alt Hacker News> "This is the law, we must follow it" and the other kind think "This law doesn't make sense, we must change it".
There's zero point in changing the law if you don't expect it to be obeyed and enforced. Those positions are not opposites.
Replies
If you don’t expect it to be obeyed or enforced, then I would say that means it should be fast tracked to be changed. “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.”
There are laws in existence that no one even "law addicts" would follow unless brain damaged. On top of that sheer amount of laws makes on "following those" simply impossible. there are also conflicting laws. Some laws are even refused to be enforced by the police.
It is a dynamic world where respect for law, trying to change law and plainly saying: "go fuck yourself, not gonna do it" should and do coexist.
Absolutely all laws followed strictly to the letter would kill a society.
If there is a stupid law, there are several things you can do:
You can follow it anyway and make no attempt to improve the situation, allowing the stupid consequences to follow indefinitely. (Notice that anyone who follows the law while doing nothing because they've been convinced reform efforts will be ineffective are in this group.)
You can follow it anyway while trying to change it, attempting to limit the time the stupid consequences exist.
Or you can refuse to follow it.
But the people in the last group should still be trying to reform the law, both so that they don't have to risk being prosecuted for doing the right thing, and in order to get the people in the first and second groups to stop doing the stupid thing the people in the third group are already refusing to do.