| 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? |
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.