Got into an argument about the FCC and the licensing of radio stations with a random "right winger" yesterday, and the whole argument boggles my mind. It's over now because she reverted to tossing insults because she couldn't back up her stance. Wonder where she learned that technique?
Let me be clear. The FCC is one of those government agencies that shouldn't exist, as far as I am concerned. The whole idea of needing government approval for things like a radio station is ridiculous. We license way too much in this country that doesn't need licensing, and it should be considered a violation of your 1st amendment rights.
With that said, me and this girl agreed on that premise. Where we disagreed was on how to handle it. She was all for ignoring laws that she finds "unjust," while I supported getting the laws changed and shutting down the useless government agency.
Now, you can ignore whatever you want. It doesn't stop the fact that you'll get fined or jailed for doing so. It's a law. And whether you think you can ignore it for being unjust or not is irrelevant. There will be consequences you need to be willing to live with. You don't get to say, "It's unjust" and have the judge just throw it out. Sorry, that's called fantasy land. I'm living in the real world, join me.
The problem with her argument - and what she didn't grasp - is that it is the same issue as so many other things. Who decides what is unjust? What you find unjust, someone else finds perfectly reasonable. So if you think you can ignore unjust laws....
You don't have a leg to stand on against sanctuary cities.
Actually, you don't have a leg to stand on against anything. If someone breaks into your house while you are out and cleans you out, you better not call the police. The guy who robbed you thinks it is unjust that it is illegal for him to break into your home and steal your TV. You have a TV and he doesn't. That isn't fair! Oh, someone murdered a loved one of yours? Better not call the cops! He thinks anti-murder laws are unjust!
But back to the sanctuary cities. Let's face it, a lot of folks out there think not having open borders in unjust. "No person is illegal." And they are, in fact, ignoring immigration laws. That's why we have so many illegal aliens in the country, and it's why sanctuary cities exist. Now, I disagree with them. I don't believe a nation with open borders is a nation at all, and that we have a right to know who is coming into our country. I believe we should have a say in who comes in. I don't support cutting off immigration completely, but I do believe we have a right to say no sometimes. I think allowing people in without vetting them is unjust because it destroys our sovereignty. There are people who also believe all immigration should be stopped because we're running out of room and have our own people to take care of.
Who's right? Who gets to decide? Which laws are OK to ignore here?
What I'm saying here, basically, is that when you find an unjust law, ignoring it isn't effective. You are open to the consequences of doing so, like it or not. It doesn't make you some kind of tough guy because you "took a stand" no one will hear about and will effect nothing. What it does is remove all of your arguments. You now can't take a stand against things you disagree with, because you've set the precedent that ignoring what you see as unjust is alright, and everyone has a different view of what is unjust. And no, you aren't the decider. You are nobody.
This is why we want to drain the swamp. Start voting. And that means stop voting for the same junk that's already in office. Run for office yourself. Get the laws changed that you think are unjust. Stop thinking you can ignore what you don't like and someone else should do something about it. This is the real world. Ignoring laws just makes you a lazy criminal. Fighting to get them changed any way you can causes real change. So stop being what you claim to hate.