U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: Let’s All Disobey Stupid Laws
Source:
Reason
URL Source: http://reason.com/archives/2015/05/ ... l-but-the-most-useful-regulati
Published: May 14, 2015
Author: John Stossel
Post Date: 2015-05-14 09:57:00 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 5368
Comments: 37
Charles Murray, already controversial for writing books on how welfare hurts the poor, on ethnic differences in IQ and on (less controversial, but my favorite) happiness and good government, has written a new book that argues that it's time for civil disobedience. Government has become so oppressive, constantly restricting us with new regulations, that our only hope is for some of us to refuse to cooperate. Murray's suggestion—laid out in By the People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission—will make some people nervous. He argues that citizens and companies should start openly defying all but the most useful regulations, essentially ones that forbid assault, theft and fraud. He writes, "America is no longer the land of the free. We are still free in the sense that Norwegians, Germans and Italians are free. But that's not what Americans used to mean by freedom." He quotes Thomas Jefferson's observation that a good government is one "which shall restrain men from injuring one another (and) shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits." But our government today tries to do much more. While we try to invent new things, government constantly seeks new ways to control us. The number of federal crimes on the books is now 50 percent larger than back in 1980—a time when many people mistakenly thought the U.S. would cut the size of government. Murray says, correctly, that no ordinary human being—not even a team of lawyers—can ever be sure how to obey the 810 pages of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 1,024 pages of the Affordable Care Act or 2,300 pages of Dodd-Frank. What if we all stopped trying? The government can't put everyone in jail. Maybe by disobeying enough stupid laws, we can persuade judges that only rules that prevent clear, real harm to individuals should be enforced: "no harm, no foul." Law is not always the best indication of what is good behavior. Riots in places such as Ferguson and Baltimore remind us that even cops sometimes behave badly. No one wants to see law break down so completely that people get hurt, but historian Thaddeus Russell reminds us that many freedoms we take for granted exist not because the government graciously granted liberties to us but because of lawbreakers. Bootleggers, "robber barons" who did things like transporting ferry passengers in defiance of state-granted monopolies and tea-dumping American revolutionaries ignored laws they opposed. Sometimes these scofflaws loved liberty more than our revered Founders did. George Washington led troops against whiskey makers to enforce taxes. More recently, Uber decided it would ignore some cab regulations. It's good that they did because Uber usually offers better and safer service. Today, Uber is probably too popular for government to stamp out. Edward Snowden knew the legal consequences he'd face for revealing NSA spying on American citizens but did it anyway. I'm not yet sure if he did the right thing, but conservatives and leftists alike should admit that sometimes laws ought to be bent or broken. Instead, each political party defends civil disobedience unless the people doing it are people that faction doesn't like. The right loves ranchers who resist federal land managers but doesn't like people who flout immigrations laws. The left likes pot smokers but whines about corporations ignoring ridiculously complicated environmental regulations. Maybe most of these laws should be ignored by most of us. Politicians themselves don't always play by the rules. My last column was about how the Clintons get away with breaking rules. But I made a mistake that I must correct: I said the Clinton Foundation donated only 9 percent of its money to charity. Sorry, that was wrong. The Clintons and their flunkies were worse than that. In 2013, the Foundation collected $144 million but spent only $8.8 million on charity. That's only 6 percent. When Bill and Hillary say they want to "help people," they're talking about themselves. I don't want to be forced to obey such people. John Stossel (read his Reason archive) is the host of Stossel, which airs Thursdays on the FOX Business Network at 9 pm ET and is rebroadcast on Saturdays and Sundays at 9pm & midnight ET. Go here for more info.
Many freedoms we take for granted exist because of lawbreakers.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
And each individual defines "stupid". Oh, that'll work. How about, "Write your Congressman and tell him to repeal stupid laws"? Perhaps organize people into pushing for repeal of specific stupid laws? Perhaps a voter referendum? A march on the capitol? A "red-nose" day? No? Too much work? A descent into anarchy is the only solution?
I'd rather be on the side of anarchy than on the side of totalitarianism. Like you for instance. Was the law prohibiting helping slaves escape a "stupid" law? I guess you think that the folks who did that should have petitioned the government instead of determining the morality of such a law on their own and following their conscience. You're such a predictable little slave.
Let juries decide and apply nullification if appropriate.
Jury nullification is anarchy - just ask paulsen, he'll tell you.
