Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo1967
So the question still remains; what do you believe gives you the right to pick and choose which laws you obey?
The admittedly over the top correlations (btw, it was somebody supporting the individual pick and mix approach to adherence to laws who brought up red lights - as one of the laws that he/she didn't need to obey) are just a vehicle to explore the principle.
|
There's something you learn about in your first year of law school called
malum in se and
malum prohibitum. Basically, it's things that are prohibited because they are bad in themselves, like murder, rape and theft that most of us would agree are wrong even if not illegal (in se) and things that are prohibited because the law says so, like driving on the wrong side of the road (prohibitum).
You can argue about which specific acts fall into which category (reasonable people could disagree about gambling or drug use), but in general, typically "law abiding" people are far more likely to commit a malum prohibitum crime than a malum in se, either because they disagree with the law (using your Kindle during takeoff) or they don't think it applies in a certain situation (a rolling right turn is fine at 3 am with no traffic).