26 March 2008
Back about a month ago on my AOL post about dealer plates on wordpress, a gentleman named Jim said “i’m a dealer and use my dealer tag on all of my cars, i dont see why you’re making a big deal out of it. think of something that would benefit you in some way.“
According to Jim’s logic, anything that benefits a person should be legal. Meaning, if someone stole a car from his dealership, he should not be able to press charges against that person because it benefits that person to steal the car. Also according to this logic, nothing should be illegal. After all, a criminal only commits a crime because it benefits him or her in some way.
I would also like to comment that it doesn’t make sense to me when Jim says think about something that would benefit you in some way. There are a lot of things that would benefit me.
I am going to be commuting to and from Boston next year by myself, possibly even during the nighttime. It would benefit me to be able to carry a handgun for self defense just in case something happens. But I’m not 21 and thus do not have a concealed carry permit. According to Jim, I can carry that handgun because it benefits me even though it is against the law.
It would also benefit me if I had $200,000 to pay for my college. If I robbed a bank to get the $200,000 according to Jim I have not broken the law because it benefited me.
I am driving and there is an ambulance or a firetruck behind me, by law I need to pull over to let them pass. But, say I am in a hurry. According to Jim, that is okay because it benefits me. It doesn’t matter that I am putting someone’s life in danger and breaking the law because it benefits me.
A person uses illegal drugs. If that person is caught buying and possessing the drugs, the police should not be able to place charges against that person, after all he or she was benefited by the drugs.
A man and his wife are about to get divorced and the man will get no money from the settlement. If she dies prior to the divorce he will get a large sum of money. According to Jim, this man can commit murder because it benefits the man to kill his wife.
According to Jim, a pervert who will get satisfaction from raping a five year old girl has not committed a crime because it benefited the man.
Now after reading those examples, something should tell you either by morals or by a knowledge of the law that those examples do not make much sense. Any reasonable person would say that doing those things are WRONG. Even Jim would most likely say that those other examples are wrong to do.
What I don’t understand is why does Jim feels that he is above the law. According to his theory, one could argue that there should be no laws because every action benefits the person that does it. In that case, we don't need a government, laws or politicans. We have solved the problem of corrupt politicians and greedy lawers.
I have seen Boston police also do similar things. One of them was in a hurry to get back to the station because it was raining and he was on a motorcycle. He ran a red light after weaving between cars and around me as I crossed the street. His sirens were not on at the time nor were they turned on after this.
I feel that society would be better off if people stopped concerning themselves with only their benefit. People assume that because they are a decent member of society who participates in community service, they should get the benefit of the doubt or that certain crimes should not apply to them because they are an otherwise good person. Even some criminals, that the majority of people would consider a criminal, think they are a good person except for the one law they broke.
Yes, people have the choice to do what they want. But police should not give special breaks to people because they are an upstanding citizen or because the person's violation benefited that person. Crimes will always be partially in the eye of the beholder, but just because you don't like what politicians decide the laws are doesn't mean you can break them. It is a person's responsibility to pick their politicians wisely, and if they create a law you don't like and you picked them or you didn't vote-you can't complain. The only thing you can do is vote in the next election and hope that you a politician who supports the same beliefs as you gets in. In the mean time, laws are still laws and people still need to follow them.
For example if someone steals, it is a crime but what if they steal food just so they could feed their hungry family that night.
Okay so now we are going from poor people are stupid to poor people are thieves. There have been times when I was short on food for me and my son but I managed to make do and not steal food, imagine that! My son has never starved and I have never stolen food to feed him. I am getting sick of these idiotic examples that continually slam poor people and our ability to reason and/or have morals. Most poor people would find a legitimate way to feed their family without resorting to theft!
As for the rest of it, whether something hurts someone or not is not always the test of right and wrong. Abortion definitely hurts the mother and the child but it is still legal. If you live in Reno, prostitution is legal even though it clearly hurts the women who do it and the men who use their services by tearing apart their families. Pornography is legal and if you think it doesn't hurt anyone go to a meeting for sex addicts and listen to the pain oozing out of them and the damage it does to them and their families and then come back and tell me it doesn't hurt anyone. Therefore that whole argument of does it hurt someone else doesn't really apply now does it? However, all these things are wrong and immoral.
