I am not a proponent of violence. I do not condone it.

[IdaBriggs]

I believe in the Rule of Law. Might has *never* in my book Made Right.

That being said, are we approaching a point where our elected leaders fear no corruption because the crimes will not be prosecuted unless you "catch a bad break"?

Is the "Rule of Law" simply a joke for people to ignore when they find it "inconvenient" or "annoying"?

What is the difference between someone "breaking the law for profit" and others breaking it because "its a stupid law?"

Let me be clear: I consider the speed limit to be a "suggested safe speed" and I regularly drive the customary five to ten miles over it, and sometimes, even more. Technically, if I give this crime the weight of 'I'm a law breaker -- period' then I am just as much of a hypocrite as the Bush Administration people, or the folks who purchase, sell and/or consume Illegal Recreational Drugs.

Is "the Law" a sacred thing? Is *breaking it* a dishonorable act? Or is it simply a suggested code of conduct, with as much impact on our daily lives as we choose to give it?

So I ask this further question: Have we *ALL* lost the RIGHT to demand justice and accountability from our elected leaders because of our own perceived personal hypocrisies and peccadillo's? When our elected leaders break the law with flagrant contempt for the safety and well being of others, are they really just exercising the same rights as the drunk drivers, the drug dealers, and the petty thief -- in other words, US? And given the opportunity, would the drunk driver, drug dealer, or petty thief be committing the same acts of corruption and treason for the sake of greed as our current elected leaders display?

Is the only true difference between "us" and the folks in the Bush administration the fact they don't even bother to PRETEND they care anymore? And am I -- Ida "speed racer" Briggs -- really in a moral position to hold them in the contempt they so richly deserve?

How *honorable* are YOU in your everyday dealings? Have you ever "cut a break" for a friend or relative, gotten someone hired over a more qualified candidate because of your relationships, or indulged yourself in questionable activities because you could? Would you really hire the most qualified candidate for the job, or would you hire your friend who has been looking for a while, especially if you didn't believe the job was all that "important"? (These examples don't even involve the law, but they are examples of how corruption becomes "socially acceptable" in our own heads.)

The first rule of a civilized society is "don't kill each other" -- if justifiable homicide based on the perceived welfare of the public was an acceptable defense in a court of law, would the leaders of our nation be walking a more honorable line? Would *any* of us -- including the speedy driver?

Would they FEAR the ACCOUNTABILITY OF COMPETENCE requirement?

Are the law breakers afraid of The Law? Or is just a suggested safe speed for THEM to drive at, too?

[Master Mahon]

1. It depends

If you are a democrat and lie about having consensual sex, then it's breaking the law and you should be beheaded.
If you are a republican, you can do what you damn well please. Because the 'law' that applies to every other American, doesn't apply to you.

[Laotra]

2. Fuck the law

:smoke:

[Laotra]

3. And

when the Law orders you to use violence, like join the army and shoot people?

[ChristianLibrul]

4. More reason to arm yourselves

Let me know if you need advice on where to start.

[hfojvt]

5. there are many places I would differ

Rule of law is no different than "might makes right" if it is the mighty who make the laws.

There is a huge difference between breaking the law for profit and because 'it is a stupid law'. It is a question of values. What are the person's highest values - personal profit, social welfare, or strict unquestioning anal-retentive obedience to the law?

I might have higher values which allow for ignoring laws when doing so causes no or negligible harm to others. All laws are not the same, and all violations of the law are not the same. Going 60 in a 55 zone is not the same as going 110 in a 55. Going 60 in a 55 zone is not the same as lying to start an unnecessary war. That is what the media did in the last election - disregarded all sense of proportion, comparing Democratic inaccuracies, the moral equivalent to jaywalking, to deliberate Republican obfuscations, the moral equivalent to serial killing, and seeming to say, 'both sides are lying.'

It is very hard to make 'personal profit' or 'total self indulgence' into a principle which can justify illegal behaviour. Even the perpetrators cannot do it with a straight face - they have to lie about what they are really doing.

How can a pecadillo make a person equivalent to a mass murderer? Even the law treats them differently. One pays a small fine, the other faces life in prison, or death. Even the other example of 'hiring a friend' can have justification. First, because most people hold the principle of 'helping a fried' to be higher than that of 'hiring the most qualified.' Second, because a friend that you know may actually be better for the company than somebody who looks highly qualified on paper.