Draft

[ronin308]

ddelange-

I disagree with your premise that such a law would be passed in our Republic, or even if it was, it would be struck down as unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments, not to mention the restriction against laws that are arbitrary and capricious.

NFA '34, '86 "Firearms Owners Protection Act", AW '94, etc. This is just three examples of laws that are "arbitrary and capricious" were passed and have yet to be deemed unconstitutional. I honestly cannot fathom how someone can have so much faith in our Republic and our court system. There literally thousands of laws that are completely unconstitutional that I have to try and abide by every single day. Are you really that blind that you can't see that some laws are UNJUST?

The difference, I think, is that you want to decide what laws are "arbitrary and capricious" while I still trust our courts for that protection.

I abide by the AW '94 laws, but that doesn't mean that I don't have the right to my opinion about them. Your "sanctity of the law" drivel is ridiculous. If a law were passed to increase income taxes to 60%, would you gladly pay?

ddelange-"While these laws are arbitrary and capricious, they are the law, so I will go to the court and see what they say."

court rules: "You must pay...or you go to jail."

dedelange: "Good thing I live in such a great republic, where's my checkbook?"

Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn't. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and excusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let men label you as they may. ~Mark Twain

[WyldOne]

Refusing to obey a law which is against your morals and your conscience is Civil Disobedience.

Here are some relevant quotes:

Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it. ~Albert Einstein

If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable. ~Louis D. Brandeis

Laws are only words written on paper, words that change on society's whim and are interpreted differently daily by politicians, lawyers, judges, and policemen. Anyone who believes that all laws should always be obeyed would have made a fine slave catcher. Anyone who believes that all laws are applied equally, despite race, religion, or economic status, is a fool. ~John J. Miller, And Hope to Die

We cannot, by total reliance on law, escape the duty to judge right and wrong.... There are good laws and there are occasionally bad laws, and it conforms to the highest traditions of a free society to offer resistance to bad laws, and to disobey them. ~Alexander Bickel

I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not so desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. ~Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience, 1849

It is not what a lawyer tells me I may do; but what humanity, reason, and justice tell me I ought to do. ~Edmund Burke, Second Speech on Conciliation, 1775

If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality. ~Bishop Desmond Tutu

[Schuey2002]

If we ever have to go to war with China we'll probably need
to break out the nukes.As China can field an army of nearly
250 million men.....................

[RikWriter]

However, Schuey, China has no way to get very many of those men anywhere not contiguous to mainland China.

[ronin308]

Nice quotes WyldOne!

[Schuey2002]

They can always walk,can't they? LOL

Not East, but in a Westernly direction...

[Don Gwinn]

Ddelange, you haven't answered the question satisfactorily. You still insist that these soldiers intended to fight the Vietnam War in order to protect the right to free speech, and also that they would consider themselves dishonored by people exercising that right. That is a paradox and it cannot stand. Those two assertions are mutually exclusive.
Indeed it is "not that hard," if you don't mind abandoning logic.

In truth, I'm ready to believe that most soldiers in Vietnam considered themselves to be fighting for freedom, free speech, and the American way in general, though I feel compelled to point out that free speech and freedom of association were squished pretty badly in this country and practically non-existent in South Vietnam. However, I'd say that it wouldn't make much sense for those same men to come back and quash free speech when they disagree with the speaker. Then again, nobody ever said people make sense.

I've gotten in trouble for saying this before, but the bottom line is simple.

1. Slavery is wrong, evil, and un-American. True, right?
2. Slavery is present whenever a human being is forced by another human being to work for no compensation, to risk or sacrifice his life, or to live in bondage.
3. Draftees are forced by the state to work for no compensation (or at least could be, if the state so wished) to risk their lives and to live in bondage.

Ergo, "slavery" and "the draft" are functionally the same with respect to human rights; the draft is slavery. Since slavery is evil, the draft is evil and should be abolished.

None of this means that anyone who fought when he was drafted is dishonorable in any way. But the fact that draftees were good men is not an argument for continuing the draft!

[RikWriter]

Don Gwinn, you say that slavery is being forced to work for no compensation...do we not pay our draftees?
The draft isn't slavery. Saying it is, while popular among some, is plain silly.

[ddelange]

NFA '34, '86 "Firearms Owners Protection Act", AW '94, etc. This is just three examples of laws that are "arbitrary and capricious" were passed and have yet to be deemed unconstitutional.