If there is an unjust law and you break it, you should be ready to face the consequences, just like Rosa Parks and Dr. King did. They didn't get a free ride (no pun intended) because they thought the laws were unfair. They were thrown in jail and with King it was on a constant basis! However, cities have done illegal acts and haven't had to pay for their criminal behavior. Whether it is declaring their cities sanctuary cities for illegal invaders (I will not insult the immigrant population by using that term in regards to the people who come over here and thumb their noses at our laws!) or performing illegal gay weddings, no one is above the law. Not even Jesus Christ! When he was down here not only did he follow man's laws but he followed God's law to the tee! If Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is not above the laws of man then no one else is either no matter what that benefit!
But then again I am not a liberal so I don't live my life in rationalizations.
I'll take you up on the sex addicts meeting offer...
As for the rest of the post... it's just so wrong in such an amazingly surreal way. It's a candidate for the Missing the Point Hall of Fame. Maybe you could write a great article for Missing the Point Weekly?
If Rosa Parks hadn't broken the law, there would be one less example to motivate people to change the race laws. You say that being punished is the natural result of breaking a law, but what about the instances where the laws are man-made and either arbitrary and/or simply wrong?
I never said poor people were stupid (and to keep everyone on track, she made reference to my blog on the achievement gap), and this blogger never said poor people are thieves. You have an extra special way of flaming things. And with that, DNFTT.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
You're absolutely right about the effect that breaking rules has on a system in general. When there's a flaw or inefficiency in one of our systems, the solution isn't to ignore the inconvenient bits, but to effect change so that it's a more agreeable solution.
Government is supposed to be of the people, for the people. Instead, it turns into some sort of separate entity which begins to adopt a will of its own. This is true of any sort of institution after enough time. Intentions start off pure enough, but without corrections on course, any system is destined to failure. Hopefully a day comes soon when the concept of governance gets a makeover. There's no need for immoral, old, fat, white men that sit in Washington, molest pages, and generally mess up the country. Unfortunately, democracy requires and educated populous. Fortunately, the internet may make something like that a reality.
Decentralization is the key. And I'm also horribly off-topic.
Just one last note: even if people do drugs then go on to commit crimes, this is mere correlation... it's not the drugs causing it... just dumb people. Attempt to educate them, put alternatives in place, and if that doesn't work, the last recourse might just be to execute them... sometimes limbs need to be amputated to save the body.
so do criminals. which one are you going to follow?
"A person uses illegal drugs. If that person is caught buying and possessing the drugs, the police should not be able to place charges against that person, after all he or she was benefited by the drugs."
Maybe if they were SELLING the drugs. Just to point that out.
Breaking the law is breaking the law, but I think using more extreme hypothetical situation doesn't strengthen your point that much. I'm sure you don't have to go to extreme hypotheticals to prove this.
This isn't even touching the matter that just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's wrong. Yes, yes, yes, it's *technically* wrong in the society in which the rule is in effect, but it's not wrong in the sense that there exist other societies which are still able to function while not having this same law.
In less abstruse terms: the USA drinking age is 21 while other countries basically don't have one. In the countries without the stringent drinking ages, you don't see failure to function as society. This leads to the conclusion that our drinking age law is arbitrary.
If someone happens to break an arbitrary law (one which can vary from place to place and doesn't involve a victim), then it's wrong to call them a criminal. Let's say that a group of 18 year olds is drinking in a bar in Germany. They drink. They have a good time. They walk home. They have hangovers the next day. The same situation in the US would be deemed criminal. Where is the victim?
Many laws exist as shoddy band-aids attempting to fix an underlying social problem. As long as breaking them doesn't involve a victim, then what's the harm? And why all the moral outrage over dealer plates? When our tax system doesn't make sense, it's only natural for people to discard the inconvenient bits. Instead of indignation, possibly meet the issue from the perspective of the 'criminal'. Who is he harming? Why? And what would be the solution to the problem? Note: the solution could be something other than 'well, he should follow the rules'.
