“But, I cannot grasp how the Rules themselves make any act right or wrong.”
Two points:
1) You will agree that a parent must limit what their small child may eat, and when. Otherwise the child will neglect “veggies at mealtime” in favor of “skittles at will”. Suppose the parent sets the rule that candy is to be eaten only when dispensed by the parent. Now suppose that just after lunch the parent observes the child eating a candy bar supplied by a friend. It’s just after lunch so no meal is spoiled, the friend is trusted, and no real harm is done. However, the act of breaking the rule is of itself a serious transgression. The larger rule is that the child is under the authority of the parents. The child is not free to decide when and where to obey rules. If the child feels free to flout rules at will, then it will certainly annoy many people and possible create danger for itself and others.
2) If everyone is free to decide that a particular rule is pointless and need not be obeyed, then there is no point in any rules at all. For instance, jaywalking is illegal supposedly because it places not only the walker but drivers at risk. You may conclude in a specific instance that there is no danger to anyone, and you can cross at will. However, if this is acceptable then the law itself is pointless, since it could be phrased “Don’t cross unless you think it’s safe.” The rule would not be in force if this was acceptable.
“I respect the rules that people set regarding their own property, but outside of that, I refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy* of any rule, law, or regulation that does not explicitly and solely protect others from an infringement of their rights by my action.”
You require that an entire chain of justification be presented in each and every rule? I don’t think that’s possible. And what about those rules whose justification is “This way of doing things is not necessarily better than other ways, but it is better that we are all on the same page, so we have arbitrarily chosen this one.”? (Example: Standardized currency.)
“There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”
Sounds profound and all, but it's hogwash. Anyone who manages people will tell you it’s much easier to lead a group when everyone obeys not only the letter but also the spirit of the rules. In such cases the number of rules can be kept to a minimum. It’s when people get away with as much as possible that you need more rules.
“I can find no ethical justification for a rule which protects nobody but the person who would otherwise break it.”
Also sounds profound and noble. However, in reality it’s crap. What about the afore mentioned small child? Oh, it’s ok as long as we are talking about children?
What about the mentally incompetent? OK, exceptions for them as well.
What about those who hurt only themselves but others must clean up the mess? Example: failure to follow fire codes in building a private dwelling. I suspect you will argue that we have no right to decide what level of risk is acceptable, and we can let those who are incorrect burn. But most people think you are wrong. See previous argument about “if you are free to decide which rules to obey, then there are NO rules that have force.”
OK… let's just consider rules that protect no one but the one being injured, and where the injured is a sound-minded adult. I have a hard time thinking of an example of these. Drugs? No, since buying drugs keeps pushers and smugglers around, and they do affect others. Drugs when you make/grow your own? But you do admit that addicts tend to be a burden to those around them, don’t you? Doesn’t it make sense to prevent this?
How will you decide whether anyone else is being protected? Is this another case of "just ignore rules you don't like."? Again... if you are free to do this, then basically you are saying you are free to ignore any rule at all.
|