| HN Mirror

I think this is a fair framing. I'll say this: In the US at least (I don't know enough about other laws) I think our society would be way better off if all the current criminal laws were enforced accurately, than it is now where many criminal laws are enforced only a small fraction of the time. And it would be even worse in my opinion if the laws were enforced even less than they are now.

Keep in mind I said criminal law. Yes, I drive over 55MPH. But even these non-criminal law things would be fixed in a week if the 99% of Americans who "speed" were ticketed for it by speed cameras every day, because the politicians who are empowered to make those laws rational would feel immense pressure.

I realize that my feelings for this should and would change if we passed much worse laws. But that's an argument for participating in the process and reforming government. "Let's let most crimes go unpunished" (not saying you're saying this) is a poor solution for the problem of "We're letting corrupt and evil people shape the law."

In response to your last question, it's a good litmus test for whether you believe democracy is okay. Yes, if the majority of my neighbors actually voted on and supported a law I disagree with, and it doesn't violate the Constitution, then I ought to abide by it, or move to a different state. My feelings don't override those of the majority. The Constitution is supposed to be the backstop against horrible laws like "All $RACE must report to prison immediately or be shot." There is, I think, another school of thought that disagrees with me, and thinks that if the voters enact a policy they don't like, then it's the voters who are wrong, and we should neither abide by it, nor try to convince those voters to repeal it, but instead just protest and assert one's opinion as fact. That seems anti-democracy to me. It's more of "me-ocracy."