Rant

[The Dude]

Only recently have I become aware of a dichotomy necessary in our society. I use the term ‘aware’ quite deliberately, because although I would not have been able to put it into words even a week ago, I think I’ve known it for quite sometime. That is to say, I hope I’ve known it for quite sometime. The unappealing alternative is that I’ve lived my life thus far under the hypocritical “do as I say, not as I do” mantra. I’m talking about the need for laws and rules in our society. Everybody lacking the wisdom to be Libertarian – which thankfully is almost all of us – agrees we need an increasingly comprehensive set of laws to govern our increasingly sophisticated society. I’ve never been shy about openly declaring the crucial need for such laws, and yet I’ve been (rightly) accused of living above said laws; my motto: “Rules are for those who don’t know what they’re doing.” Ah, the wisdom hidden beneath the arrogance of youth.

To put it another way, I’ve come to have more in common with Libertarians than I previously thought I would. That is to say, I agree that the perfect society has no laws, and a very small, rather insignificant governing body. Laws are meant to force behavior, and every parent knows you can’t pound goodness into a child with the Hammer of Law. Let each person be accountable for himself, and live and let live. But let’s get real; it’ll never happen – at least not on the societal scale. (And God help us if any political party is able to bring such a system upon our mal-intentioned society.)

I suppose I’ve beaten around the bush long enough, I’ll just spell it out. While laws and other methods of “forced goodness” will always be necessary when dealing with society as a whole, individuals should not settle for the law. That is to say that they should neither be limited to it nor confined by it. For example, an expert driver should not feel morally compelled to follow the laws of the road – he is better suited to himself judge his own boundaries for safe driving. Likewise, a poor driver should not be compelled to, if unsafe to do so, drive the speed limit simply because he is legally allowed to. Setting legal speed limits is rudimentary and cumbersome, yet necessary considering the swarm of under skilled, irresponsible drivers plaguing our streets. Similarly, society’s laws are rudimentary and cumbersome, yet necessary considering the plethora of reckless, mal-intended people walking the streets.

So while society should never let itself be deceived into relaxing its grip on the evil vice we call “law,” individuals should never be caught dead settling for it. If your brother’s house burns down, you are not legally required to let him stay in your guest room, but what parent wants his children to leave each other to streets? And if your neighbors across the ocean have their entire society thrown upside-down by a tsunami, what kind of society are we if we don’t collectively send the help and support they need?

Jesus himself taught this very message – although most missed it at the time (and sadly most Christians today miss it still). He showed us that God never gave us the Law because it was good; he gave it to us because we needed it, and because we then weren’t ready for the higher standard that he himself showed us. There was no complex law in Eden. Adam never had to be told not to steal from Eve (that they weren’t shackled by our [mis]conceptions of individual property and predisposition of jealousy is another discussion); mankind had to screw things up pretty royally before God gave us any laws. Jesus released us from the vice of the law, but he did so by cursing us with something much more stringent – goodness and love. There is a higher standard expected of us than the law, and it is much more demanding than The Ten Commandments.

So while any realist can rightly tell a Libertarian that their ideal society is a pipedream, what a shame it would be if we all individually settled for a realist’s standards.

[lastchance]

Your pleas fall deaf on those of us who care little or nothing about others and morality (or at least question these long held beliefs).

[fluxrad]

What the hell does rant mean?

[The Dude]

I'm sorry, what plea was I making?

[lastchance]

Rant. Sorry. But, generally, rants are supposed to make people change by berating them. And you have not accounted for those of us who do accept the postulation of morality.

[andyfox]

"individuals should not settle for the law. That is to say that they should neither be limited to it nor confined by it. For example, an expert driver should not feel morally compelled to follow the laws of the road – he is better suited to himself judge his own boundaries for safe driving. Likewise, a poor driver should not be compelled to, if unsafe to do so, drive the speed limit simply because he is legally allowed to."

You're advocating anarchy. Each chooses to follow only those rules he chooses to. It's a recipe for disaster. To use your example, almost everybody thinks he's a better driver than he actually is. A person's judgment on what constitutes safe driving is often flawed. Not only that, when driver B sees driver A disobeying the law, even if driver A's judgment that he can safely do so is correct, it encourages B to do the same. And he may be a dreadful driver. Likewise, poor drivers should not be allowed to create a traffic hazard by driving, say 35, on the freeway. If they're not capable of driving the speed limit, a better solution than allowing them to decide what's a good speed for them is not allowing them to drive at all. That's why we have driving tests and licenses.

