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.