I think we need to address an issue here, because some folks don't seem to understand this basic line of logic...
If I was a school principal, and I had authority over students, would I have authority over everyone else too? No. Because my rules apply only to children attending my school. If I were to tell someone on the street to go to detention, they probably wouldn't go, and I shouldn't expect them to. Because my rules do not apply to them.
So now, lets bring this into the "real" world.
If I'm a legislator, and I have authority over all the law-abiding citizens in my area, would I have authority over all the law breaking ones too? No. Because my rules only apply to people who obey my rules. If I were to tell a law breaker what the law demands of him, he probably wouldn't do it, (here's the tricky part) yet I expect him to. Even though my rules don't apply to him.
Keep making laws to stop the people breaking the law. If you throw enough legislation at a criminal, something's eventually going to stick, right? Right?! (Riiiiiiight...)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree with your assessment, the principal does have authority over the class-ditchers, but not everyone on the street.
The issue is that while the legislators have (legal) authority over law breakers and law abiders; the law breakers continually remind the legislators that the rules don't apply to them
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people
will find ways around the laws." - Plato
The point I take issue with is that when a legislator makes a law against beating your neighbor with a tac hammer, the law has no bearing on responsible citizens. It is only meant to change the actions of people who would ignore the law in the first place.
Breaking etiqutte? As long as it's pertainent, I don't mind!
Post a Comment