My outrage comes from the fact that things like dealer plates do affect other people, even if it is in a very small way. Yes the tax system doesn't make much sense. The resolution to the tax system is not disregarding the pieces you don't like though, because then it makes the problem worse. The government feels they need to compensate for lost revenue, and increase taxes or manipulate tax laws, making them even worse. Your right, most of our laws do try to fix social problems. My problem is partially that people ignore the laws instead of trying to fix them. They take the easy way out and therefore allow the problem to get worse because change is too scary or difficult to achieve when it really isn't that hard to get.
~Jessica Mondillo
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/jmondillo
Sorry i didnt reply to a single comment, but I had more to say than just the topic covered on the comment.
for one... not everyone using drugs is feeding an addiction. And not everyone feeding an addiction does it illegally. Point and case, the millions of people who smoke cigarettes daily, and have a job to cover those expenses. The fact that you included every drug user under the "addicted" category doesn't help your argument at all. There are people who do do illegal things so they can get a drug. But for every one person that does that how many get their illegal drugs by legal means (IE job)?
Two, the only problem i have with your argument, is the examples you gave had a victim and a problem causer. There are many crimes with no victim (IE possession of drugs, the dealer plate thing i guess, ) I mean, just because J-walking is illegal doesn't mean that people should be scolded, and given far fetched connections to prove that they shouldn't have J-walked. If your crime doesn't effect anyone but yourself, not many people will care.
What you are trying to say isn't wrong, per say, but it is somewhat ridiculous. I mean, if cops were going out and killing people, then hiding behind their badges, then yeah, that is an abuse of a perk they get from their job, and should be stopped. But who is getting hurt by dealers using their dealer plates, or a drug "addict" smoking some pot with his friends?
People who use dealer plates do hurt other people, just most people don't think about it. They do not directly hurt somebody, but when tax time comes around the revenue that the state lost has to be made up some other way, which means higher taxes for everyone. Because yeah one dealer problem may cost a state $100 or $200 but multiply that by the number of dealers it ads up. It allows the dealers to have unregistered cars and never pay sales tax on the car, or registration fees.
You're right, not everyone pays for an addiction illegally, yet quite a few do. The ones that do affect other people by doing drugs, fine. But as I said earlier, where I am from, it usually effects others. I don't live in a city (normally), I actually live in a "farm town" and drugs were common. Some of the people did pay for their drugs from legal methods, but after they were on the drugs they endanger people by driving or became destructive to people's property.
J-walking can cause problems for others. Drivers have to avoid hitting J-walkers and can cause accidents because they had to avoid a person and swerved or slammed on their brakes.
~Jessica Mondillo
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/jmondillo
this argument is rather poor, i would say. make claims that are more realistic, and thus more believable.
that being said, so what if the guy wants to use his tags? there is likely a majority of people that use benefits from their occupation for their own good.
give me an example of an occupation where the people can't use their own resources from that job, perhaps illegally, and i'll prove to you that they can
everyone does this
you've done it
i've done it
maybe not to any great extent, but by your logic there is no degree to crime so it is all of equal severity
we don't want the government to follow us around all day long to make sure we don't do anything wrong, do we?
if you say yes, you probably haven't thought hard enough about it
Maybe it is because I am younger than you (I don't know this for a fact), I have never illegally used any benefits from my job. My job only real benefits, at least in my opinion, is the fact that I am getting experience how to use media equiptment. And I am not saying the government follow us around. But dealers illegally use plates in public. Cops see what dealers do and ignore it even though it is clearly against the law. They watch you for speeding, using dealer plates for a personal car is just as obvious as speeding.
~Jessica Mondillo
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/jmondillo
Not all crime benefits the criminal - what about involuntary manslaughter? If I were the criminal in that case, I don't see how I would be benefited in any way whatsoever. In fact, I think a situation like that would ruin my life as I would have to live with the guilt every day of my life.
I can think of even more crimes that would not necessarily be beneficial to the criminal.....
Thats true. I never did think of involuntary manslaughter. But I also think in some cases involuntary manslaughter was caused by another illegal action (i.e. drunk driving) which was is usually done to satisfy an addiction or to be social and judgement is impaired. In that case, a person still gets some pleasure from the drinking before their impaired judgement causes them to commit another, more serious crime (that didn't benefit them).
