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:

1. 1. instills a false belief of leniency in the populace
   2. diverts attention from other laws that impinge upon our rights more substantially
   3. 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:

1. 1. brown-bagging liquor to avoid open container laws
   2. 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))
   3. 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

<--/commentPlugin-->