|
MattDavisRatner-SecondPaper 9 - 22 Jan 2009 - Main.IanSullivan
|
|
<
< |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebTopicList" |
|---|
| >
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="OldPapers" |
|---|
| | | Allowing Laws to be Broken: A Restriction on Freedom
At its core, each law represents at least a slight infringement of our rights. We give power to our government to provide certain social benefits, which we deem necessary, through the enactment of these laws. Very few citizens read the laws and only a fraction of those, or the rest of the population for that matter, can understand the convoluted jargon constituting a law. The population can only evaluate the acceptability of a law through the real-world experiment of common experience. Enforcing a law sparsely, or sometimes not at all, deprives society of its only practical test of that law. The government has made a statement of power by enacting a law that the population may or may not find acceptable, taken away the populace's ability to judge the law, and maintained it as an official policy held over the head of the nation with the omnipresent threat of enforcement. |
|
|
MattDavisRatner-SecondPaper 8 - 02 Jun 2008 - Main.MattDavisRatner
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebTopicList" |
|---|
Allowing Laws to be Broken: A Restriction on Freedom | |
<
< | At its core, each law represents at least a slight infringement of our rights. We give power to our government to provide certain social benefits, which we deem necessary, through the enactment of these laws. Bringing a beneficial and desired result to the nation is society's goal and ought to be the government's when enacting laws. Very few citizens read the laws and only a fraction of those, or the rest of the population for that matter, can understand the convoluted jargon constituting a law. In order to test the efficacy and desirability of a law, and therefore whether it should remain law, a law must be enforced. The population can only evaluate the acceptability of a law through the real-world experiment of common experience. Enforcing a law sparsely, or sometimes not at all, deprives society of its only practical test of that law. The government has made a statement of power by enacting a law that the population may or may not find acceptable, taken away the populace's ability to judge the law, and maintained it as an official policy held over the head of the nation with the omnipresent threat of enforcement. | >
> | At its core, each law represents at least a slight infringement of our rights. We give power to our government to provide certain social benefits, which we deem necessary, through the enactment of these laws. Very few citizens read the laws and only a fraction of those, or the rest of the population for that matter, can understand the convoluted jargon constituting a law. The population can only evaluate the acceptability of a law through the real-world experiment of common experience. Enforcing a law sparsely, or sometimes not at all, deprives society of its only practical test of that law. The government has made a statement of power by enacting a law that the population may or may not find acceptable, taken away the populace's ability to judge the law, and maintained it as an official policy held over the head of the nation with the omnipresent threat of enforcement. | | | | |
<
< | A relaxed enforcement instills a false belief of governmental leniency in the populace. This generates and encourages lackadaisical behavior in the masses' adherence to the laws and creates a populace too disinterested to bother checking the government's infringement of individual rights. By providing some 'leniency', the government diverts the population's attention away from other laws that impinge upon individual rights more substantially and eventually desensitize the population leaving them apathetic to the newfound restrictions upon freedom. Unacceptable laws are thus enacted and kept on record through the governmental bribe to the populace of low-level enforcement. Establishing the power to impinge upon rights allows for the expansion of governmental control of our everyday lives. | >
> | Simple Real World Example | | | | |
<
< | Simple Real World Examples
A few small penalty laws are helpful as examples. They are relatively simple and illustrate the same principles underlying laws that are more restrictive. Most states have open container laws prohibiting the possession of an open container of alcohol in a public space. However, due to a combination of the desires of the population and the police, a compromise arose. Place the open container in a brown-bag and no violation ensues in the majority of jurisdictions. When we do not like the laws, we find a way to cheat the effect. While the immediate result is operative, it creates a dangerous mindset: follow the rules you like and not the ones you dislike. If the goal of law is to establish a desirable system to live within, this is not a sustainable creed. Laws lose their meaning if they can be ignored. Citizens lose interest when new laws are enacted, always believing there will be a loophole somewhere, and are therefore not paying enough attention when the government actually decides to restrict a fundamental liberty.
The same ramifications are present when looking at another example: jaywalking. Keeping our roads, as well as the pedestrians, safe is a sound justification for the law, but the utter disregard by the population and the police make it a non-entity. By retaining laws such as this, the government has established that it can impose legal restrictions on our liberty that society neither agrees with nor finds desirable. Through the simple act of non-enforcement, the government has increased its power to impose restrictions on its citizens at its will. | >
> | A small penalty law is helpful as an example and illustrates the same principles underlying laws that are more restrictive. Most states have open container laws prohibiting the possession of an open container of alcohol in a public space. However, due to a combination of the desires of the population and the police, a compromise arose. Place the open container in a brown-bag and no violation ensues in the majority of jurisdictions. While the immediate result is operative, it creates a dangerous mindset: follow the rules you like and not the ones you dislike. If the goal of law is to establish a desirable system to live within, this is not a sustainable creed. Laws lose their meaning if they can be ignored. Citizens lose interest when new laws are enacted, always believing there will be a loophole somewhere, and are therefore not paying enough attention when the government actually decides to restrict a fundamental liberty. | | |
Possible Solution | | | Practicability | |
<
< | When applying the above solution to our simple examples, opponents will indubitably argue impracticability. Conceding that perfect enforcement is impracticable - although with the advances in privacy infringing technology (e.g. cameras, satellites, etc.) it is an ever-approaching reality - there is no argument that enforcement cannot be increased. We need not even go into covert methods of enforcement. Simply put, every time a law is broken in front of an officer of the law, it ought to be enforced. Violations of the law, especially the low-penalty ones mentioned above, occur all of the time. Only through actual enforcement will the full power of the government's restrictions and ability to restrict register with the ordinary citizen. | >
> | When applying the above solution, opponents will indubitably argue impracticability. Conceding that perfect enforcement is impracticable - although with the advances in privacy infringing technology (e.g. cameras, satellites, etc.) it is an ever-approaching reality - there is no argument that increasing enforcement is impossible. For example, every time a law is broken in front of an officer of the law, it can and ought to be enforced. Violations of the law, especially ones like the low-penalty example above, occur all of the time. Only through actual enforcement will the full power of the government's restrictions and ability to restrict register with the ordinary citizen. | | | | |
<
< | Conclusion | | | | |
<
< | Allowing laws to be broken is a subtle mechanism for a government to further restrict the liberties of its citizens. In order for the citizenry to constrain this power, it must have knowledge of the government's policies. The population can properly voice its agreement or dissent only with a practical understanding of the laws and their effects. If a government truly wishes for an informed populace, it should compulsively enforce its laws. | >
> | Separation of Powers Violation?
