.

Do not respond to me within this thread. PM myself or Sean if you have any questions.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Cephus I just got home from picking up my kids from school. In front of the school is a fire hydrant and a clearly painted red zone, right in the middle of a whole line of yellow curb clearly marked as no unattended car loading zone. While I'm standing there waiting for them to get out, some lady drives up and parks directly in the middle of the red zone so I ask her why she thinks that she's special and the law doesn't apply to her. She gets mad at me and makes a bunch of excuses. I tell her that she either moves her car or I call the police. She moves. It can't be more than 30 seconds later that some moron in a brand new Lexus pulls in to the same spot, locks his car and LEAVES! He's clearly sitting in front of a fire hydrant in a red zone, also violating the city statue about the full block loading zone. I'm about to go do the same routine with him when I see this police car driving down the street so I flag it down and direct him to the moron flagrantly violating the law. Ticket time and the idiot is yelling at me like it's MY fault he's getting a ticket. Hopefully he got two tickets for violating the unattended car law too. Since when did the entire planet start revolving around these self-absorbed assholes? And can we shoot them?

To answer the title on the thread I think some push the limits. I drive 70 in a 65 zone. I think a lot of people do, not out of arrogance but taking a risk, sometimes a stupid one like sliding through a stop sign in a high traffic area.

Stop light. Middle of nowhere. 2 AM. Nothing for miles. Seems broken. That's another reason.

Then you have those who just don't give a damn and are aggressive drivers to the point of lunacy, like drivers who tailgate or drive through a parking lot fast with a cellphone up to their ear.

Then you have your typical arrogant asshole, like the guy behind you who pulls out while you are using an entrance ramp to an interstate, going across the berm, and then blocks you while laughing about it. I don't see a lot of that while I travel, but there's a lot of people doing that here for some reason. I wait for them to do it. Then I pull faster than they are pulling out. They hate that. Not much the can do. I have the right of way. I feel the same about someone who double parks and walks off or blocks a fire hydrant.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Ken Carman To answer the title on the thread I think some push the limits. I drive 70 in a 65 zone. I think a lot of people do, not out of arrogance but taking a risk, sometimes a stupid one like sliding through a stop sign in a high traffic area.

I am always equally amused and annoyed when I am worrying whether I am pushing things by creeping up a bit past 70 in a 65 mph zone only to have some fool blast by me at what has to be 90. He is a definate danger to all on the road and I can only hope that State Trooper is lurking beyond the next ridge.

On an empty street, I will always j-walk. At an empty intersection I'll happily cross against the light. Sometimes, I don't recycle. Living the life of a wild desparado. Yes suree.

[Athena]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman LoL... that's the spirit! We need more people like you, Cephus. My girlfrind is the opposite. She saw a meter maid about to give someone a ticket, and managed to distract the officer long enough for the owner to show up.

You don't see the difference between a parking meter needing more money and someone parking a fire lane? Parking in a disignated parking space isn't a threat to lives and property, but parking in a fire lane is. However, the violation seems about like Bush knowing a hurricane will hit New Orleans and could cause major damage, but hoping for the best and not being sure FEMA is ready to go on a moments notice, with the result of preventable deaths, suffering and trauma that will effect people's lives. Some of us think it important to be ready for the worst, and others assume the chances of things being bad too great make worth being inconvinienced. If we all flaunted the laws designed for our protection, the chance of things going very bad would increase. So it becomes important we agree to obey the laws that are for a mutal good.

And then we can do down line. Which laws should we have to obey and which ones is it okay to flaunt? I think those who want anarchy are wrong. Anarchy would give people permission to kill people just because they want to kill the Jew, Indian, Black man, homosexual, women etc. These forums are eye opening.

[SteveA]

And then we can do down line. Which laws should we have to obey and which ones is it okay to flaunt? I think those who want anarchy are wrong. Anarchy would give people permission to kill people just because they want to kill the Jew, Indian, Black man, homosexual, women etc. These forums are eye opening.

And how long do you think Hitler would have lived if there hadn't been a government behind him? The insanity happens because of the laws.

The riots we had in L.A. were because of government actions. People don't spontaneously do crazy stuff.

Do you believe that just because there's no law against blowing smoke in the face of a 5 month old baby that people do it because it's legal?

In China it's totally legal to kill peoples children.

