[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

The Victims of Benny Hinn: 30 Years of Spiritual Deception.

Trump Is Planning to Send Kill Teams to Mexico to Take Out Cartel Leaders

The Great Falling Away in the Church is Here | Tim Dilena

How Ridiculous? Blade-Less Swiss Army Knife Debuts As Weapon Laws Tighten

Jewish students beaten with sticks at University of Amsterdam

Terrorists shut down Park Avenue.

Police begin arresting democrats outside Met Gala.

The minute the total solar eclipse appeared over US

Three Types Of People To Mark And Avoid In The Church Today

Are The 4 Horsemen Of The Apocalypse About To Appear?

France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront

Facts you may not have heard about Muslims in England.

George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed.

Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus.

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase

Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past?

Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

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: 4911
Comments: 37

Many freedoms we take for granted exist because of lawbreakers.

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.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 37.

#5. To: Deckard (#0)

Let’s All Disobey Stupid Laws

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…

Gatlin  posted on  2015-05-14   11:19:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Gatlin (#5) (Edited)

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.

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-05-14   11:36:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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).

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.

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-05-14   19:28:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: Pinguinite (#33)

Your example is not a case of which laws are enforced, but against which people laws are enforced.

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

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-05-14   22:44:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: GrandIsland (#35)

My point was that BOTH are EQUALLY a slippery slope.

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.

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-05-15   2:21:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 37.

        There are no replies to Comment # 37.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 37.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com