I agree that those three laws all should be found unconstitutional, but I like you, will abide by them until I can vote in enough representatives and a president who will appoint judges who will strike down those laws. I prefer to work from within the system. If you choose civil disobedience, I respect that choice. But why does it make you so mad that I choose to accept the Rule of Law in our country?

There literally thousands of laws that are completely unconstitutional that I have to try and abide by every single day. Are you really that blind that you can't see that some laws are UNJUST?

Of course I see that some, in fact many, laws are unjust. Where did I write otherwise? I have to try and abide by them every day as well. I pick and choose my battles, and as I said I still have enough faith in our Republican form of government that I choose to exert my influence from the inside out. If everyone only had to comply with the laws that he or she felt were "just" then we'd be living in an anarchy, with every political faction interpreting what is "just" differently.

I abide by the AW '94 laws, but that doesn't mean that I don't have the right to my opinion about them. Your "sanctity of the law" drivel is ridiculous.

I agree with you . . . at least up to the point where you refer to my comments as drivel; and the "sanctity of law" term is a characterization you came up with. Please don't put words in my mouth.
Your continued quotation of Mark Twain is fine, but if you believe it to be a prescription for every citizen to make an individual determination on whether each law "is right and what's wrong" and comply or disobey accordingly, then you believe in political anarchy.

Then after calling my statements "drivel" you come up with this:

ddelange-"While these laws are arbitrary and capricious, they are the law, so I will go to the court and see what they say."

court rules: "You must pay...or you go to jail."

dedelange: "Good thing I live in such a great republic, where's my checkbook?"
___________________________
???

[ddelange]

You still insist that these soldiers intended to fight the Vietnam War in order to protect the right to free speech, and also that they would consider themselves dishonored by people exercising that right. That is a paradox and it cannot stand.

First, of all you misquote me. Let me requote:
"Our soldiers have fought and died for, among many other rights, the freedom of speech. The anti-draft members participating in this thread have the constitutional right to express their opinion. However, in my opinion as stated above, their selfish statements in opposition to the draft dishonors the soldiers who have been drafted to serve their country."

The above is neither a paradox nor difficult to understand. It is my opinion. I won't try to force it on you. You don't have to accept it, but it sure does seem to irritate you.

Ergo, "slavery" and "the draft" are functionally the same with respect to human rights; the draft is slavery. Since slavery is evil, the draft is evil and should be abolished.

First, the draft was abolished after the Vietnam War. We do not currently have a draft. Second, the draft is not equivalent to slavery. As I posted earlier, the Supreme Court decided this issue in 1918, and it has been affirmed many times since. You may not like the idea of a draft, you may think it is evil, you think that it akin to slavery. . . . but the Supreme Court decided otherwise, and that remains the law. The only exception recognized to the draft was the "conscientious objector" exemption, which lasted through the Vietnam War.

[Blackhawk]

ddelange, kudos to you, but you're probably wasting your time arguing with idealists on the issue.

I was drafted during the Vietnam War, then volunteered and ending up spending a LOT more than 2 years in the military. Frankly, I was much better off after the whole experience.

I served alongside Army volunteers as well as volunteers in all the other branches. Some of them surely volunteered to get "better" assignments than they would have if drafted, but I got every assignment and the training I wanted.

If that was slavery, a couple of years per person might not be such a bad idea, because you do grow up and get some great training if you have the aptitude....

The issue really is whether or not a society through its government can demand the service of its citizens. Well, ours does, and unlike other societies, ours lets you leave if you don't like it. Just don't expect to be welcomed back if you leave after your service has been conscripted. IOW, if you don't like it, you can leave while your decision to leave is uncomplicated by your commiting the crime of evading the draft after being conscripted.

I can't really understand why somebody with disagreements with what the majority of people have authorized the government can do really wants to live in that society, especially when they're free to leave. After all, there are other countries that don't and can't conscript their citizens... aren't there...?

[WyldOne]

Speaking of slavery.

I'm sure that we all realize that, if a group of people had not decided that slavery was morally wrong despite being the law of the land, and had not placed their lives in severe danger in order to disobey such a morally heinous law, and had not forced the law to be overturned...Then we would still have slavery this very day. The same is true of child labor/the labor movement, and Jim Crowe laws/the civil rights movement. To name a few.

