I couldn't disagree more. The fact that our laws are subjectively interpreted is a blessing. There are so many laws that the Congressional Research Service can't even count them all. In other words, we are all breaking laws every day.[0]
Absolute law enforcement is a bad idea, for the fact that it provides no path towards civil disobedience[1]
Take for example the Texas "sodomy" law, that prevented homosexual couples from ingaging in sexual acts. If the law were practiced in absolute terms, we would have never had Lawrence v. Texas, and gay people would have remained criminals.
If I take a more generous stance towards your argument, and assume that you meant to say only traffic laws should be absolutely enforced, again I think it's a bad idea. It provides no way to argue circumstances in your case (such as "tree was blocking the red light").
In summary, I think absolute enforcement is effectively Orwellian.
> I couldn't disagree more. The fact that our laws are subjectively interpreted is a blessing. There are so many laws that the Congressional Research Service can't even count them all. In other words, we are all breaking laws every day.
But the selective enforcement of laws is a disaster. As you say, we are all breaking laws every day. Which means, if any individual prosecutor decides he doesn't like you, they probably have the ability to charge you with something.
You've just handed the state the power to jail anyone they decide they don't like. That is truly dangerous.
lol. you should test your theory in e.g. japan or hmmm saudi arabia.
one might even say that there are countries that follow the law ... religiously.
non anglophone countries also include most of europe. please put a little more thought into your racism. you get a point for originality but it's not nearly as entertaining when it's so weak logically.
rich people get away with illegal stuff in all countries, i don't think that's up for debate. i was talking about normal people that laws actually apply to.
but i mean, yeah, i guess you're technically correct, rich people break the law all the time in saudi arabia without any consequence. film at 11.
I didn't say they didn't respect the law. I said they don't respect the rule of law. Rule of law is the idea that justice is not arbitrary, it does not stem from the whims of divine kings or power itself.
Authority must be legitimate, emanating from a constitution that was voted on by the people and exercised by representatives of the people. Not an unelected monarch or tyrant or oligarchy.
The English invented the concept and were the first to practice it. It's so infused in Anglo culture that violations of the principle are considered so beyond the pale that we call for, and often get, prison sentences for violators.
Other nations have laws, but only Anglo nations are really ruled by them. Western Europe is an interesting case. The French constitution grants the President near-dictatorial emergency powers, which is how democracy and rule of law is commonly subverted in less-affluent nations. That the French are on their Fifth Republic should tell you how fragile the political institutions really are there.
The same is true of the rest of W Europe. They're heads and tails over the rest of the world including Russia and China. But you can't call yourselves a stable democracy if 70 years ago, you let fascists destroy your legislative systems so as to put your country to war, as Germany, Spain, and Italy did. How can you have rule of law if you let dictators decide what the law is?
The European Union is a grand experiment in finding Europe a babysitter so that doesn't happen again.
>In summary, I think absolute enforcement is effectively Orwellian.
It is, but that seems to be the point. The only way to highlight the absurdity of having so many laws is to enforce them so strictly that it creates a public backlash.
Put another way, the only reason our legislators were able to amass such a large amount of laws is because they are selectively enforced, or not enforced at all (for now).
> The fact that our laws are subjectively interpreted is a blessing.
This is precisely because many of the uncountable laws are bad ones. I interpret Lincoln's quote to imply that if the bad ones were strictly enforced, it would quickly be realized how bad they are, and they would be repealed.
With the Texas Sodomy law - the reason the public at large was made aware of it was because it was enforced. If it were more strictly enforced, we would have been made aware sooner, and it likely would have been repealed.
Perhaps we have so many laws because we have so many bad ones. If all were enforced the bad ones would be pruned. Then perhaps congress could actually count them all.
Absolute law enforcement is a bad idea, for the fact that it provides no path towards civil disobedience[1]
Take for example the Texas "sodomy" law, that prevented homosexual couples from ingaging in sexual acts. If the law were practiced in absolute terms, we would have never had Lawrence v. Texas, and gay people would have remained criminals.
If I take a more generous stance towards your argument, and assume that you meant to say only traffic laws should be absolutely enforced, again I think it's a bad idea. It provides no way to argue circumstances in your case (such as "tree was blocking the red light").
In summary, I think absolute enforcement is effectively Orwellian.
[0] https://moxie.org/blog/we-should-all-have-something-to-hide/
[1]http://archives.nwtrcc.org/omtfp/civilrole.html