Compelled enforcement has a more serious obstacle to overcome in the doctrine of separation of powers. The legislature is responsible for making laws. It is the duty of the executive branch to enforce those laws. This division allows the executive to check the power of the legislature by choosing which laws to enforce and with what level of rigor. If we force the executive branch’s hand, we not only eliminate its discretionary abilities, but also remove an important restriction on the legislature’s power.
Removing some of the power vested in the executive is a definite problem with this solution. However, the end effect may still be positive for the population because it transfers the responsibility of checking the legislature from the executive branch to the people. When the rule makers are directly responsible for enforcement, the people will hold the legislature accountable for unacceptable laws because there is no intermediary.
Dangers of Creating Social Upheaval
Increasing law enforcement will undoubtedly upset the population. If this instigates an increase in disobedience to the laws of society by a disinterested public rather than a demand for more just laws, then the solution will be an inexcusable failure. However, it is not clear that this disobedient mindset is any more dangerous than what a “lenient” government creates by allowing its laws to be broken.
Allowing the population to disobey small laws may possibly satiate the “rebellious” nature within the grand majority of us. If this is the case, then such leniency may actually inspire more obedience to the larger, more serious, laws for the average law-abiding citizen. On the other hand, leniency in one area may trigger an individual’s belief in his/her ability to get away with more law breaking. This result triggers the same disobedience feared above from increased law enforcement.
Further behavioral and psychological research into this area will prove invaluable to promoting a better government. We must look at not only the social effects of different levels of enforcement, but also to the individual and neurological effects to have a consummative perspective from which we can begin to weigh the pros and cons of such policies.
Conclusion | | | | |
>
> | Allowing laws to be broken is a subtle mechanism for a government to further restrict the liberties of its citizens. In order for the citizenry to constrain this power, it must have knowledge of the government's policies. The population can properly voice its agreement or dissent only with a practical understanding of the laws and their effects. While compulsive law enforcement may not be the perfect solution, it will create a better-informed populace, which is a significant step towards an improved form of government. | | | -- MattDavisRatner - 27 Mar 2008
|
|
|
MattDavisRatner-SecondPaper 7 - 10 May 2008 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebTopicList" |
|---|
Allowing Laws to be Broken: A Restriction on Freedom | | | 3) Are the issues different for state and federal governments? State rules affect a population with more similar concerns, but we still remain one nation with supposedly the similar goals.
| |
>
> |
- The proposition that full enforcement is the best approach to a bad law is really an example of making both the best and worst the enemy of the good. First, full enforcement is not the same as enforcement when a policeman is primary witness to the infraction: that's infinitesimal enforcement. Rudolph Giuliani increased enforcement for simple marijuana possession (against which he had a strong personal prejudice) by 4800%, with no noticeable effect on public resistance or infraction. If the magnitudes of increase necessary to provoke organized dissent are much larger than that, the degree of enforcement necessary would not only be more than economically tenable, it would create more substantial injustice than mere relief against the law could provide.
- Second, resistance to laws and resistance to law are not perfectly segregable, such that a government can reasonably court substantial public resistance to one unjust law through full enforcement without deteriorating spontaneous obedience overall. Both the historical lesson taught by Prohibition and the theoretical literature concur in warning against deliberately creating resentment against law enforcement.
- Third, resource allocation decisions in the enforcement system are made by politically responsible actors, who in addition to their own judgments about the wisdom of fighting Pyrrhic wars will be held responsible by voters for decisions about enforcement of laws they cannot change. Asking elected District Attorneys to infuriate voters through expensive and oppressive enforcement of laws they don't want enforced but the DA is powerless to change makes no sense whatever, either from the perspective of democratic theory--which is the sole motivating conception launching us on this charade--or from a realistic view of the politically possible.
- The premise itself might also be questioned. If, as one expects, a complex modern society contains more law than any one person could know, no matter how expert, regardless of the degree of enforcement, what is the fetish for full enforcement about, from a democratic theory point of view? Has the public no entitlement to substantive expectations democratically chosen, including temperate moderation in the pursuit of law enforcement? A view of democracy that prohibits my electing prosecutors and municipal officials with the expectation that they will appropriately rather than mindlessly execute the legislature's will seems to me neither true to the "separation of powers" conception we claim motivates our science of government, nor responsive to the reality that legislation and governing are separate and mutually dependent activities.
- I think you can spend a little less effort on initial exposition, and I think some of these questions need answers.