As the saying goes: Laws were made by people; and people can be wrong. It is up to us, as moral beings, to force change.

Don, allow me to attempt a small Devil's Argument here.

You still insist that these soldiers intended to fight the Vietnam War in order to protect the right to free speech, and also that they would consider themselves dishonored by people exercising that right. That is a paradox and it cannot stand.

It could be said, that soldiers fight and die every day so that Americans can exercise freedom of speech and expression. Basically, they fight so that most Americans can be lazy, selfish, even spit on a soldier (I am not advocating this, nor have I ever done it) without facing Governmental persecution.

Yet, if an American does behave selfish, or more poignantly, if an American were to spit in the face of a soldier, wouldn't that person feel dishonored (to say the least)? That's not a paradox. That's human.

Soldiers fight for, among other things, free speech. Does that mean they have to like everything that people say?

Forgive me if I have misunderstood your point.

[Ed Brunner]

People doesn't have to sacrifice their ideals, but they should recognize that those same ideals are not universally shared by everyone else nor do they necessarily equate with situations in the real world.
Hence, two views on the draft.

[ronin308]

I prefer to work from within the system. If you choose civil disobedience, I respect that choice. But why does it make you so mad that I choose to accept the Rule of Law in our country?

This statement allows me to understand your position better. If your style is to fight within the courts and my style is to advocate that people take a stand through non-compliance, that's fine that our styles differ. But don't say that just civil disobedience equates to dishonoring people or descending the entire nation into complete anarchy.

If everyone only had to comply with the laws that he or she felt were "just" then we'd be living in an anarchy, with every political faction interpreting what is "just" differently.

If the citizens of our nation had chose fighting within the courts over massive civil disobedience, we'd probably still have a fountains that are "For Colored Only".

Your continued quotation of Mark Twain is fine, but if you believe it to be a prescription for every citizen to make an individual determination on whether each law "is right and what's wrong" and comply or disobey accordingly, then you believe in political anarchy.

It is a prescription for citizens to not abide by laws that are clearly immoral. If you think that's anarchy, so be it.

[ronin308]

Blackhawk- I have respect for your position as you have actually been there. But I have a question: Do you favor the gun laws in this country? Do you favor the high taxes in this country? If you do, I would be surprised. If you don't, why not just leave? The reason why I'm not going to leave this country is because America has the absolute greatest potential out of any nation on Earth. The main reason why certain people advocate change is because they love this country. If everyone who ever disagreed with US policy left...we'd have no citizens left.

[hdm25]

Just my 2 cents...and it's an extreme example:

German soldiers in WWII most likely had little stomach for genocide but it was mandated that they participate. To me, this is obedience to the Rule of Law. Working within the system in this case would have done no good. DISobedience, however, by a large enough force of soldiers, would have done quite a bit of good. The average German soldier was no more a monster than you or me, but he served as part of a larger entity that WAS a monster.

I respect the right of everyone to do as they please as long as others aren't affected by those decisions. I once held this belief to mean that another person's beliefs were as valid as mine and, as long as our actions (or inactions) didn't affect the other, then everything was fine...then I had an epiphany.

Implicit agreement with unjust laws by way of working "within the system" actually DOES harm me. My rights continue to be trod upon and nothing changes for the better. All of the conservatives working "within the system" have done NOTHING to STOP or REVERSE this flow of events. The only thing that they have done is slow it but it still continues.

I am not trying to "knock" the beliefs of anyone because I DO respect everyone's right to an opinion. I would just like to point out that very little is accomplished by trying to change "the system" from within. After all, by working "within the system", you are playing by the rules of the system and these rules are, by their very nature, against anything which would change them. Self-preservation is the highest instinct even in a man-made system.

You should never fight a battle on ground of your enemy's choosing if you can help it.

[glock glockler]

Government is, at its very core, forcing people to do things, with the unstated fact that it is ultimately at gunpoint.
Only the very naive think it is any other way.

Government is, at it's core, a body created to protect our rights. When it takes away one's freedom not as reciprocity for another infringement of rights, it is no more that a legalized protection racket. All a legitimate govt can do is protect rights, and that means not forcing people into involuntary servitude. Only naive and the morally backrupt think otherwise.

