From what you are saying it seems we should just not have laws at all. And yes, people certainly are flaunting laws all the time, but thats why we have consequences and punishments. And again, there are ways to change the law without breaking them.

You misunderstand me. I don't really have a problem with the law per say. It's more or less with the centralized institutions that are authoritarian purely by their own nature in how they operate.

"Consequences and punishments?". Don't do this, or I'm gonna fucking spank you? That sounds more like extortion. Hardly democratic eh? I wish I could say people were afraid of the consequences, but I doubt people that commit murder who are clearly irrational think of the consequences.

Mmm, there is. But what better way to change the law then to ignore it completely? By your rational we would still probably have prohibition, and we would still grovel for our right to alcohol. We need to live in a ideal and ordered world and play by the rules even if we don't agree with them. "What, you disagree? Don't question my authority." There's no room for meaningful dissent.

Well if consequences and punishments sounds like extortion to you then what idea do you have in mind on how to keep the order? While irrational murderers certainly don't think of consequences when they pull the trigger but what are we supposed to do? Just let them go simply because they didn't have their head on straight?

While breaking the law to change the law works, when it comes to matters such as exchanging domestic intelligence by our very own government to circumvent laws that itself had put there then its a new problem. The founding fathers created 3 branches of government for a reason, and when one branch of the government goes about to undermine the authority of the other 2 branches it isn't breaking laws to change laws, its breaking laws to change the government.

Double Post:
Shifting gears now...

While we were having a pleasant political conversation about laws and what not Iran has continued to defy the UNSC and the IAEA. And now Iran's religious leader (the guy who really holds the reigns) has just issued his own warning to the US and the UN. Now I'm pretty sure we all know that Iran blows a lot of hot air sometimes, but considering the possibility that Iran has terrorist connections that have cells in various parts of the world. Could this threat actually be carried out? And with only 2 days from the typing of this post before the IAEA reports to the UNSC about Iran's nuclear program might we actually see the UN do something?

Yggdrasil, if you want to continue this just private message me or something. Otherwise just consider this the "final word" from me on this particular topic. We've throughly derailed this topic so I don't know if it will matter either way. Although the discussion has been quite fruitful in organizing my thoughts on these particular matters.

Absolutely. I don't believe that without a authoritarian institution in control of things that there would be disorder. There's plenty of examples to the contrary. The old west for one. Despite most movies to the contrary, (Thanks Hollywood) there was little crime in the old west. While there was plenty of saloon shootouts (guns and alcohol don't mix well!) overall crime was relatively small.

If you can't buy that particular example just think of how much chaos and disorder those very same institutions we mention has caused. From the genocide of the Native Americans. To the violent suppression of trade unions. This were not examples of disorder caused by Anarchy or rather the lack of control of a central authority. These particular events were caused by the central authority "taking the gloves" off so to say.

There's a fine line between consequences and justice. Realisticly, I don't know where that's drawn. But I refuse to believe that consequences should be used to intimidate you to stop you from utilizing your judgement. It's an affont to human dignity. As well as crossing a very dangerous line with that sort of thinking.

I can't argue with the governments shouldn't be breaking their own laws. At least by doing so it started a dialogue on how the founding fathers would spy on the domestic population and cordinate international crime in these modern times.