| >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. |