TED Conversations

Robert Winner

TEDCRED 100+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Are rules made to be broken

Why should rules made. To some it is a challenge to find the back door of a program and demonstrate their expertise. To others it is just a dare. We talked in class and passed notes ... if caught we got detention. Yet we still did it.

When I say rules ... I do not mean laws.

Have you ever broken a rule .... why .... would you do it again?

+3
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Aug 24 2013: @ Ms. Windweaver-- American citizens including employees of the NSA should obey all US laws. All citizens of Saudi Arabia should obey all Saudi Arabian laws. Do you advocate some other arrangement?
    • thumb
      Aug 24 2013: yep. don't obey nutty laws, the same as rules. If you have objections based on reason, then break the laws and the rules. If nobody did that, then we would still be in the middle ages. I propose rules and laws evolve based on relevance to the times and to those to whom they apply.

      Their relevance or irrelevance would never be found or tested had they not been broken in the first place
      • thumb
        Aug 24 2013: Laws, not rules, are based upon the will of the People in a Representative Republic like the USA. If an American citizen disagrees with a law they are empowered to use the legislative process to change, or repeal, that law. Anarchy and rebellion are not necessary. No society where each individual is allowed to obey only the laws with which they agree, and disregard the rest, has ever functioned successfully. Breaking the law idemands a response from law enforcement. That is no way to run a society. The Law of the Land is what keeps the peace in a society. If you consider a law to be "nutty" and choose to disobey it, you MUST suffer the consequences or the very fabric of the society will unravel. Due Process is what separates savages from civilized people. Rules, on the other hand, can be broken at will without contributing to the destruction of the nation. Big difference!Am I wrong Minishka?
        • thumb
          Aug 24 2013: Laws have a long history of overstepping their boundaries. Such as the laws on sodomy. If I were to object to the law, I would say evaluate the situation first. Should a person go to court and get legal permission to break that law? By doing so BEFORE you actually do it, are you acknowledging the law's right to give or repeal permission for what you do in the bedroom?

          All I'm saying is, question everything .. including the law
      • thumb
        Aug 24 2013: Question, yes. Disobey, no! Agreed.
        • thumb
          Aug 24 2013: I do suggest using common sense, I do suggest obeying most laws as part of the social contract. I do suggest following legislative process for most laws you don't agree with, AND I suggest breaking a few.

          Here's a few you could consider
          http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/alabama

          Disclaimer: if a reader decides to maim themselves based on my suggestion of this page just to avoid jury duty, I can't be held liable for their lack of common sense
      • thumb
        Aug 24 2013: RE: "I do suggest..." Sadly, common sense is an oxymoron. The only bond keeping society from disintegrating is the Rule of Law. If that goes out the window all bets are off. Chaos ensues. Anarchy rules. Everybody panic!
    • thumb
      Aug 30 2013: You are assuming no laws are inconsistent with each other. In the noodlely tax code for example, there are ways to do one's taxes which are both right and wrong.

      You are also assuming that people know all the laws. Also, there are many odd, archaic laws on the books which are not enforced, yet they are still laws.
      • thumb
        Aug 30 2013: You are assuming about what I am assuming. I know full well that there are conflicting, nonsensical laws. I also know full well that no person could ever know all the laws to which they are expected to render obedience. I do not see how either of those has application in this debate. Please clarify.
        • thumb
          Aug 30 2013: You made the comment, "American citizens including employees of the NSA should obey all US laws". You also agree that some laws are conflicting. Therefore, I can not obey all laws without breaking others. Therefore, I can not obey all laws.
      • thumb
        Aug 30 2013: Conflicting laws are not mutually exclusive in their application. Two laws may prescribe different penalties for violations but they deal with the same subject. That is what I mean by "conflicting". Do you know of a law which requires breaking another law in order to obey? I cannot think of one, and if there is it should be changed by due process. Regarding the statement "... should obey all laws", the key word is SHOULD. The right thing to do is always to obey the law. The fact that people break laws unknowingly does not change the fact that the right thing is to obey all laws. Ignorance does not make unlawful conduct acceptable. Thanks Drew!
        • thumb
          Aug 30 2013: As I mentioned, In tax code there are examples of assets which may fall under any of several different laws are require different treatment under each. One may require taxing at one percent whereas another at another percent. One could change the code "by due" by specifically "working with the IRS" to get this specific asset type included, but that only adds further complexity and there is always another derivative type of asset to complicate even that.
      • thumb
        Aug 30 2013: Hey, Drew! You ran-off and left me behind. What are you talking about? Isn't it true that in Tax Court if I can show I obeyed an official IRS law then I cannot be penalized for disobeying another "conflicting" rule? Such a scenario is a problem for the IRS, not for me. Do you agree?
        • thumb
          Aug 31 2013: "Such a scenario is a problem for the IRS, not for me."
          Ha! Lucky you! You obviously have never dealt with the IRS.
      • thumb
        Aug 31 2013: Uh oh! Another assumption. I have dealt with the IRS far more than I care to but have never encountered a scenario where obeying one law caused violation of another law. Again, if that is a reality the IRS must make it a priority to fix such nonsense.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.