Ok, let's say that we did have anarchy and some idiot decides that means he can go around and "kill the Jew, Indian, Black man, homosexual, women etc." as you said.

There's no law that says people can't stop such from happening. So why would people stand around watching this happen without doing anything?

(Why did you leave the elderly and white men out of that? Do you assume the elderly and white men would cause this? Do you see yourself as racist/sexist/agist?/class warfare proponent?)

If we'd have had anarchy in New Orleans prior to the hurricane. Nothing legally would have changed after the hurricane so people wouldn't have automatically assumed that just because there weren't any police around is would have been ok to go around rioting. Nor would there have been sheriffs around to shoot over peoples heads and prevent them from leaving the city, nor would charity groups have been turned back and the meaningless tour Bush took of the city would never have used up real human resources doing little of anything and people wouldn't have been waiting around for FEMA to get person to help people there.

I'm amazed at the lack of trust people have in their fellow men. That people assume government gives us our morality is an eye opener for me too.

P.S. Cindy Sheehan outside Bushes ranch was wearing an anarchy logo. Do you think she was there to promote killing women, homosexuals, black people etc.?

[ibm]

in this particular case, let's not make a big deal out of it. ticket the guy or not, either way it's fine with me.

do all the laws deserve to be respected (and therefore abided)? i think so. do i like or respect every single law and therefore abide by all of them? of course not. e.g., seatbelt and helmet laws are the most ridiculous ones imo. cephus, you said you abide by any law - can you honestly tell us you've never driven @ 70 in a 65 zone?

at the mean time, once a law is enacted, we as citizens should abide by it. if you don't like it, try to let your voice be heard before it's passed.

[ibm]

now i think about it, i can recall one day i was about to cross a street in boston. then this policeman pulled a lady's car because the front wheels had crossed the zebra lines by a foot. the lady looked like 90 years old and could barely get out of her car normally.

talk about protecting the right of way.

[SteveA]

Anarchy would give people permission to kill people just because they want to kill the Jew, Indian, Black man, homosexual, women etc.

I have to admit this is the type of racism that really annoys me. I can practically guess the single demographic that doesn't matter if they're killed. (And if they happen to be successful, is that another check against them?)

Ever notice how racial supremecists are almost always defined as white too? Or how the institution that was supposed to assure equal treatment under the law has check boxes for race, that's supposedly something that's illegal for everyone else?

Yes, we still have racism, sexism and slavery. Maybe that's why so many people are still interested in protecting individual rights? I think the civil rights movement is still happening, it's just changed focus to be about equal rights for everyone, irrespective of race/sex etc.

I normally ignore the racial/minority comments because it seems like an issue that should have passed us long by but it's views like this that keep it going and I couldn't resist commenting.

Oh, and how many of the minority's issues you listed were caused by government and a lack of questioning or blind obedience to authority instead of anarchy?

Oh and you'd still be able to tow off a car if it was blocking your way under anarchy. You'd just need to be careful not to upset too many people.

at the mean time, once a law is enacted, we as citizens should abide by it. if you don't like it, try to let your voice be heard before it's passed.

I hate to burst the bubble but I serious doubt this is an option on the federal level at least.

The Senate voted 100-0 in support of the new national ID card and more support for Iraq. That includes Ron Paul. I have a feeling even Michael Badnarik somehow would have voted for the new nation ID also. I'm certain a ton of people wrote to petition Congress not to pass this but did it even result in a single swayed vote? Meanwhile Bush is hitting record lows in approval so there's a disparity. It's a joke put on everyone by a detached government and nothing's going to change until some states make them listen and I don't know how likely that is. Yes, there are a lot of politicians that talk one way but when it comes time to put their vote where their mouth is, something happens. Doesn't matter Democrat or Republican, if the issue hands more power to government or allows government to intrude further into your life, they pass it. If it limits their power or makes it harder to justify getting into private matters, they don't pass it. You just have to watch a bit closer to see the pattern and then it becomes apparent. Same thing with most talk show hosts. They'll speak great generalities but when some critical issue comes along and they have to take a stand, very often you'll find they recommend some sort of compromise ... just this once so they can get more support later for something nebulous, or alternately they just redefine things so that "the People" are better off, but not you personally. Maybe if the issue is minor enough they'll stick to principles.