Nah, let’s all work to change “stupid laws” (however they are defined) through the democratic process. It is much easier to change “stupid laws” than it is to suffer the consequences of disobeying “stupid laws.” That sounds simple enough for you, doesn’t it? The hardest part of changing laws is to involve other citizens in your cause. Once you've mastered the most difficult part, there's a well-defined easy procedure to follow. There is to be no task too difficult and no sacrifice too great for you, the renowned LF Forum Warrior. Go for it…
Your edifice is built on an incorrect supposition, that there is no other choice. It’s like trying to use the regula falsi method to problem solve an arithmetic problem. It takes a very narrow minded person to see the choice between two unacceptable choices as being the only choice. Get real!
I can't post videos.... but it would be interesting to post a video from an article titled "Arrest Of Chelsea Businessman Creates Tension Between City, Police" The article is interesting. It's about a rookie officer that arrests a businessman for DWI, the drunk makes a few calls to important people and before they leave the roadside, the police commissioner is calling the officer and asking the officer to let him go. The officer REFUSES and now the department is getting threats. The chief (as he should) is standing behind the officer). Now, the reason I think it's interesting is this. It's obviously a slippery slope for officers to pick and choose what laws they will uphold or who they arrest. ITS EQUALLY A SLIPPERY SLOPE FOR A CIVILIAN TO PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT LAWS HE/SHE WILL OBEY. The article is on Law Enforcement Affairs.com.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
That's paulsen's contention.
That's paulsen's contention. Dang, that Paulsen sure is one smart fellow. You had best start listening to him.
Lead the way, ballsy.
The Patriot Militia, Inc.
He sure was. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
TY
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
As you can see, it's total chaos when selective enforcement is used or suggested... just think how much chaos there would be if the entire populace decided to obey selective laws. We'd have a society like the LP forum... total chaos.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
What if we all stopped trying? The government can't put everyone in jail. Maybe by disobeying enough stupid laws, we can persuade judges that only rules that prevent clear, real harm to individuals should be enforced: "no harm, no foul." "What if we all stopped trying?" --- I'd say that this is already happening, -- millions are ignoring drug 'laws', -- millions are ignoring gun 'laws', -- millions are ignoring various 'laws' about private personal behaviors... Many here at LF call this a 'moral decline'. --- I call it making stupid, unconstitutional laws...
If he had hit and killed one of their children, would they have been applauding the City Manager...
"Maybe by disobeying enough stupid laws, we can persuade judges that only rules that prevent clear, real harm to individuals should be enforced: "no harm, no foul." Jury nullification does work, of course. But the repeal of these unconstitutional laws, forced by massive civil disobedience, works best.. Example, --- booze prohibition, and repeal.
Apparently not the statists here. They believe that "the law is the law" and must be obeyed no matter how unconstitutional it may be.
Damn! I wish we had more than those two choices.
First, that's too hard. Easier to claim to be a "sovereign citizen" and do what you want. Second, they'd be lucky to get 10% of the people to agree with their equally stupid "harm" philosophy.
The officer has the power to pick and choose which laws he will strictly enforce. Civilians don't have that power. The DO have the power, however, to write (or repeal) the laws.
Not for me and based on what I have read from the others, that tells me this is not true for them either. I believe that the rule of law is the most significant accomplishment in Western constitutional thinking. I see the very meaning and structure of the Constitution embodied in this principle. Don’t you? You rely too much on hyperboles to use as exaggerations to create emphasis for effect. Your constant use of hyperboles directly indicates your personality and thought process and the fallacy is easy to spot watching when, how and why you use them out of context. They don’t make sense…you need to stop using them.
Damn! I wish we had more than those two choices. Yea, a good multiple choice question (often called fixed choice, selected response or multiple choice items) must contain 4 choices. The dipshit should know that.
Sure thing Gatlin - I'm sure you and paulsen both disobey unconstitutional gun laws. Give me a frigging break!
And you just answered the libtards question of... why does America have the fullest prisons. And that's after 3/4 of an average career criminals history is pled away.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
A good officer will enforce every law of his jurisdiction, equally and with common sense.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Now that is some far reach for a solipsism. What is the exact basis for this philosophical idea you are sure stands alone in your own mind to exist?
Your submissiveness to the state, your "claim" that you've never committed a crime, and your general holier-than-thou, "the law is the law" mindset. As far as paulsen - he is on record as supporting "reasonable" gun restrictions.