Glockler adjusted quote

"In 2002, the govt passed the "Jewish fertilizer benefits program" which helps those in our economy who cannot afford quality fertilizer by reducing it's cost by stuffing Jews into ovens until properly ashified. While many in the Aryan voting block feel this will invigorate our economy by reducing the financial burden of fertilizer, civil rights advocates think this is morally wrong and hope that the Supreme Court will eventually overturn this decision on Constitutional grounds"

Posted by ddelange

I agree that those three laws all should be found unconstitutional, but I like you, will abide by them until I can vote in enough representatives and a president who will appoint judges who will strike down those laws. I prefer to work from within the system. If you choose civil disobedience, I respect that choice. But why does it make you so mad that I choose to accept the Rule of Law in our country?

Do you, or do you not think that involuntary servitude is a bad thing? I don't care what the SCOTUS says about it, tell me what you think. Is forcing someone to serve in the military not involuntary servitude?

I was drafted during the Vietnam War, then volunteered and ending up spending a LOT more than 2 years in the military. Frankly, I was much better off after the whole experience.

Translation :

Because it happened to me, right or wrong, I'll make sure it can happen to others.

If that was slavery, a couple of years per person might not be such a bad idea, because you do grow up and get some great training if you have the aptitude....

So I guess the slaves were actually getting a good deal and they just didn't realize it. Think about all the valuable training they received picking cotton

The issue really is whether or not a society through its government can demand the service of its citizens. Well, ours does, and unlike other societies, ours lets you leave if you don't like it.

I never realized that that was the reason why the Nazis weren't swell guys. If they only offered the Jews a chance to leave before turning them into kabobs they would have been pretty nice guys. Thanks for that clarification.

I can't really understand why somebody with disagreements with what the majority of people have authorized the government can do really wants to live in that society, especially when they're free to leave.

What nerve they have, disagreeing with 50.1% of the population. Are men a majority right now, cause if they are I want women to be legally considered property. I got rejected by a female last night and I'm not happy about this, we'll put and end to this once and for all.

[Blackhawk]

Do you favor the gun laws in this country? Do you favor the high taxes in this country?

I don't usually take "Do you still beat your wife" questions, but why not these?

The gun laws are estimated to number about 20,000, and I dare say most of them are unconstitutional. I favor the law that prohibits felons convicted of violent crimes from owning or possessing firearms.

My tax philosophy can be inferred from this paraphrase of a quote by Abraham Lincoln, "The government exists to do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves" with the caveat that the government is "of the people, by the people, and for the people," which precludes an interpretation that the government is unfettered in determining what the people need to have done for them. For example, one of our modern wonders is the interstate highway system, and I'm all for that.

Well, that leaves about 19,999 gun laws to go and a ship load of taxes, but I'll cut this short.

What you're really driving at is whether or not I'm willing to obey gun laws and taxation that I just cannot agree with.

I've never agreed with state income taxation, and I've never lived in a state with its own income tax laws. They hide what the state government is spending tax money on. So you could say, I refuse to live in the great majority of states in the U.S. On the national scene, I favor a NRST to replace the income tax, which is frankly, a much more efficient and cheaper way to collect the money to fund the government.

I totally oppose gun registration in any form or government interference with private property ownership unless there's a overriding public interest involved, such as prohibiting violent felons from owning or possessing guns or the vehicle laws.

Those states which have criminalized private ownership of guns by legally unimpaired citizens are not places I am willing to live or even visit by unfettered choice. I favor eliminating most of the gun laws by the simple act of the SCOTUS ruling on the meaning and intent of the 2nd and 14th Amendments, which will render them void.

I was born into horrendous civil rights injustices codified into law in some states, and I didn't even realize that until I was a teenager. But I saw the agonizingly slow and ponderous corrections being enacted. We still have a bunch of race pimps and overly sensitive victims of past injustices, but that's understandable.

Nothing human beings do is "right on track," especially governments. What I glory in is that the U.S. tries to correct itself to stay in the middle of the trail instead of going into the ruts on either side.

When facing the draft, I had the choices of leaving, getting married, maintaining a student exemption, etc. While being drafted, I could still leave or otherwise evade it, but I chose to let it happen. Make no mistake, I had very little understanding of the Vietnam War, despised Johnson and his socialist "Great Society," and absolutely did NOT want to be drafted. So, would it be fair to say that I didn't have the courage of my convictions about it? Maybe, but I didn't KNOW what it was all about, and I knew that I didn't really know. I just knew what I felt, and I didn't want to get into all that.