(Am I overly cynical, probably, but I'd rather be wrong and happy than fall yet again for more of the same. That's one of the reasons I can relate with anarchist views because what do you do if some laws are past that you just can't agree to support? I don't think anyone can truly say they'd always follow the law no matter what because noone can predict what the laws will be and guarantee they'd remain within the realm of things people were willing to comply with)

[ibm]

i could be wrong, but a lot of people vote based on their personal feelings of the candidates, but not their record (like voting record). i guess things are real bad now, but still ain't bad enough yet to change the way many vote.

[SteveA]

Quote by: ibm i could be wrong, but a lot of people vote based on their personal feelings of the candidates, but not their record (like voting record). i guess things are real bad now, but still ain't bad enough yet to change the way many vote.

I've got the say the silver lining to the cloud is that more people are talking and I'm certain at least a few of them are reevaluating the whole intent of the system.

[Osborn F Enready]

Cephus said:
It's also apparently pretty mysterious that some people are incapable of comprehending that we are a nation of laws and consequences and that you don't have to agree with a law or like a law, you are still obligated to follow it while it is in effect.

I say:
In my, and many others, your opinion is wrong. It is a lawbreakers RESPONSIBILITY to make amends for breaking that law if they are caught, but it is not their obligation to OBEY the law. All laws are created, just like all laws CAN BE repealed. Bad laws happen, and some should be repealed, and before they are, if people recognize them as bad laws, they SHOULDN'T obey them, but they should be prepared to argue their case and win if they are caught violating that law.

I agree that blocking a fire hydrant, ESPECIALLY when there is other places to park, is ridiculous and just plain rude and careless. My point was, how silly it was to make a big issue out of traffic laws when they are ALL SELECTIVELY ENFORCED LAWS, whereas there are many laws out there that should have activist groups formed to help their repeal.

I wasn't condemning your opinion in the least Cephus, just your target for irritation.

Athena said:
I think those who want anarchy are wrong.

I say:
I think I have seen two people in this forum since I have been here admit to being anarchists. I haven't seen them post in this thread. Who are you claiming in this thread of loving anarchy?

SteveA said:
I'm amazed at the lack of trust people have in their fellow men. That people assume government gives us our morality is an eye opener for me too.

I say:
Amen to that brother.

IBM said:
at the mean time, once a law is enacted, we as citizens should abide by it. if you don't like it, try to let your voice be heard before it's passed.

I say:
I disagree on EVERY level with that statement.

It is your and everyones civic duty to demand that unconstitutional laws, or laws backed by flawed logic are not only disobeyed, BUT REPEALED in short order.

The longer a bad law stays law, the longer and stronger a healthy disrespect for the law has to culture and manifest.

SteveA said:
Yes, there are a lot of politicians that talk one way but when it comes time to put their vote where their mouth is, something happens. Doesn't matter Democrat or Republican, if the issue hands more power to government or allows government to intrude further into your life, they pass it. If it limits their power or makes it harder to justify getting into private matters, they don't pass it. You just have to watch a bit closer to see the pattern and then it becomes apparent.

I say:
I concur, and this has been the basis of my argument since the bi-partisan monopoly has been discovered by me.

The two-party monopoly has done more to hurt this nation, than anything before it. Why you ask? Because the system that helped grow this nation to its power, was usurped just in time for the bi-partisan monopoly to "claim" it was responsible for the rewards of that that previous system had laid the groundwork for, and then committing all third parties to second-class status, by not debating them, recognizing them, admitting they exist, and helping to further complicate their pursuits of office.

Destroy the bi-partisan lock on government, and change will begin that helps us ALL. because politiciancs will be forced to again rely on their platforms, the logic of their debates, and the solidity of their economic and social platforms ONCE HELD TO FAIR HONEST DEBATE.

An excerpt of well said thoughts on this piece that I subscribe to.....
"The New Deal was a 'reorganization' or an 'expansion' of government. The creation of the Homeland Security Department is a coup within the government. What Ollie North once did illegally in a White House basement - free-lancing policy with public money and accountability to no one - a $37 billion department with 170,000 employees will now do legally in what is sure to be a high-rise of basements and metaphorical windows on Washington's Bureaucracy Row. Like a Wall Street firm beholden only to its board room, the second-largest government department is now a proprietary arm of the presidency. It operates beyond congressional scrutiny and public accountability, and guarantees secrecy to its own machinations or to those of any private business with which it deals."