| | |
\ No newline at end of file |
|
|
MattDavisRatner-SecondPaper 6 - 04 Apr 2008 - Main.MattDavisRatner
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebTopicList" |
|---|
Allowing Laws to be Broken: A Restriction on Freedom | |
<
< | At its core, each law represents at least a slight infringement of our rights. We give power to our government to provide certain social benefits, which we deem necessary, through the enactment of these laws. Bringing a beneficial and desired result to the nation is society's goal and ought to be the government's when enacting laws. Very few citizens read the laws and only of a fraction of those, or the rest of the population, can understand the convoluted jargon constituting a law. In order to test the efficacy and desirability of a law, and therefore whether it should remain law, a law must be enforced. The population can only evaluate the acceptability of a law through the real-world experiment of common experience. Enforcing a law sparsely, or sometimes not at all, deprives society of its only practical test of that law. The government has made a statement of power by enacting a law that the population may or may not find acceptable, taken away the populace's ability to judge the law, and maintained it as an official policy held over the head of the nation with the omnipresent threat of enforcement. | >
> | At its core, each law represents at least a slight infringement of our rights. We give power to our government to provide certain social benefits, which we deem necessary, through the enactment of these laws. Bringing a beneficial and desired result to the nation is society's goal and ought to be the government's when enacting laws. Very few citizens read the laws and only a fraction of those, or the rest of the population for that matter, can understand the convoluted jargon constituting a law. In order to test the efficacy and desirability of a law, and therefore whether it should remain law, a law must be enforced. The population can only evaluate the acceptability of a law through the real-world experiment of common experience. Enforcing a law sparsely, or sometimes not at all, deprives society of its only practical test of that law. The government has made a statement of power by enacting a law that the population may or may not find acceptable, taken away the populace's ability to judge the law, and maintained it as an official policy held over the head of the nation with the omnipresent threat of enforcement. | | | | |
<
< | A relaxed enforcement instills a false belief of governmental leniency in the populace. This generates and encourages lackadaisical behavior in the masses' adherence to the laws and creates a populace too disinterested to bother checking the government's infringement of individual rights. By providing some 'leniency', the government diverts the population's attention away from other laws that impinge upon individual rights more substantially and eventually desensitize the population leaving them apathetic to the newfound restrictions upon freedom. Unacceptable laws are thus enacted and kept on record through the governmental bribe to the populace of a low level of enforcement. Establishing the power to impinge upon rights allows for the expansion of governmental control of our everyday lives. | >
> | A relaxed enforcement instills a false belief of governmental leniency in the populace. This generates and encourages lackadaisical behavior in the masses' adherence to the laws and creates a populace too disinterested to bother checking the government's infringement of individual rights. By providing some 'leniency', the government diverts the population's attention away from other laws that impinge upon individual rights more substantially and eventually desensitize the population leaving them apathetic to the newfound restrictions upon freedom. Unacceptable laws are thus enacted and kept on record through the governmental bribe to the populace of low-level enforcement. Establishing the power to impinge upon rights allows for the expansion of governmental control of our everyday lives. | | | Simple Real World Examples | |
<
< | A few small penalty laws are helpful as examples. They are relatively simple and illustrate the same principles underlying laws that are more restrictive. Most states have open container laws prohibiting the possession of an open container of alcohol in a public space. However, due to a combination of the desires of the population and the police, a compromise arose. Place the open container in a brown-bag and no violation ensues in the majority of jurisdictions. When we do not like the laws, we find a way to cheat the effect. While the immediate result is effective, it creates a dangerous mindset: follow the rules you like and not the ones you dislike. If the goal of law is to establish a desirable system to live within, then this is not a sustainable creed. Laws lose their meaning if they can be ignored. Citizens lose interest when new laws are enacted, always believing there will be a loophole somewhere, and are therefore not paying enough attention when the government actually decides to restrict a fundamental liberty. | >
> | A few small penalty laws are helpful as examples. They are relatively simple and illustrate the same principles underlying laws that are more restrictive. Most states have open container laws prohibiting the possession of an open container of alcohol in a public space. However, due to a combination of the desires of the population and the police, a compromise arose. Place the open container in a brown-bag and no violation ensues in the majority of jurisdictions. When we do not like the laws, we find a way to cheat the effect. While the immediate result is operative, it creates a dangerous mindset: follow the rules you like and not the ones you dislike. If the goal of law is to establish a desirable system to live within, this is not a sustainable creed. Laws lose their meaning if they can be ignored. Citizens lose interest when new laws are enacted, always believing there will be a loophole somewhere, and are therefore not paying enough attention when the government actually decides to restrict a fundamental liberty. | | | The same ramifications are present when looking at another example: jaywalking. Keeping our roads, as well as the pedestrians, safe is a sound justification for the law, but the utter disregard by the population and the police make it a non-entity. By retaining laws such as this, the government has established that it can impose legal restrictions on our liberty that society neither agrees with nor finds desirable. Through the simple act of non-enforcement, the government has increased its power to impose restrictions on its citizens at its will.
Possible Solution | |
<
< | Enforce all of our laws. The primary objective is to bring the repercussions of each law into the home of the average citizen. An informed populace is a necessary step to provide the balance of power a democracy ought to have. If the citizenry agrees with the purpose and the effect (in all likelihood only the effect will ultimately matter), then there is no need for civil unrest regarding that issue. Conversely, if there is public dissent, then it is up to the people to pressure the government into a change of policy. A democracy depends upon the consent of its citizens, and the government ought to deserve the consent with open policy rather than assume the consent from a relatively silent apathetic populace. | >
> | Enforce all of our laws. The primary objective is to bring the repercussions of each law into the home of the average citizen. An informed populace is a necessary step to provide the balance of power a democracy ought to have. If the citizenry agrees with the purpose and the effect (in all likelihood only the effect will ultimately matter), then there is no need for civil unrest regarding that issue. Conversely, if there is public dissent, then it is incumbent upon the people to pressure the government into a change of policy. A democracy depends upon the consent of its citizens, and the government ought to deserve the consent with open policy rather than assume the consent from a relatively silent apathetic populace. | | | Practicability | | | Allowing laws to be broken is a subtle mechanism for a government to further restrict the liberties of its citizens. In order for the citizenry to constrain this power, it must have knowledge of the government's policies. The population can properly voice its agreement or dissent only with a practical understanding of the laws and their effects. If a government truly wishes for an informed populace, it should compulsively enforce its laws.
| |
>
> | -- MattDavisRatner - 27 Mar 2008 | | |
| |
<
< | This paper seems to be bringing up more questions for me than I can do justice to, and have therefore left many out of the discussion. In the end, I am not convinced that any one of these questions would not have been a more fruitful central issue, but it seemed worth a try.