I'd say that this is already happening, -- millions are ignoring drug 'laws', -- millions are ignoring gun 'laws', -- millions are ignoring various 'laws' about private personal behaviors... Amusing, since you're a closet libtard. -- And probably 90% of those imprisoned are there for drug 'violations'. You closet libtards know better than to really try to enforce the stupid, unconstitutional gun 'laws'. Whatta libtard, --- proud of a 'legal system' that jails 3/4 of its inmates on plea bargains...
Huh? I've been doing that my whole life.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
They've found it's much easier to do that instead of doing their jobs, which is proving the guilt or innocence of the accused.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Murray’s proposal is less dramatic and more ingenious. The regulatory state has two related weaknesses, he explains: It relies on voluntary compliance, and its enforcement capabilities are far inferior to its expansive mandate. So he proposes a private legal defense fund — the “Madison Fund,” honoring the father of the Constitution — that businesses and citizens can rely on for representation against federal regulators. By engaging in expensive and time-consuming litigation on behalf of clients that refuse to comply with pointless rules, the fund drains the government’s enforcement resources and eventually undercuts its ambitions. The state can compel submission from an individual or company with the threat of ruinous legal proceedings, Murray writes, “but Goliath cannot afford to make good on that threat against hundreds of Davids.” From my recent post: --- libertysflame.com/cgi-bin...gi?ArtNum=39576&Disp=1#C1
Now, the reason I think it's interesting is this. It's obviously a slippery slope for officers to pick and choose what laws they will uphold or who they arrest. ITS EQUALLY A SLIPPERY SLOPE FOR A CIVILIAN TO PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT LAWS HE/SHE WILL OBEY. Your example is not a case of which laws are enforced, but against which people laws are enforced. Big difference.
Big difference. You're posting reason to an unreasonable big govt progressive. Besides that, he's incapable of understanding the difference.
My point was that BOTH are EQUALLY a slippery slope. tpaine isn't smart enough to realize that a cop picking and choosing who he arrests or what laws to enforce IS JUST AS BAD AS YOU PICKING AND CHOOSING WHAT LAWS YOU WILL OBEY. Reading comp... It's a bitch. lol
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
tpaine isn't smart enough to realize that a cop picking and choosing who he arrests or what laws to enforce IS JUST AS BAD AS YOU PICKING AND CHOOSING WHAT LAWS YOU WILL OBEY. GrandIsland All of us, cops and civilians, are honor bound to support and defend our constitution. --- Thus, when a 'law' is passed that obviously violates our constitution, we are ALL honor bound to at least ignore it, -- or even to actively disobey it, and fight against it. Again, obviously, grandisland isn't smart enough to understand this concept.
Well, I certainly disagree. Moral aptitude is key. You are advocating that a police/justice/legal system can be set up and run well in a society, free of moral safeguards. But history has shown that systems don't always work well in serving a purpose as originally intended. It is in those times when writing congressmen, running for office, letters to the editor and so forth to change the laws is simply an exercise in futility, because there are stronger powers at work that ensure that legislative changes that serve the good of the people are simply not going to happen. In which case, there are 2 options: comply or resist. While resisting always involves discomfort and cost, possibly the cost of lives, that does not necessarily mean it's the wrong moral choice. Often it's the exact opposite, being the right moral choice, because complying is the wrong moral choice. There's a guy being prosecuted right now for complying with the orders of his German military superiors during WWII, I guess the idea being that resisting was not only the right moral choice, but the right legal choice as well, in spite of the fact that resisting may have gotten him executed. Personally, I don't judge the guy, but the point is that even society recognizes that points can be reached where complying with laws is absolutely the wrong thing to do, and all we have at that time is our moral conscience. That conscience in each of us really has the final say. It is, IMO, wrong of you to try to declare that people resisting bad laws through civil disobedience are in moral error, that they should do things a different way. A proper attitude from a cop would/should be: "I respect you for standing up for what you believe, but I do have to arrest you for what you are doing." And proceed to do the job with respect and civility. And if the cop feels the law in question is immoral, he should not enforce it against anyone, rich or poor, whether he likes the people involved or not. And a good cop would know intuitively the difference between a moral and immoral law. A cop with no moral compass is a dangerous man, I say. BTW, the cop you mentioned in your example who refused to back down in arresting a powerful DWI suspect... He's a good cop.
"Maybe by disobeying enough stupid laws, we can persuade judges that only rules that prevent clear, real harm to individuals should be enforced: "no harm, no foul."
#2. To: misterwhite (#1)
(Edited)
A descent into anarchy is the only solution?
