>Two of my heroes are Larry Flynt and Dr. Kevorkian. Both of them
>treat absurd laws (against obscenity, and against ownership of your
>own life) with open defiance.
As much as I agree that the laws those guys have fought against are
absurd: Is the best solution to just ignore them?
Everyone thinks some law or other is absurd, is the general solution
for everyone to just ignore the ones they don't like?
Does the existence of factions ignoring sets of laws really reduce
the size and power of government, or just its effectiveness? Look at
the War on Drugs - many politicians think that in order to solve
defiance of drug laws, they need to spend more money on enforcement,
which requires more taxpayer dollars, which increases the size of
government, which increases the power of government, which gives some
other government pinhead the power to attack some other group
ignoring laws, and so on, and so on.
If anything, I think that we need to be zealots about both enforcing
the laws that we have and *drastically* reducing the number of laws
that needlessly affect our lives.
Just a thought,
-- "If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in thought or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which never yet hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance which does harm." -- Marcus Aurelius, MEDITATIONS, VI, 21
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:30 MDT