Questions:
Does leniency in enforcement serve a beneficial role in helping the citizens connect with the executive branch of government? If the legislature is making the rule, but we see the police acting in a lenient way we support, does this create an us against them with only part of the government constituting the 'them'? Is this better than us against the entire government?
Are the mediums for public upheaval effective? Will protest/rebellion work? Should it be more of a referendum style? Populace should not be worried that complaint will cause the government to enforce it more stringently if it is already enforcing it to the fullest extent practicable, but this still begs the question of whether the dissent is effective. | >
> | This paper seems to be bringing up more questions for me than I can do justice to, and I have therefore left many out of the discussion. In the end, I am not convinced that any one of these questions would not have been a more fruitful central issue, but it seemed worth a try. | | | | |
<
< | Are the issues different for state and federal governments? State rules affect a population with more similar sentiments, but we still remain one nation. | >
> | Questions:
1) Does leniency in enforcement serve a beneficial role in helping the citizens connect with the executive branch of government? If the legislature is making the rule, but we see the police acting in a lenient way we support, does this create an us against them with only part of the government constituting the 'them'? Is this better than us against the entire government?
2) Are the mediums for public upheaval effective? Will protest/rebellion work? Should it be more of a referendum style? Populace should not be worried that complaint will cause the government to enforce it more stringently if it is already enforcing it to the fullest extent practicable, but this still begs the question of whether the dissent is effective.
3) Are the issues different for state and federal governments? State rules affect a population with more similar concerns, but we still remain one nation with supposedly the similar goals. | | |
| |
<
< | -- MattDavisRatner - 27 Mar 2008 | | | |
|
|
MattDavisRatner-SecondPaper 5 - 04 Apr 2008 - Main.MattDavisRatner
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebTopicList" |
|---|
Allowing Laws to be Broken: A Restriction on Freedom | |
<
< | At its core, each law represents at least a slight infringement of our rights. We give power to our government to provide certain social benefits, which we deem necessary, through the enactment of these laws. Bringing a beneficial and desired result to the nation is society's goal and ought to be the government's when enacting laws. In order to test the efficacy and desirability of a law, and therefore whether it should remain law, a law must be enforced. The population can only evaluate the acceptability of a law through the real-world experiment of common experience. Very few citizens read the laws of the country and only of a fraction of those, or the rest of the country, can understand the convoluted jargon constituting a law. If a law is only sparsely, or sometimes never, enforced, society is deprived of its only practical test of that law. The government has made a statement of power by enacting a law that society may or may not find acceptable, taken away the populace's ability to judge the law, and maintained it as an official policy held over the head of the nation with the omnipresent threat of enforcement.
Superficially, relaxed enforcement, i.e. an allowance of law breaking, appears to be a governmental grant of more individual freedom. However, it is much more insidious than that. It is the government that created the law, and any non-enforcement thereof is only a return to the right once possessed before the law's enactment. The returned right is not the same. It is no longer as robust because it now contains a caveat that the government can excise the right where and when it deems appropriate. The right has been tarnished and used to entrench the government's claim of power to control and limit the rights of its citizens. This result is unacceptable on its own, but the collateral effects are even more dangerous to the liberties of the citizenry.
A relaxed enforcement instills a false belief of governmental leniency in the populace. This results in and encourages lackadaisical behavior in the populace's adherence to the laws and a lazy populace regarding its responsibility of checking the government's infringement of individual rights. By providing some "leniency", the government diverts the population's attention away from other laws that impinge upon individual rights more substantially and eventually desensitize the population leaving them ambivalent to the new found restrictions upon freedom. Unacceptable laws are thus enacted and kept on record through a governmental bribe to the populace of a low level of enforcement. Establishing the power to impinge upon rights allows for the expansion of governmental control of our everyday lives. | >
> | At its core, each law represents at least a slight infringement of our rights. We give power to our government to provide certain social benefits, which we deem necessary, through the enactment of these laws. Bringing a beneficial and desired result to the nation is society's goal and ought to be the government's when enacting laws. Very few citizens read the laws and only of a fraction of those, or the rest of the population, can understand the convoluted jargon constituting a law. In order to test the efficacy and desirability of a law, and therefore whether it should remain law, a law must be enforced. The population can only evaluate the acceptability of a law through the real-world experiment of common experience. Enforcing a law sparsely, or sometimes not at all, deprives society of its only practical test of that law. The government has made a statement of power by enacting a law that the population may or may not find acceptable, taken away the populace's ability to judge the law, and maintained it as an official policy held over the head of the nation with the omnipresent threat of enforcement. | | | | |
>
> | A relaxed enforcement instills a false belief of governmental leniency in the populace. This generates and encourages lackadaisical behavior in the masses' adherence to the laws and creates a populace too disinterested to bother checking the government's infringement of individual rights. By providing some 'leniency', the government diverts the population's attention away from other laws that impinge upon individual rights more substantially and eventually desensitize the population leaving them apathetic to the newfound restrictions upon freedom. Unacceptable laws are thus enacted and kept on record through the governmental bribe to the populace of a low level of enforcement. Establishing the power to impinge upon rights allows for the expansion of governmental control of our everyday lives. | | | Simple Real World Examples | |
<
< | A few small penalty laws are helpful as examples because they are relatively simple and illustrate the same principles underlying more restrictive laws. Most states have open container laws prohibitting the possession of an open container of alcohol in a public space. However, due to a combination of the desires of the population and the police, a compromise arose. Place the open container in a brown-bag and in the majority of jurisdictions no longer will a violation be assessed. When we do not like the laws, we find a way to cheat the effect. While the immediate result is effective, it creates a dangerous mindset: follow the rules you like and not the ones you dislike. If the goal of law is to establish a desirable system to live within, then this is not a sustainable creed. Laws lose their meaning if they can be ignored. Citizens lose interest when new laws are enacted, always believing there will be a loophole somewhere, and are too desensitized when the government actually decides to restrict a fundamental liberty.
