While some decry the president as a scofflaw, haven't series of petty, paternalistic laws throughout our history created a nation of scofflaws? For me it probably started at the sheer silliness of trying to drive 55 miles per hour through the wide open expanse of California's Central Valley, though it certainly could have been the futility of imposing a drinking age of 21 years while I was an undergrad. For others, this includes heinous and notorious criminal acts as varied as smoking on a public beach or under-reporting tips to the IRS.
So, what is the role of the law in society? Is the law a minimum standard below which deviance cannot be tolerated? Maybe in theory, but certainly not in modern practice.
Is the law some kind of idealized but unattainable standard? If so, how should it be enforced? Randomly or selectively? Every fifth car until some quota is reached, like a speed limit? Selectively, where those who can't afford good representation will be punished as object lessons for those of us who should know better?
Maybe the key to the question is the personal responsibility that Alma discussed here on Tuesday. What if adults took personal responsibility for their own marital vows and their own high-risk sexual practices? What if adults were responsible for what they put in their bodies, and suffered the health consequences on their own?
I'm trying to avoid the tired old "victimless crime" language here, because I believe being a liar, a cheat, or an exploiter all leave victims. & nbsp; But the question is, why are these acts crimes? & nbsp;
If the rule of law is what we want, and what we respect, it seems that certain leaders have choices to make. Either their petty transgressions need to be punished, the same as if the lawbreaker were unemployed, uneducated, and unrepresented, or certain leaders need to stop being hypocrites and start working to change the law to something that can be enforced equally and evenly throughout the country.