Those feelings were just like being called out in high school. I didn't want to get into the fights, but the stigma of the derision and loss of face by appearing as a coward to my peers was more persuasive than any sense of self preservation. I got into two fights, I prevailed, and was never called out again.

After being drafted and being immersed in "all that," I found there were many opportunities and that my education was being "filled in" with many important lessons I still greatly treasure. For example, life isn't fair, but it is what you make of it. I was expendable, and Shakespeare was right with "To thine ownself be true."

Once in Vietnam, I saw a gentle people trying to survive a few millenia of war and oppression in a stunningly beautiful part of the world. Maybe I was lucky, but I didn't encounter any Vietnamese civilians who exhibited a hatred of me because I was American. Quite the opposite. Maybe I was naive, but I thought my job of protecting Americans and helping the Vietnamese was worthwhile, so I stayed for another tour.

The bottom line of all that is that I've seen America being wrong without realizing it and making corrections. I've seen America ask citizens to do seemingly stupid things and go into a deep funk from introspection. I've seen America spend huge amounts of blood and treasure trying to help others and right wrongs against those less fortunate. And I've seen America plagued by internal dissention by those who "know better" but are not willing to let things work themselves out. I'm not important and I never will be. I'll never understand all of what's going on while it's going on, but that's nearly an axiom. Those who are involved in significant historical events never seem to realize it at the time.

But you have to realize that to BE an American, you have to accept that it's going to screw up now and then. If you can't accept periods of injustice, gun laws, confiscatory taxation, dissention, self-serving idiots in charge, etc., then maybe America isn't your place.

One of the great Americans I admire even though there's little I agreed with her about is Joan Baez simply because she supposedly went to jail instead of paying taxes that could be used to support the Vietnam War. I say supposedly because I haven't wanted to search it out. Her reasoning was supposedly that to pay taxes for the things she supported simply meant that more money was available to support the war. That's civil disobediance in accord with Henry David Thoreau's best thoughts on the subject. Thing is, Joan Baez was a tremendously successful folk singer at the time so she had a lot to lose. (If I'm wrong about her and it was just a publicity stunt, please don't bother shattering my illusion... )

Cassius Clay (excuse me, Muhammed Ali) also made a principled and laudable stand regarding the draft that I admire greatly.

Another great American who will always have my utmost respect was a former college classmate. We were inducted at the same time, and about 30 of us were called separately to be sworn in by a Marine colonel. When we were ordered to "take one step forward," he didn't. After a bit of a commotion, they hauled him away, and I knew I had seen an act of courage beyond my own ability. I didn't know what was ahead, but he did, but I'd rather take a chance on the unknown than the certain.

Hope all that answers your loaded questions, and I agree with this:

The reason why I'm not going to leave this country is because America has the absolute greatest potential out of any nation on Earth. The main reason why certain people advocate change is because they love this country. If everyone who ever disagreed with US policy left...we'd have no citizens left.

But I still say there are far worse things than being drafted.

[Blackhawk]

glock glockler,

Translation of posts made in English really isn't needed.

You're perfectly welcome to disagree with whatever is posted.

But maybe you missed an important facet of this discussion. We're not talking about conscription in Nazi Germany. We're talking about conscription in the United States now.

Just thought you'd like to know....

[ronin308]

Blackhawk- I appreciate the lengthy answer. At first, I thought that you meant that if you had a disagreement with any US policy that you should just leave. But I believe that everything was clarifed:

But you have to realize that to BE an American, you have to accept that it's going to screw up now and then. If you can't accept periods of injustice, gun laws, confiscatory taxation, dissention, self-serving idiots in charge, etc., then maybe America isn't your place.

We have to endure whatever injustices are handed out to us. But this doesn't mean that we can't fight to change them. That is why I really don't buy into a love it or leave type of philosophy. If you can't endure, leave. If you can and you have the courage to take a stand, stay and fight.

[Blackhawk]

Ronin,

Agreed.

It's best to pick your fights so they're at a time and place of your choosing to give you the best opportunity to prevail.