The same ramifications are present when looking at another example: jaywalking. Keeping our roads, as well as the pedestrians, safe is a sound justification for the law, but the utter disregard by the population and the police make it a non-entity. By retaining laws such as this, the government has established that it can impose legal restrictions on our liberty that society does not agree with nor find desirable. Through the simple act of non-enforcement, the government has increased its power to impose restrictions on its citizens at its will. | >
> | A few small penalty laws are helpful as examples. They are relatively simple and illustrate the same principles underlying laws that are more restrictive. Most states have open container laws prohibiting the possession of an open container of alcohol in a public space. However, due to a combination of the desires of the population and the police, a compromise arose. Place the open container in a brown-bag and no violation ensues in the majority of jurisdictions. When we do not like the laws, we find a way to cheat the effect. While the immediate result is effective, it creates a dangerous mindset: follow the rules you like and not the ones you dislike. If the goal of law is to establish a desirable system to live within, then this is not a sustainable creed. Laws lose their meaning if they can be ignored. Citizens lose interest when new laws are enacted, always believing there will be a loophole somewhere, and are therefore not paying enough attention when the government actually decides to restrict a fundamental liberty. | | | | |
>
> | The same ramifications are present when looking at another example: jaywalking. Keeping our roads, as well as the pedestrians, safe is a sound justification for the law, but the utter disregard by the population and the police make it a non-entity. By retaining laws such as this, the government has established that it can impose legal restrictions on our liberty that society neither agrees with nor finds desirable. Through the simple act of non-enforcement, the government has increased its power to impose restrictions on its citizens at its will. | | |
Possible Solution | |
<
< | Enforce all of our laws. The primary purpose is to bring the ramifications of each law into the home of the average citizen. An informed populace is a necessary step to provide the balance of power a democracy ought to have. If the nation agrees with the purpose and the effect (in all likelihood only the effect will ultimately matter), then there is no need for civil unrest regarding that issue. Conversely, if there is public dissent, then it is up to the people to pressure the government into a change of policy. A democracy depends upon the consent of its citizens, and the government ought to deserve the consent with open policy rather than assume the consent from a relatively silent ambivalent populace. | >
> | Enforce all of our laws. The primary objective is to bring the repercussions of each law into the home of the average citizen. An informed populace is a necessary step to provide the balance of power a democracy ought to have. If the citizenry agrees with the purpose and the effect (in all likelihood only the effect will ultimately matter), then there is no need for civil unrest regarding that issue. Conversely, if there is public dissent, then it is up to the people to pressure the government into a change of policy. A democracy depends upon the consent of its citizens, and the government ought to deserve the consent with open policy rather than assume the consent from a relatively silent apathetic populace. | | | Practicability | |
>
> | When applying the above solution to our simple examples, opponents will indubitably argue impracticability. Conceding that perfect enforcement is impracticable - although with the advances in privacy infringing technology (e.g. cameras, satellites, etc.) it is an ever-approaching reality - there is no argument that enforcement cannot be increased. We need not even go into covert methods of enforcement. Simply put, every time a law is broken in front of an officer of the law, it ought to be enforced. Violations of the law, especially the low-penalty ones mentioned above, occur all of the time. Only through actual enforcement will the full power of the government's restrictions and ability to restrict register with the ordinary citizen.
Conclusion | | | | |
<
< | When applying the above solution to our simple examples, opponents will indubitably argue impracticability. Conceding that perfect enforcement is impracticable - although with the advances of privacy infringing technology (e.g. cameras, satellites, etc.) it is an ever approaching reality - there is no argument that enforcement cannot be increased. We need not even go into covert methods of enforcement. Simply put, every time a law is broken in front of an officer of the law, it ought to be enforced. Violations, especially the low-penalty ones used above occur all of the time. Only through actual enforcement will the full power of the government's restrictions and ability to restrict register with the ordinary citizen. | >
> | Allowing laws to be broken is a subtle mechanism for a government to further restrict the liberties of its citizens. In order for the citizenry to constrain this power, it must have knowledge of the government's policies. The population can properly voice its agreement or dissent only with a practical understanding of the laws and their effects. If a government truly wishes for an informed populace, it should compulsively enforce its laws. | | |
| | | Are the mediums for public upheaval effective? Will protest/rebellion work? Should it be more of a referendum style? Populace should not be worried that complaint will cause the government to enforce it more stringently if it is already enforcing it to the fullest extent practicable, but this still begs the question of whether the dissent is effective.