I find it hard to get upset over traffic laws, when my entire Constitution is being abused and tortured, and left to die on a floor of a museum.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Ken Carman To answer the title on the thread I think some push the limits. I drive 70 in a 65 zone. I think a lot of people do, not out of arrogance but taking a risk, sometimes a stupid one like sliding through a stop sign in a high traffic area.

You're right, it is taking a risk. If you break the law and the cop pulls you over, do you bitch and whine because you're being held responsible for your actions? Or do you just accept that you messed up and have to pay the consequences.

Apparently there are a lot of people around here who figure they should be able to do anything they want with no risk of repercussion because they're somehow special.

Stop light. Middle of nowhere. 2 AM. Nothing for miles. Seems broken. That's another reason.

Sure, that's a bit different than just driving through a stoplight without even slowing down. I can't imagine that any cop would give you a ticket for sitting at a red light for a couple minutes, deciding that it's broken, then carefully crossing the street.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready In my, and many others, your opinion is wrong. It is a lawbreakers RESPONSIBILITY to make amends for breaking that law if they are caught, but it is not their obligation to OBEY the law. All laws are created, just like all laws CAN BE repealed. Bad laws happen, and some should be repealed, and before they are, if people recognize them as bad laws, they SHOULDN'T obey them, but they should be prepared to argue their case and win if they are caught violating that law.

If you find a bad law, there are methods in place so you can try to get the law repealed. Just ignoring anything you don't like isn't a logical or rational way to live your life, sorry. Everyone is obligated to follow the laws that are in place where they live. There are federal, state, county and city laws and you're liable for every single one of them. Jeffrey Dahlmer didn't get to commit murder because he just didn't like the laws against it.

I agree that blocking a fire hydrant, ESPECIALLY when there is other places to park, is ridiculous and just plain rude and careless. My point was, how silly it was to make a big issue out of traffic laws when they are ALL SELECTIVELY ENFORCED LAWS, whereas there are many laws out there that should have activist groups formed to help their repeal.

Ah, so as long as every law on the books isn't equally enforced, we should all just run traffic lights, speed, cut people off, park where we want, etc. because it's silly to make a big deal out of traffic laws.

Sure, that makes sense. The fact that it's a public safety issue shouldn't matter. Gotcha.

[Osborn F Enready]

Cephus said:
If you find a bad law, there are methods in place so you can try to get the law repealed.

I say:
You are right. I, or no other American however seems to have enough disposable income to flush into the fight of repealing the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of state and federal level Unconstitutional laws. That is part of the crime of our usurpation. Lawyers were never meant to exist, as people were supposed to represent themselves. Now that we have allowed the bureauocracy to expand our laws beyond mass understanding to compliance of the law, we are forced to pay "law specialists" to fight our battles, at our own personal expense, to repeal laws that should have never been created in the first place.

Laws haven't been originating from the proper place in the majority of cases for over 60 years.

Congress hasn't had much of a job to do since The War and Emergency Powers Act.

People haven't had much say, since their rights have been declared fair game for "regulation".

Cephus said:
Just ignoring anything you don't like isn't a logical or rational way to live your life, sorry. Everyone is obligated to follow the laws that are in place where they live. There are federal, state, county and city laws and you're liable for every single one of them.

I say:
You obviously missed the point, though it was spelled out very clearly. Did I say ignore bad laws? I said people should take it as their CIVIC DUTY TO DISOBEY BAD LAWS, AND BE PREPARED TO WIN THE LEGAL BATTLE WHEN IT COMES TIME FOR YOUR DAY IN COURT.

Being liable, is another term of personal responsibility. I believe people should be responsible even moreso than you I think. They should not only be responsible to obey good law, but they should be responsible to help show the demand for repeal of bad laws by not following those laws, and FORCING THEM TO BE CHALLENGED IN COURT, BEFORE THE EYES OF THE PUBLIC.

Cephus said:
Jeffrey Dahlmer didn't get to commit murder because he just didn't like the laws against it.

I say:
Comparing murder to parking in a fire zone, is akin to comparing Enron scale fraud, to someone lying about $25.00 on their Income Tax Return.

Get real.