~Jessica Mondillo
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/jmondillo
Honestly, if people thought this way about the world, no one would ever survive long enough to be happy. It's just like saying it's okay to kill Jim because it makes other people happy -- morals and common sense would be useless. So if you want to do something that will benefit you, get a job. You have the satisfaction of knowing what hard work really means, and you are safe from the mobs of people who would've killed you if you stole their money.
Your right. The only thing that will ever benefit a person in the long run is a job. It provides from them today and in the future, especially if you manage your money correctly. Of course in Jim's case it wasn't that he had a job, it was just that he saves some money by not registering his cars. If laws were disregarded because they benefited someone people would have to fear for their lifes and their possessions because commonsense, logic, and morals would no longer be considered by people.
~Jessica Mondillo
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/jmondillo
I found this quite humurous. Jim is arrogant!!! Yet it is a little ironic that some things such as robbing a bank for college money seems like the only thing you can do to get said money.
"greedy lawers" <-- psst. Lawyers. :p
I follow laws which fit with my own laws of ethics, etc. Other laws I don't pay much attention to unless I'd get in trouble for not following them.
You have to admit that the examples used in the article were a bit out there and I think his hyperboles upstaged the real meaning of the car dealers statements. I know for a fact that I can present you with a few examples of breaking the law which shouldn't matter for they benefit the "criminal" in question. However, I do not believe that a crime is a crime if the actions being carried out do not involve a reluctant participant, or someone who will be greatly affected in a negative way by the outcome. For example if someone steals, it is a crime but what if they steal food just so they could feed their hungry family that night. I don't believe the 400 pound over weight supervisor will really miss it that much. And so what if someone is at home smoking their lungs and brain cells away off of marijuana. Let the idiots do as they please and kill themselves, they are hurting no one but themselves and its not like there will be enough social security left for them by the time they reach 65 years of age. Might as well let them commit socially accepted suicide.
I know some examples don't really effect other people, at the same the restaurant/food one I disagree with. You are saying the manager doesn't care. I'd agree the manager doesn't care he gets paid if everything in the store was stolen. It's the business own who cares though because yeah a needy family is getting food at the same time, but there is still a cost (and at the moment a very high cost) to buy that food that the owner is paying for and then losing. Yes smoking illegal drugs is a person choice and it does only effect them when they are doing that. Except for the fact that most people who are doing illegal drugs are addicted and do not have a job. They then go out and steal, and sometimes even commit worse crimes like murder or assault. In this way it does effect society. The only law I can think of that does not directly effect someone besides the person breaking the law is the seat belt law (and it can be argues otherwise).
~Jessica Mondillo
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/jmondillo
Doing the drug in and of itself is not harmful to society. Drinking underage is in and of itself not harmful. I know many good citizens who have done one or the other, or even both. What you are talking about is breaking additional laws (stealing, murder, assault, even driving while intoxicated) to feed an addiction. THOSE laws are the ones that do not benefit society, not necessarily the smoking weed or drinking underage.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
True, those laws in and of themselves do not effect other people. But they often cause other laws to be broken or create additional dangers by the influence of drugs (i.e. drunk driving). So yes smoke weed or underage drinking don't always directly effect someone else, but you have to admit they link to other more serious crimes in a number of cases.
~Jessica Mondillo
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/jmondillo
Yes, and there are plenty of people that don't do anything while smoking weed, and plenty of people who can LEGALLY drink that go out and get DUIs. Punish them for breaking those other laws, rather than drinking underage or smoking something other than tobacco.
There are plenty of people who, beyond these two laws, don't do anything wrong, and contribute very healthily to society. So should they be punished for something that has absolutely no effect on you? What do you care if I'm at home (or even at a friend's house), drinking a few glasses of wine or a couple of beers, as long as I don't go out and break another law in the process?
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
If you don't break another law, fine. But in a lot of cases, people do. And I don't think I specifically mentioned underage drinking but if I did, I do agree there are people who drink legal and drive under the influence and you are right they should be punished. Maybe it is just where I am from, but most of my high school class either used illegal drugs or drank underage. After doing one or the other, they usually (I'd say over 90% of the time) broke the law in some other way.
~Jessica Mondillo
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/jmondillo