Are the issues different for state and federal governments? State rules affect a population with more similar sentiments, but we still remain one nation. | |
<
< | Is the non-enforcement actually an issue of prioritization? The police have better things to do, and therefore only enforce these laws when there is nothing else to do? This may explain the case for the examples here, but even if that is the case there could be more enforcement. | | |
| |
>
> | | | | -- MattDavisRatner - 27 Mar 2008 |
|
|
MattDavisRatner-SecondPaper 4 - 03 Apr 2008 - Main.MattDavisRatner
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebTopicList" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Allowing Laws to be Broken: Increasing or Restricting Freedom? | >
> | Allowing Laws to be Broken: A Restriction on Freedom | | | | |
<
< | Thesis: Relaxed enforcement of laws allows our government to restrict our freedom. By creating a rouse of leniency, it encourages the lackadaisical behavior in the populace's adherence to the laws and in its responsibility of checking the government's power. Unacceptable laws are thus enacted and kept on record through a governmental bribe to the populace of a low level of enforcement. Establishing the power to impinge upon rights allows for the expansion of governmental control of our everyday lives. | >
> | At its core, each law represents at least a slight infringement of our rights. We give power to our government to provide certain social benefits, which we deem necessary, through the enactment of these laws. Bringing a beneficial and desired result to the nation is society's goal and ought to be the government's when enacting laws. In order to test the efficacy and desirability of a law, and therefore whether it should remain law, a law must be enforced. The population can only evaluate the acceptability of a law through the real-world experiment of common experience. Very few citizens read the laws of the country and only of a fraction of those, or the rest of the country, can understand the convoluted jargon constituting a law. If a law is only sparsely, or sometimes never, enforced, society is deprived of its only practical test of that law. The government has made a statement of power by enacting a law that society may or may not find acceptable, taken away the populace's ability to judge the law, and maintained it as an official policy held over the head of the nation with the omnipresent threat of enforcement. | | | | |
>
> | Superficially, relaxed enforcement, i.e. an allowance of law breaking, appears to be a governmental grant of more individual freedom. However, it is much more insidious than that. It is the government that created the law, and any non-enforcement thereof is only a return to the right once possessed before the law's enactment. The returned right is not the same. It is no longer as robust because it now contains a caveat that the government can excise the right where and when it deems appropriate. The right has been tarnished and used to entrench the government's claim of power to control and limit the rights of its citizens. This result is unacceptable on its own, but the collateral effects are even more dangerous to the liberties of the citizenry. | | | | |
<
< | Introduction | >
> | A relaxed enforcement instills a false belief of governmental leniency in the populace. This results in and encourages lackadaisical behavior in the populace's adherence to the laws and a lazy populace regarding its responsibility of checking the government's infringement of individual rights. By providing some "leniency", the government diverts the population's attention away from other laws that impinge upon individual rights more substantially and eventually desensitize the population leaving them ambivalent to the new found restrictions upon freedom. Unacceptable laws are thus enacted and kept on record through a governmental bribe to the populace of a low level of enforcement. Establishing the power to impinge upon rights allows for the expansion of governmental control of our everyday lives. | | | | |
<
< | Each law represents at least a slight infringement of our rights. We give power to our government to provide certain social benefits we deem necessary through the enactment of these laws. Bringing a beneficial and desired result to the nation is society's goal and ought to be the government's when enacting laws. In order to test the efficacy and desirability of a law, and therefore whether it should remain law, a law must be enforced. The population can only evaluate the acceptability of a law through the real-world experiment of common experience. Very few citizens read the laws of the country and only of a fraction of those, or the rest of the country, can understand the convoluted jargon constituting a law. If a law is only sparsely, or sometimes never, enforced, society is deprived of its only practical test of that law. The government has made a statement of power by enacting a law that society may or may not find acceptable, taken away the populace's ability to judge the law, and maintained it as an official policy held over the head of the nation with the omnipresent threat of enforcement.
Superficially, relaxed enforcement, i.e. an allowance of law breaking, appears to be a governmental grant of more individual freedom. However, it is much more insidious than that. It is the government that created the law, and any non-enforcement thereof is only a return to the right once possessed before the law's enactment. The returned right is not the same. It has been tarnished and used to entrench the government's claim of power to control and limit the rights of its citizens. The right is no longer as robust because it now contains a caveat that the government can excise the right where and when it deems appropriate. This result is unacceptable on its own, but the collateral effects are even more dangerous to the liberties of the citizenry.
A relaxed enforcement instills a false belief of governmental leniency in the populace. This results in and encourages lackadaisical behavior in the populace's adherence to the laws and a lazy populace regarding its responsibility of checking the government's infringement of individual rights. Providing some "leniency", the government diverts the population's attention away from other laws that impinge upon individual rights more substantially and eventually desensitize the population leaving them ambivalent to the new found restrictions upon freedom. Unacceptable laws are thus enacted and kept on record through a governmental bribe to the populace of a low level of enforcement. Establishing the power to impinge upon rights allows for the expansion of governmental control of our everyday lives. | | | Simple Real World Examples | |
<
< | Eg's:
-
- brown-bagging liquor to avoid open container laws
- breaking the speed limit (probably mostly due to impracticability, but still set at a level less than enforced. exception of small towns where income is derived from speeding tickets (Big Pine, Independence, Lone Pine))
- jaywalking (not true in CA)
| >
> | A few small penalty laws are helpful as examples because they are relatively simple and illustrate the same principles underlying more restrictive laws. Most states have open container laws prohibitting the possession of an open container of alcohol in a public space. However, due to a combination of the desires of the population and the police, a compromise arose. Place the open container in a brown-bag and in the majority of jurisdictions no longer will a violation be assessed. When we do not like the laws, we find a way to cheat the effect. While the immediate result is effective, it creates a dangerous mindset: follow the rules you like and not the ones you dislike. If the goal of law is to establish a desirable system to live within, then this is not a sustainable creed. Laws lose their meaning if they can be ignored. Citizens lose interest when new laws are enacted, always believing there will be a loophole somewhere, and are too desensitized when the government actually decides to restrict a fundamental liberty. | | | | |
>
> | The same ramifications are present when looking at another example: jaywalking. Keeping our roads, as well as the pedestrians, safe is a sound justification for the law, but the utter disregard by the population and the police make it a non-entity. By retaining laws such as this, the government has established that it can impose legal restrictions on our liberty that society does not agree with nor find desirable. Through the simple act of non-enforcement, the government has increased its power to impose restrictions on its citizens at its will. | | |
Possible Solution | |
<
< | Enforce all of our laws. The primary purpose is to bring the ramifications of each law into the home of the average citizen. An informed populace is a necessary step to provide the balance of power a democracy ought to have. If the nation agrees with the purpose and the effect (in all likelihood only the effect will ultimately matter), then there is no need for civil unrest regarding that issue. Conversely, if there is public dissent, then it is up to the people to pressure the government into a change of policy. A democracy depends upon the consent of a nation, and the government ought to deserve the consent with open policy rather than assume the consent from a relatively silent ambivalent nation. | >
> | Enforce all of our laws. The primary purpose is to bring the ramifications of each law into the home of the average citizen. An informed populace is a necessary step to provide the balance of power a democracy ought to have. If the nation agrees with the purpose and the effect (in all likelihood only the effect will ultimately matter), then there is no need for civil unrest regarding that issue. Conversely, if there is public dissent, then it is up to the people to pressure the government into a change of policy. A democracy depends upon the consent of its citizens, and the government ought to deserve the consent with open policy rather than assume the consent from a relatively silent ambivalent populace. | | | | |
>
> | Practicability | | | | |
<
< | Practicality | | | | |
>
> | When applying the above solution to our simple examples, opponents will indubitably argue impracticability. Conceding that perfect enforcement is impracticable - although with the advances of privacy infringing technology (e.g. cameras, satellites, etc.) it is an ever approaching reality - there is no argument that enforcement cannot be increased. We need not even go into covert methods of enforcement. Simply put, every time a law is broken in front of an officer of the law, it ought to be enforced. Violations, especially the low-penalty ones used above occur all of the time. Only through actual enforcement will the full power of the government's restrictions and ability to restrict register with the ordinary citizen. | | | | |
<
< | When applying the above solution to our simple examples, opponents will indubitably argue impracticability. Conceding that perfect enforcement is impracticable - although with the advances of privacy infringing technology (e.g. cameras, satellites, biological scanning, etc.) it is an ever approaching reality - there is no argument that enforcement cannot be increased. We need not even go into covert methods of enforcement. Simply put, every time a law is broken in front of an officer of the law, it ought to be enforced. Violations, especially the low-penalty ones used above occur all of the time. Only through actual enforcement will the full power of the government's restrictions and ability to restrict register with the ordinary citizen. | | | | |
<
< | placing traffic cameras on lights, and later in public areas like the cameras in Britain.
