[flustercan]

All I want is for the laws on the books to be enforced. If a majority decides those laws are bad, they should be taken off the books.

Its currently against the law to litter, shoplift, vandalize, defecate in public, be visibly intoxicated in public, and store private property in public spaces. I think we should enforce those laws.

Should some of those laws be rewritten or abandoned? Maybe! But simply ignoring active laws is the definition of lawlessness and I don't want to live in a lawless community.

There is quite a lot of space in between "I think having laws is good, actually" and "embrace of dictatorship and oppression" but I guess this wouldn't be an internet board discussion without hyperbolic statements.

[bryanrasmussen]

In S.L.C Utah in the late 80s it was against the law for homeless people to ask for spare change.

One time I was walking with a friend, and a homeless guy asked me for some change and I gave it to him (most of the time I wouldn't because I wasn't exactly rich myself, but at just that time I felt like it), then I turned to cross the street before I had gotten 3 feet from giving the guy the spare change two cops swooped out from seemingly nowhere, accosted me and my friend, and started asking "what did he ask you? did you give him money", this was also quite aggressive the tone of voice of these cops.

Now I'm not the quickest guy on the uptake in these kinds of situations but luckily I was firing on all cylinders that day and so I said "no I didn't give me any money, he asked me what time it was leave me alone" loud enough that the homeless guy who was being detained by a third cop could hear me.

So after a bit more harassment they let us and the homeless guy go.

So first off a lot of laws are quite clearly unconstitutional, and it is an abrogation of freedom of speech that a homeless guy isn't allowed to ask me for money, no matter how uncomfortable it might make me.

My interpretation of rights is that any law which would actually itself be against the laws of the land does not need to be followed at all, but I have noticed that some people who hold your views believe that there are processes whereby illegitimate laws get nullified and until those processes are followed the law should be followed. Do you hold to this view?

Furthermore I would ask are there any laws that you would consider illegitimate? If so what are you doing personally to overturn those? I have encountered the viewpoint, generally in Americans, that the laws that are illegitimate should be followed until overturned and the duty of overturning those unjust laws fall only on the people who care about and are affected by those laws - is this also your viewpoint or do you think it falls on every citizen to oppose the unjust laws to their utmost?

Given the necessity to uphold the law that you believe in (meaning you believe in the necessity above other things) was I under an obligation to tell the police that the homeless guy asked me for money, and that I gave it to him?

[flustercan]

>I have noticed that some people who hold your views believe that there are processes whereby illegitimate laws get nullified and until those processes are followed the law should be followed. Do you hold to this view?

Yeah sorta, my point was more about enforcement than compliance. I don't necessarily think unjust laws should be followed but it certainly should not be up to each individual police officer to decide which laws gets enforced on which people.

If a law is unjust enough and enough people choose to disobey it and the legal system is forced to get involved constantly then I believe we would see a lot more change in the law than with our current system of writing laws then letting cops selectively enforce them.

>Furthermore I would ask are there any laws that you would consider illegitimate? If so what are you doing personally to overturn those?

Yes, just about any restriction on abortion. What am I doing? Not much other than voting, occasionally donating money, and choosing to never live in a state that writes those laws. Would what I do change if there were, say, a national abortion ban? Probably, but I certainly won't count on the police joining in on whatever form of protest I see fit.

I don't think the laws around shoplifting, public intoxication, vandalism, etc. are bad and I am doing nothing to overturn them.

> Given the necessity to uphold the law that you believe in (meaning you believe in the necessity above other things) was I under an obligation to tell the police that the homeless guy asked me for money, and that I gave it to him?

No, but the cops who saw you do it were obliged to follow whatever procedure was written into the law. Does SLC still have this law? Having been involved in the enforcement of this law, were you more aware that the law existed and you wanted it changed?

The laws are written democratically, then enforced dictatorially by the whim of a few individuals with a gun. I think this is bad.

[mmooss]

> All I want is for the laws on the books to be enforced.

That's an old rationalization of oppression. The reality is that we don't want all the laws enforced on themselves or their friends, and the laws are never enforced in toto on anyone, except the politically vulnerable.

[xcrunner529]

We can’t camp in parks and monopolize them for ourselves, nor should the homeless.

[bryanrasmussen]

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.

[mmooss]

You are free to beg in the halls and offices of Congress, however, if you ask for at least $10 million.

[xcrunner529]

I guess the poor should be allowed to kill too while we’re at it.

[bryanrasmussen]

the rather famous quote of course has one point to it - that is those laws mentioned are ones only the poor have any interest in doing, although both rich and poor share the capability of it.

Thus the correct response is not to talk about killing, which is something both the rich and poor have an interest in doing as well as sharing capability, and are often caught doing, but rather:

The law in its majestic equality forbids rich and poor alike from insider trading, or dumping hazardous materials into downstream waters from their factories.

This, rhetorically speaking, would seem to counter the original quote nicely, in showing that the law of course prevents Rich and poor alike in doing things that they have interests in doing, but no poor person is insider trading or dumping hazardous materials from their factories, because the definition of poor includes that they cannot be doing these things.

The thing of course is that the poor may have an interest in insider trading but lack the capacity, whereas everybody has the capacity to sleep under bridges but only the poor really seem to have an interest in it, and really they only have that interest because they are poor.

Which leads me to the following conclusion:

The interests of the poor are forbidden. The capacities of the rich are regulated.

[xcrunner529]

Hmm I guess I get that. I have so much frustration with all the public spaces being piss pits I guess I miss things.

[metalman]

The constituion is bieng ignored,over written, its basic ideals ridiculed, and is unfortunatly the source of ALL LAW.

Not one of the "new laws" bieng enforced or ignored is therfor valid.

Questions of legitamcy and precident are ridiculous.

Enforcing the first page of the constitution, fixes everything.

The other possibility, is decaring a total government shutdown, martial law, and a mandatory partisipation is drafting a new constitution, with a maximum of 10 pages.

Constitution, then enforcement procedure, but no more "laws", and laws, and laws, and laws, thinking of pi here, infinitly non repeating but with a sense of horror, rather than wonder