[natedogg]

Actually, roads and traffic management and even yes, safety, are one of the very simple anarcho-capitalist examples that would work just fine without government.

You DEFINITELY do not need govt, licenses, etc. to provide a safe and orderly driving experience.

natedogg

[andyfox]

So you agree that people should be able to judge for themselves what speed they could/should drive and whether they should observe traffic laws?

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
You're advocating anarchy. Each chooses to follow only those rules he chooses to. It's a recipe for disaster.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is that really the impression you got from reading this?

[andyfox]

No, much of what you said struck me (as I think you know) as beautiful and perceptive and insightful. But it's one thing to settle for the letter of the law as one's limits of responsibility and another to advocate ignoring laws when one sees fit.

[The Dude]

Yeah, how should I put it? At the time of my post, I was working with incmoplete information.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
So you agree that people should be able to judge for themselves what speed they could/should drive and whether they should observe traffic laws?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm only pointing out that you don't need traffic laws enforced by the govt. There are other ways to have an effective system of roads and traffic management. The government is not the only way to make sure people safely/reasonably on the roads they use.

natedogg

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
But it's one thing to settle for the letter of the law as one's limits of responsibility and another to advocate ignoring laws when one sees fit.

[/ QUOTE ]
So do you think it's morally wrong to speed? Is it morally wrong for a parent to let his child have a sip of an alcoholic drink? Is it morally wrong for someone to play poker in a cardroom if they're under 21? It's a grey area for sure, but ultimately it's not the U.S. government I feel responsible to - it's to myself and to God.

When I speed, I accept that there are legal consequences to getting caught, but I view it as a risk/reward issue, not a moral issue. Driving in an unsafe manner, while also a risk/reward issue has more significant moral implications.

[andyfox]

I think it's +EV, both for you and for others, that you feel a greater responsibility to yourself and to God. I never really thought about whether speeding is a moral issue. It's certainly a safety issue. And if it a safety issue, then it's a moral issue, as you point out, in that you are endangering others. If we allow you to judge for yourself whether or not it's OK to speed because you feel your skills allow you to do it, whereas they might not allow somebody else to do so, I see a couple of problems right away: 1) what if your determination is wrong, and you're endangering other people? 2) what's to stop me, seeing you speed, from deciding I can do it too? or break other laws as I see fit?

Laws, in general, have to be one size fits all or there will be no respect for them. We can't allow The Dude to drive 80 and andyfox only 65. Hopefully, we have intelligent and sensible lawmakers who make intelligent and sensible laws, such that the speed limit gives us what we "want" out of it: the ability to get where we're going in an acceptable time-frame with an acceptable degree of safety. That's not to say that you can't drive more safely at 80 than I could at 65, it might well be true. But who's to determine this?

There are laws that are more "important" than others. There probably aren't terribly significant remifications when I drive 66 as compare to when I drive 65. Or if a person who is three days short of his 21st birthday plays poker. That's why the penalty/punishment for violating certain laws is less severe than for others.

[lehighguy]

Your post makes no sense from a society point of view. You can't have a functioning society if everyone disobeys the law as they see fit. That is lawlessness and would quickly result in people killing eachother over shiny gems or something cause they felt like it.

From an individual point of view you stand to benefit from convincing everyone to obey laws that you yourself don't. This is however diffucult as people can see what your doing.

Like many things what you propose is great for the individual and terrible for the whole (and bad for the individual as well if everyone follows your example).

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
We can't allow The Dude to drive 80

[/ QUOTE ]

I think The Dude should be allowed to drive however fast he wants, because his name is just so cool. Natedogg should be limited to 35 mph.

[tolbiny]

Can you point to examples of this?

[jokerthief]

I think you missed the point of the post. He's not advocating blind anarchy but merely pointing out the limited capability and providence of the law. Some people are better drivers than others and could travel 10 mph faster than the speed limit safely. The Dude isn't saying these people should speed or that we should allow then to speed without consecquence, just that they have no moral obligation to go the speed limit. There is a higher moral obligation to drive safely. Someone who can't drive the speed limit safely has a moral obligation to go slower. When it snows or sleets, everyone should travel slower than the speed limit. Laws when taken in absolute terms can be dangerous and societies who ascribe to such absolute interpretations are akin to the Nazis, Khmer Rouge, and Fascists. If America decides to invade Canada tommorrow and invoke the draft thursday, do I have a moral obligation submit myself to the draft or do I have a moral obligation to dodge it?

