[The following is in response to an entry I saw this morning at Zerohedge (see link below).]
Laws are interesting. Sometimes they align with morality. Most of the time they don’t. Take the contrast between the laws that govern speeds on highways and those that outlaw murder.
I don’t think it’s possible to drive without exceeding the speed limit, and it goes without saying but, “We all do it” is an apt expression, particularly here in the Detroit area where the limit is 70mph. To go less than 70 (say 65) can, at times, put one at risk of causing an accident because the ‘real’ limit is more like 80... The state police cannot possibly hand out tickets to everyone. So, they pick from the most egregious offenders. Most people I have ever talked to about this seem to have an understanding that it is a stretch to think a cop is going to pull them over going 5-10 mph over the limit, simply because of the known subjectivity that is employed.
No possibility of equal enforcement exists. Therefore, the authorities must judge a perpetrator as being reckless, relative to the other drivers on the road. A car going much faster than the flow of traffic (90 mph-ish), weaving in and out and between the others is bound to get pulled over, charged with speeding, reckless op, perhaps subjected to a sobriety test and arrested.... So why have limits posted? Not sure. But one thing is certain - there is no moral issue to speeding per se... Morality and the law are not really aligned....
Such is not the case with murder. Killing another human being in cold blood has been recognized as immoral by civilized human beings over the course of time and the law reflects that. Murder still happens of course, but not very frequently, and law enforcement rarely fails to investigate a homicide, trying to find the individuals who commit this crime. One can say with confidence that most rational individuals have bought into the morality of ‘murder is wrong’ which makes it practical for detectives to attempt to bring perpetrators to justice.
So why bring up such a contrast? It has occurred to me that the majority of the laws we live under are more like those for speed limits than murder. But the stated rationale by politicians who seek the passage of new laws almost always involves some amount of ‘moral’ justification. Over my lifetime, many thousands of laws (fed, state and local) have been put into effect, and hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, of rules and regulations have been created by agents of government interpreting those laws. Very rarely have I ever seen a group of politicians try to repeal any laws. They just keep passing more of them.
The courts have struck down some but the dockets are so jammed and the time and expense it takes to have a case heard are incredibly lengthy and high.
So what do we do? We end up violating laws that don’t involve moral offenses against others and law enforcement picks and chooses the statutes it wants to enforce while subjectively deciding which violators to pursue.
I am definitely not the only person having this train of thought. But it is worth re-articulating concerns about the kinds of sublime violations and oppression that occur in a society where ad hoc law enforcement is rampant and accepted...
I should add: I don’t see responsibility for this state of affairs ultimately resting with policemen or other enforcers. And oddly, it isn’t really even the politicians- Democrats and Republicans have made it clear they live to create new laws. So that must mean it is voters, my fellow countrymen, who have put us in this predicament... I wonder what it will take for us to trend away from this madness?