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#3. To: misterwhite (#1)
And each individual defines "stupid". Oh, that'll work.
#4. To: A Pole (#3)
Let juries decide and apply nullification if appropriate.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#5. To: Deckard (#0)
Let’s All Disobey Stupid Laws
#6. To: Deckard, misterwhite (#2)
I'd rather be on the side of anarchy than on the side of totalitarianism.
#7. To: Gatlin (#5)
(Edited)
#8. To: Gatlin (#6)
Your edifice is built on an incorrect supposition, that there is no other choice.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#9. To: Deckard (#8)
Your edifice is built on an incorrect supposition, that there is no other choice.
#10. To: GrandIsland (#7)
#11. To: Deckard (#0)
Let’s All Disobey Stupid Laws
#12. To: Gatlin, Deckard (#9)
Dang, that Paulsen sure is one smart fellow.
#13. To: Gatlin (#10)
#14. To: Gatlin (#10)
#15. To: all you prohibitionists, gatlin, grandisland, misterwhite, etc. (#0)
Murray says, correctly, that no ordinary human being—not even a team of lawyers—can ever be sure how to obey the 810 pages of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 1,024 pages of the Affordable Care Act or 2,300 pages of Dodd-Frank.
#16. To: GrandIsland (#14)
As you can see, it's total chaos when selective enforcement is used or suggested...
#17. To: A Pole (#3)
And each individual defines "stupid". Oh, that'll work. --- misterwhite
A Pole ---Let juries decide and apply nullification if appropriate.
#18. To: tpaine, Gatlin, GrandIsland, misterwhite (#15)
...millions are ignoring gun 'laws'
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#19. To: Deckard (#2)
"I'd rather be on the side of anarchy than on the side of totalitarianism."
#20. To: Gatlin (#5)
"Nah, let’s all work to change “stupid laws”
#21. To: GrandIsland (#7)
#22. To: Deckard, GrandIsland, misterwhite (#18)
They believe that "the law is the law" and must be obeyed no matter how unconstitutional it may be.
#23. To: misterwhite, Deckard (#19)
"I'd rather be on the side of anarchy than on the side of totalitarianism."
#24. To: Gatlin (#22)
Not for me and based on what I have read from the others, that tells me this is not true for them either.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#25. To: tpaine (#15)
I'd say that this is already happening, -- millions are ignoring drug 'laws', -- millions are ignoring gun 'laws', -- millions are ignoring various 'laws' about private personal behaviors...
#26. To: misterwhite (#21)
The officer has the power to pick and choose which laws he will strictly enforce.
#27. To: Deckard (#24)
I'm sure you and paulsen both disobey unconstitutional gun laws.
#28. To: Gatlin (#27)
What is the exact basis for this philosophical idea you are sure stands alone in your own mind to exist?
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#29. To: GrandIsland, one of LF' s closet libtards (#25)
And you just answered the libtards question of... why does America have the fullest prisons.
And that's after 3/4 of an average career criminals history is pled away
#30. To: Deckard (#0)
Let’s All Disobey Stupid Laws
#31. To: tpaine (#29)
'legal system' that jails 3/4 of its inmates on plea bargains...
#32. To: CZ82, Y'ALL (#31)
(Edited)
So how do how small-government conservatives conduct civil disobedience in practice? Sit-ins at the EEOC? Occupy OSHA? Or maybe thousands of senior executives chanting, “Hey hey, ho ho, innovation-stifling regulatory regimes have got go!”
#33. To: GrandIsland (#7)
The article is interesting. It's about a rookie officer that arrests a businessman for DWI, the drunk makes a few calls to important people and before they leave the roadside, the police commissioner is calling the officer and asking the officer to let him go. The officer REFUSES and now the department is getting threats. The chief (as he should) is standing behind the officer).
#34. To: Pinguinite, grandisland, y'all (#33)
Your example is not a case of which laws are enforced, but against which people laws are enforced.
#35. To: Pinguinite (#33)
Your example is not a case of which laws are enforced, but against which people laws are enforced.
#36. To: GrandIsland, y'all (#35)
It's obviously a slippery slope for officers to pick and choose what laws they will uphold or who they arrest. ITS EQUALLY A SLIPPERY SLOPE FOR A CIVILIAN TO PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT LAWS HE/SHE WILL OBEY.
#37. To: GrandIsland (#35)
My point was that BOTH are EQUALLY a slippery slope.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]