[try_the_bass]

> This is akin to how two kinds of people respond to law. The first kind think "This is the law, we must follow it" and the other kind think "This law doesn't make sense, we must change it".

What? I don't understand how this is a "two kinds of people" generalization, when the two categories aren't even mutually-exclusive?

One can think a law is bad and should change, while simultaneously recognizing the rule of law and following it.

It's pretty weird to try to pit those two perspectives against each other

[trumpdong]

Then you are the first kind. Since the law will not change, you will continue to follow it.

[socalgal2]

> "This is the law, we must follow it" and the other kind think "This law doesn't make sense, we must change it".

There's zero point in changing the law if you don't expect it to be obeyed and enforced. Those positions are not opposites.

[AnthonyMouse]

If there is a stupid law, there are several things you can do:

You can follow it anyway and make no attempt to improve the situation, allowing the stupid consequences to follow indefinitely. (Notice that anyone who follows the law while doing nothing because they've been convinced reform efforts will be ineffective are in this group.)

You can follow it anyway while trying to change it, attempting to limit the time the stupid consequences exist.

Or you can refuse to follow it.

But the people in the last group should still be trying to reform the law, both so that they don't have to risk being prosecuted for doing the right thing, and in order to get the people in the first and second groups to stop doing the stupid thing the people in the third group are already refusing to do.

[LadyCailin]

If you don’t expect it to be obeyed or enforced, then I would say that means it should be fast tracked to be changed. “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.”

[account42]

The point is that if you don't follow the law as is then what expectation can you have that anyone follows your changed law - and if no one does then what's the point.

[trumpdong]

You say "should be", I say "won't". One of those is a statement about material reality.

[FpUser]

There are laws in existence that no one even "law addicts" would follow unless brain damaged. On top of that sheer amount of laws makes on "following those" simply impossible. there are also conflicting laws. Some laws are even refused to be enforced by the police.

It is a dynamic world where respect for law, trying to change law and plainly saying: "go fuck yourself, not gonna do it" should and do coexist.

Absolutely all laws followed strictly to the letter would kill a society.