The MAD nuclear policy was one that chapped me immensely until after the Soviet Union imploded. Likewise the stalemate in Korea. Then I understood that the U.S. was acting on the belief that the Soviet system was untenable and in time it would collapse. We just had to wait it out without allowing a conflagration to be ignited. The Vietnam War, Afghanistan, and then the Persian Gulf War were all surrogate wars between the U.S. and the Soviets. The inescapable conclusions for the Soviets were that U.S. technology could not be matched and that it was quite effective in the hands of "primative" fighters. We simply outspent and outproduced the Soviets on military toys. Our economy beat their economy, and that's all there was to it.

Now that the horrendous expense of the Cold War is off our shoulders, there's some cleaning up to do, especially the erosion of liberty. Is it too late?

I don't think so, but it will take time. The hardest part will be weaning those industries and people who have been supported by tax dollars for so long that they believe they are entitled to them combined with the amazing attitude that some people have that Americans deserve to be led by socialists who "know better" what they need than they do themselves.

Again, I hearken to Lincoln about what government should do...

[Ceol Mhor]

But you have to realize that to BE an American, you have to accept that it's going to screw up now and then. If you can't accept periods of injustice, gun laws, confiscatory taxation, dissention, self-serving idiots in charge, etc., then maybe America isn't your place.

Well, I think I've seen a fairly long period of injustice, confiscatory taxation, gun laws, and the like. Pretty much my entire life, as a matter of fact. So, when do I get to see a period of freedom and liberty? 'Cuz at this rate, it looks like...never.

Let me be frank. I break laws I don't like. Certainly, there's a risk-vs-reward decision to be made, and some potential punishments are harsh enough to keep me in line. But the general rule is that I will act in accordance with my OWN values, not the government's. History has shown the blind obedience is a sure-fire ticket to tragedy. Life is far too short to let someone else dictate mine.

[RikWriter]

glock glockler said:
Government is, at it's core, a body created to protect our rights. When it takes away one's freedom not as reciprocity for another infringement of rights, it is no more that a legalized protection racket. All a legitimate govt can do is protect rights, and that means not forcing people into involuntary servitude. Only naive and the morally backrupt think otherwise.


No, you've started from a false premise and come to an incorrect conclusion. Government has been around much longer than the United States of America, and while we all want to think ours is the best ever, it is most certainly not the FIRST ever and it does not redefine what government IS.
Your definition of an illegitimate government would describe about 95% of all governments that ever existed. Just because you dislike them doesn't mean they don't exist. Hence the evidence of your naivite.

[UltimaThule]

I vagulely remembered a somewhat related discussion from about a year ago. I think this is it. The original link is no longer active, but I think it was about some teenagers who said they would not defend their country. Not exactly a discussion about draft but still interesting to see how circumstanses and feelings can play a part.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...threadid=83738

I have not read Heinlein's book. If I understand correctly, the idea is that only those who do "voluntary" military service become 1st class citizens. Isn't this "or else" just as much or more than a draft situation? Would there be a significant difference between an "I served the State"-card and a little red party membership card? And let me say again that I have not read the book, so if I misunderstand the whole thing, I will use the ignorance-plea...

Of course we could all go out and pick some flowers and "make love not war", in which case there would be no need for all this military talk in the first place. Is that in the spirit of your "ultra-lefty, gun-hating days", WyldOne?

I have served as a peacetime draftee (cold war, actually), and it does not fit my description of slavery, but opinions on this obviously vary. Personally I served, without trying to weasel my way out of it, because I feel that my country is worth defending. If I was asked to go fight in a war I didn't believe in on the other side of the world, I would probably feel differently.

[Blackhawk]

Let me be frank. I break laws I don't like. Certainly, there's a risk-vs-reward decision to be made, and some potential punishments are harsh enough to keep me in line. But the general rule is that I will act in accordance with my OWN values, not the government's. History has shown the blind obedience is a sure-fire ticket to tragedy. Life is far too short to let someone else dictate mine.

I think we're all "Frank" in that regard.

Ever notice how few cases you hear about where a citizen is doing nothing illegal except maybe carrying a gun, etc.? If there's no criminal intent, prosecuting technical violations of a law are a waste of time and money. It's an American cultural tradition to break unpopular laws as acts of civil disobediance.

Speed limits on the highways are set by law, but there are very few places where trying to drive at the speed limit during good weather in daylight is anywhere near as safe as going with the flow.

Americans are going to do as they see fit in their individual circumstances, and may it ever be so!