The gov can enforce the law as strictly as it wants and just having the law there is a statement of power and control. does a complaint against the law make the gov enforce it more stringently? | >
> |
This paper seems to be bringing up more questions for me than I can do justice to, and have therefore left many out of the discussion. In the end, I am not convinced that any one of these questions would not have been a more fruitful central issue, but it seemed worth a try.
Questions: | | | | |
>
> | Does leniency in enforcement serve a beneficial role in helping the citizens connect with the executive branch of government? If the legislature is making the rule, but we see the police acting in a lenient way we support, does this create an us against them with only part of the government constituting the 'them'? Is this better than us against the entire government? | | | | |
<
< | Are these examples simply instances of no/partial enforcement where the police have better things to do? Does this confound any ulterior restrictive motive of the government or just correlate for these simple examples? | >
> | Are the mediums for public upheaval effective? Will protest/rebellion work? Should it be more of a referendum style? Populace should not be worried that complaint will cause the government to enforce it more stringently if it is already enforcing it to the fullest extent practicable, but this still begs the question of whether the dissent is effective. | | | | |
<
< | Are the mediums for public upheaval effective? will protest/rebellion work? should it be more of a referendum style? Populace should not be worried that complaint will cause the gov to enforce it more stringently if it is already enforcing it to the fullest extent practicable. | >
> | Are the issues different for state and federal governments? State rules affect a population with more similar sentiments, but we still remain one nation. | | | | |
>
> | Is the non-enforcement actually an issue of prioritization? The police have better things to do, and therefore only enforce these laws when there is nothing else to do? This may explain the case for the examples here, but even if that is the case there could be more enforcement.
| | | -- MattDavisRatner - 27 Mar 2008 |
|
|
MattDavisRatner-SecondPaper 3 - 03 Apr 2008 - Main.MattDavisRatner
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebTopicList" |
|---|
| |
>
> | Allowing Laws to be Broken: Increasing or Restricting Freedom? | | | | |
<
< | Allowing Laws to be Broken: Increasing or Restricting Freedom? | >
> | Thesis: Relaxed enforcement of laws allows our government to restrict our freedom. By creating a rouse of leniency, it encourages the lackadaisical behavior in the populace's adherence to the laws and in its responsibility of checking the government's power. Unacceptable laws are thus enacted and kept on record through a governmental bribe to the populace of a low level of enforcement. Establishing the power to impinge upon rights allows for the expansion of governmental control of our everyday lives. | | | | |
<
< | Thesis: Relaxed enforcement of low-level laws allows our government to restrict our freedom. By creating a rouse of leniency, it encourages a lackadaisical populace in adherence to the laws and in its responsibility of checking the government's power. The government is thus able to enact and keep laws unacceptable to the populace by bribing society with a low level of enforcement. Establishing the power to impinge upon rights allows for the expansion of governmental control of our everyday lives. | | | | |
<
< | Introduction | >
> | Introduction | | | | |
<
< | Each law represents at least a slight infringement of our rights. We give power to our government to provide certain social benefits we deem necessary through the enactment of these laws. | | | | |
<
< | that is to be allowed if it brings a beneficial and wanted result to society. If we are willing to allow the law to stay on the books, then it should be acceptable to society for it to be enforced. If a law is only acceptable as is when sparsely enforced, it represents a statement of power by the government. | >
> | Each law represents at least a slight infringement of our rights. We give power to our government to provide certain social benefits we deem necessary through the enactment of these laws. Bringing a beneficial and desired result to the nation is society's goal and ought to be the government's when enacting laws. In order to test the efficacy and desirability of a law, and therefore whether it should remain law, a law must be enforced. The population can only evaluate the acceptability of a law through the real-world experiment of common experience. Very few citizens read the laws of the country and only of a fraction of those, or the rest of the country, can understand the convoluted jargon constituting a law. If a law is only sparsely, or sometimes never, enforced, society is deprived of its only practical test of that law. The government has made a statement of power by enacting a law that society may or may not find acceptable, taken away the populace's ability to judge the law, and maintained it as an official policy held over the head of the nation with the omnipresent threat of enforcement. | | | | |
<
< | placing traffic cameras on lights, and later in public areas like the cameras in Britain.