[vulturesrow]

If you believe in the rule of law than you do have a moral obligation to obey the laws unless they become contrary to fundamental values. Even then their are only certain cases that would call for outright breaking of the law.

[jokerthief]

[ QUOTE ]
If you believe in the rule of law than you do have a moral obligation to obey the laws unless they become contrary to fundamental values. Even then their are only certain cases that would call for outright breaking of the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't disagree with this. I would be interested, however, if you would expand on what "only certain cases" would be. For example--Someone has cancer and marijuana alevieates the pain quite well but the state in which that person lives hasn't legalized medicinal marijuana. Instead the person's doctors prescribe oxycotin, which leaves the patient in a near comatose state of mind and has much more sever side effects plus a greater chance of addiction. Is it morally wrong for this patient to break the law and eat marijuana brownies, so that they can have a better quality of life before they die or recover?

[vulturesrow]

Good question. Although it is often overused, the slippery slope argument applies here I think. You have to be very careful about which laws you would be obligated to break and my first hack suggests only situations that involve life or death situations or grave injustice. The scenario you proposed is definitely a tweener for me. To be honest, Im not quite sure. Right now Im leaning towards this being a justifiable situation. But I am by no means certain.

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
From an individual point of view you stand to benefit from convincing everyone to obey laws that you yourself don't.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you elaborate on this, please? Because my initial thought is that it's the opposite of what you're saying. Here are some examples:
- I am not only not benefitting when people unnessarily drive the speed limit (as opposed to a safe 10 over), but it's hurting me.
- I do not benefit by 18 year old kids not playing poker when they could sneak in and get away with it, it hurts me more.
- I do not benefit when a high-schooler follows child labor laws and works less than 25 hours/ wk, but it can help me in a variety of ways if he does work more.

The assumption that I'm making here is that others are breaking the law but not acting immorally. It does hurt me (and society) when people drive unsafely, gamble compulsively, or work in unhealthy cirumstances, but I don't derive any benefit from them following the law specifically.

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
1) what if your determination is wrong, and you're endangering other people?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a valid point, and shouldn't by any means be ignored. However, isn't this also true for judgements society makes as a whole? Why should I accept society's "one size fits all" guidelines as better for me than what I can decide on my own? (I'm playing devil's advocate here as much as I am stating my own position.)

[ QUOTE ]
2) what's to stop me, seeing you speed, from deciding I can do it too? or break other laws as I see fit?

[/ QUOTE ]
Another valid point, and this is definately something that should be considered. Paul explains in 1 Corinthians chapter 8 that even if something is not sinful for you, if your doing that makes your brother stumble, it is wrong to do it. Basically, Andy, you're right. And that's why around certain people who run into trouble with alcohol I don't drink.

[andyfox]

If I understand your basic point, that we have a higher calling than merely following the law, that to limit ourselves to that and think we're good people is selling ourselves short, I have no argument with it. It's what I was talking about in our private correspondence.

As to why we should accept society's one-size-fits-all guidelines, I go back to my somewhat flippant remark about anarchy. We need some generally accepted rules. We know that the rules won't be perfect for everybody. If you decide your own position, and I mine,and everybody else theirs, it is indeed anarchy.

Now when the rules are clearly immoral, I think we have the right, and maybe the obligation, to civil disobedience. My mom once told me about visiting Washington D.C. as a teenager (which would have been in the 1930s, not all that long ago) and being shocked to see blacks only and whites only water fountains and bathrooms. I would say it would have been my right, and possibly my obligation, to drink from the blacks only fountain and use the blacks only bathroom. Whether I would have been strong enough to do it, is another question.

And yes, I understand, who's to decide what's "clearly" immoral and what's not? I imagine the creators and perpetuators of separate drinking fountains and bathrooms for blacks and white felt that they were doing the correct moral thing.

Check out the movie The Interpreter. While it's somewhat confused and confusing, it does try to address some of the issues and moral quandries you bring up.

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
Check out the movie The Interpreter.

[/ QUOTE ]
Haha, I just got back from the movie store, so it'll have to wait until the next time I get out of the house, which doesn't happen nearly as often as it should.

[andyfox]

It just hit the theaters, last week I think.

[The Dude]

Wow. A rare display of theatrical ineptitude on my part.

Edit:Drr. Now that I think about it for 10 seconds I know exactly what film you're talking about it.