Jeffrey Dahmer violated peoples rights, whose rights are violated by my not wearing a seat belt, or crossing in a no crossing zone?

Cephus said:
Ah, so as long as every law on the books isn't equally enforced, we should all just run traffic lights, speed, cut people off, park where we want, etc. because it's silly to make a big deal out of traffic laws.

I say:
It is the concept Cephus, not that particular instance. Did I say I didn't see a need for traffic laws? NO, so stop trying to say I did.

My point is, when we allow laws to be created that can only be selectively enforced, we have to be wary of abuse and mis-use of that discretion for those selected for enforcement. We also have to be aware that these types of laws create their own problems with enforcement, and therefore, should only have laws of this type when absolutely necessary.

I have no problems with traffic laws, just with the way they are enforced, and the increasing encroach of our freedom in our cars, such as right to privacy.

Just because I am exercising my right to conveyance, does not mean I forsake all other rights because I drive on a road patrolled by the state, or local law enforcement.

If I am pulled over for not signalling, what right does an officer have to give my car a safety check, search it, and disassemble it on a public road with no responsibility to return it to the state it was in before they began? What right does he have to allow a intrusive search by special device (a super sensitive smelling device, such as a dogs nose) to try to further remove my rights, since I am already stopped for a minor infraction which could have been caused by a mere failure of the automobiles parts to begin with?

It is all about perspective.

[SteveA]

If you find a bad law, there are methods in place so you can try to get the law repealed. Just ignoring anything you don't like isn't a logical or rational way to live your life, sorry. Everyone is obligated to follow the laws that are in place where they live.

I'm not certain what you mean by 'obligated'. If thay means that people should place greater weight on following the laws than breaking them, I'd agree but if there's an assumption included that people should be forced to follow all laws, nor should people take time to question the legitimacy or benefit of the laws, I'd disagree.

I personally think slaves running off to the Free States, as they were called at the time, was a perfectly legitimate thing to do. Maybe it was a violation of the law at the time, and I can't say for certain what my views would have been if I had been raised in that environment and taught differently but I'd assume even without a modern perspective I would have questioned the hypocracy of people claiming to represent freedom and individual rights at the time and then forcing people to slave under their views.

BTW, I did already agree that leaving a car unattended in front of a hydrant should be something that was enforced but I also happen to personally know the value of being able to stop in front of a hydrant to pick up your kids from school. There's not enough parking and the streets are packed and it does noone anything other than apparently emotional damage and I don't place emotional damage high on my list of things to enforce a law over. If it makes you feel any better, you can at least rest assured knowing the officer there made them pay.

There are federal, state, county and city laws and you're liable for every single one of them.

I'd agree. Hence why you have so many people complinaing on various political forums. Correction, we still thankfully have the right to a trial by jury so liability for the laws is still something the Constitution left up to the people.

Let me guess, do you also happen to feel our courts let too many 'criminals' go? Yes, we do have people who I'd agree who should be in jail released by the courts sometimes but we also have a lot more people, IMO, who have been protected against having poor laws enforced by this.

We have a system that attempts to leave the final decision over the laws in the hands of a few individuals. Judges determine what laws are constitutional and jurors determine which of the remaining are worth enforcing, though we have a lot of jury manipulation via. jury selection and the manner in which judges try to deny information from being presented and the way in which our system expects jurors to merely be passive spectators and only make their decision based upon specific instructions from the judge.

Apparently there are a lot of people around here who figure they should be able to do anything they want with no risk of repercussion because they're somehow special.

Merely being envious that some other people breaks a law and benefits, if this doesn't harm anyone else, doesn't seem to justify any additional action.

I'd agree there are issues where a persons action might place others at risk, and there are times some actions need to be preemptively stopped but to me that's the exception, not the rule or an ideal. The magnitude in the tradeoff between allowing people their freedom and possibly increasing their security is important. I place a lot of weight toward freedom over, an all too often, imagined security.

Consider for a second if there were no laws regarding parking in front of a hydrant. Isn't it quick likely hydrants would just be designed differently so this wasn't a concern? The lessened traffic congestion under such a scenario would also allow firetrucks to respond easier, so it would be a win/win, but as usual government has little incentive to improve quality of services because too many people don't stop to question this stuff or realize there are other people with different solutions being held captive by people with that mentality that the letter of the law is more important than the intent.