The gov can enforce the law as strictly as it wants and just having the law there is a statement of power and control. does a complaint against the law make the gov enforce it more stringently? | >
> | Superficially, relaxed enforcement, i.e. an allowance of law breaking, appears to be a governmental grant of more individual freedom. However, it is much more insidious than that. It is the government that created the law, and any non-enforcement thereof is only a return to the right once possessed before the law's enactment. The returned right is not the same. It has been tarnished and used to entrench the government's claim of power to control and limit the rights of its citizens. The right is no longer as robust because it now contains a caveat that the government can excise the right where and when it deems appropriate. This result is unacceptable on its own, but the collateral effects are even more dangerous to the liberties of the citizenry.
A relaxed enforcement instills a false belief of governmental leniency in the populace. This results in and encourages lackadaisical behavior in the populace's adherence to the laws and a lazy populace regarding its responsibility of checking the government's infringement of individual rights. Providing some "leniency", the government diverts the population's attention away from other laws that impinge upon individual rights more substantially and eventually desensitize the population leaving them ambivalent to the new found restrictions upon freedom. Unacceptable laws are thus enacted and kept on record through a governmental bribe to the populace of a low level of enforcement. Establishing the power to impinge upon rights allows for the expansion of governmental control of our everyday lives. | | | | |
<
< | an allowance of law breaking facially seems to increase our freedoms
on the other hand, it might be allowing the government to actually restrict our rights:
-
- instills a false belief of leniency in the populace
- diverts attention from other laws that impinge upon our rights more substantially
- the more stringent rules enacted, the more the population is desensitized, and the less appalled we are by new limits to our freedom
| >
> | Simple Real World Examples | | | Eg's:
-
- brown-bagging liquor to avoid open container laws
- breaking the speed limit (probably mostly due to impracticability, but still set at a level less than enforced. exception of small towns where income is derived from speeding tickets (Big Pine, Independence, Lone Pine))
- jaywalking (not true in CA)
| |
>
> |
Possible Solution
Enforce all of our laws. The primary purpose is to bring the ramifications of each law into the home of the average citizen. An informed populace is a necessary step to provide the balance of power a democracy ought to have. If the nation agrees with the purpose and the effect (in all likelihood only the effect will ultimately matter), then there is no need for civil unrest regarding that issue. Conversely, if there is public dissent, then it is up to the people to pressure the government into a change of policy. A democracy depends upon the consent of a nation, and the government ought to deserve the consent with open policy rather than assume the consent from a relatively silent ambivalent nation.
Practicality
When applying the above solution to our simple examples, opponents will indubitably argue impracticability. Conceding that perfect enforcement is impracticable - although with the advances of privacy infringing technology (e.g. cameras, satellites, biological scanning, etc.) it is an ever approaching reality - there is no argument that enforcement cannot be increased. We need not even go into covert methods of enforcement. Simply put, every time a law is broken in front of an officer of the law, it ought to be enforced. Violations, especially the low-penalty ones used above occur all of the time. Only through actual enforcement will the full power of the government's restrictions and ability to restrict register with the ordinary citizen.
placing traffic cameras on lights, and later in public areas like the cameras in Britain.
The gov can enforce the law as strictly as it wants and just having the law there is a statement of power and control. does a complaint against the law make the gov enforce it more stringently? | | | Are these examples simply instances of no/partial enforcement where the police have better things to do? Does this confound any ulterior restrictive motive of the government or just correlate for these simple examples? | |
>
> | Are the mediums for public upheaval effective? will protest/rebellion work? should it be more of a referendum style? Populace should not be worried that complaint will cause the gov to enforce it more stringently if it is already enforcing it to the fullest extent practicable. | | | -- MattDavisRatner - 27 Mar 2008 |
|
|
MattDavisRatner-SecondPaper 2 - 02 Apr 2008 - Main.MattDavisRatner
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebTopicList" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Possible Second Paper topic: | >
> | | | | Allowing Laws to be Broken: Increasing or Restricting Freedom? | |
>
> | Thesis: Relaxed enforcement of low-level laws allows our government to restrict our freedom. By creating a rouse of leniency, it encourages a lackadaisical populace in adherence to the laws and in its responsibility of checking the government's power. The government is thus able to enact and keep laws unacceptable to the populace by bribing society with a low level of enforcement. Establishing the power to impinge upon rights allows for the expansion of governmental control of our everyday lives.
Introduction
Each law represents at least a slight infringement of our rights. We give power to our government to provide certain social benefits we deem necessary through the enactment of these laws.
that is to be allowed if it brings a beneficial and wanted result to society. If we are willing to allow the law to stay on the books, then it should be acceptable to society for it to be enforced. If a law is only acceptable as is when sparsely enforced, it represents a statement of power by the government.
placing traffic cameras on lights, and later in public areas like the cameras in Britain.
The gov can enforce the law as strictly as it wants and just having the law there is a statement of power and control. does a complaint against the law make the gov enforce it more stringently? | | | an allowance of law breaking facially seems to increase our freedoms
on the other hand, it might be allowing the government to actually restrict our rights:
-
- instills a false belief of leniency in the populace
|
|
|
MattDavisRatner-SecondPaper 1 - 27 Mar 2008 - Main.MattDavisRatner
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebTopicList" |
|---|
Possible Second Paper topic:
Allowing Laws to be Broken: Increasing or Restricting Freedom?
an allowance of law breaking facially seems to increase our freedoms
on the other hand, it might be allowing the government to actually restrict our rights:
-
- instills a false belief of leniency in the populace
- diverts attention from other laws that impinge upon our rights more substantially
- the more stringent rules enacted, the more the population is desensitized, and the less appalled we are by new limits to our freedom
Eg's:
-
- brown-bagging liquor to avoid open container laws
- breaking the speed limit (probably mostly due to impracticability, but still set at a level less than enforced. exception of small towns where income is derived from speeding tickets (Big Pine, Independence, Lone Pine))
- jaywalking (not true in CA)
Are these examples simply instances of no/partial enforcement where the police have better things to do? Does this confound any ulterior restrictive motive of the government or just correlate for these simple examples?
-- MattDavisRatner - 27 Mar 2008
|
|
|