Nobody should be above the law

I apologize for missing the last round, Brian -- I have been entertaining a beautiful woman these past few days -- I hope you don't mind. Also, I am writing my final argument under the impairment of a severe hang-over. This is brutal, but I would very much like to debate this with you, so here goes... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty or security." This infamous quote from Benjamin Franklin applies; I am arguing that although the laws, for the most part, provide security and order, they are not always worth following and can inhibit personal liberties and freedoms which should be rights for all humankind. Of course this does not apply to Brian's example of the Queen stealing unnecessarily, but as I've mentioned in R1, this resolution expands to apply to all laws across the board. Many laws are subjective and/or interpretive, and are therefore unjust or applied in negative/wrong ways. During R1, I argued that unjust (or pointless) laws are harmful in the sense that they threaten personal liberties. Pro refuted by explaining why some laws that I cited as being ridiculous (such as it being against the law to slurp your soup in NJ) may be beneficial in some way, albeit incredibly insignificant. The fact of the matter is that absolutely asinine laws are restrictive and unnecessary. Perhaps another example of a law that should be broken, or that wouldn't be harmful or threatening to break can be seen here: "A veteran of the armed services who fought for his country, was captured, tortured and wounded in the service of his country decides he wants to show his patriotism and devotion to his fellow soldiers by flying the American flag and the MIA/POW flag from a flag pole in his yard. However, the community he lives in only allows the flying of the American flag. As a result they threatened to fine him for flying the MIA/POW flag. They fine him not because his flying the flag detracts from the community order, or because it causes a hardship to anyone in the community. It does not damage anyone's property or lower the property value of his neighbor's homes in the community. It is not an eyesore or a burden on anyone. It is simply in violation of pointless bylaws" Willingly surrendering our liberty to the community order or to the law itself is the first step to empowering others to oppress us. Community order is important, but it should not come at the price of personal liberty. Laws should be obeyed but they should also be questioned and revisited over time to measure their relevancy. More often than not laws are the result of knee jerk reactions to current issues and often become obsolete or unjust as time passes and they are demonstrated to be unnecessary. Just as laws can be created, they can easily be repealed and have been when deemed necessary. The one constant in all of these is our personal liberty; it should never be jeopardized or threatened [1]. In terms of Pro's example using the Queen of England, He has said, "as a society we should adopt a zero tolerance policy ... and no exceptions should be made for miscreant monarchs, even if their arrest and subsequent trial it does cause a bit of a hullaballoo." Noting that it would just be a 'hullaballoo' is a bit of an understatement. Plus, unfortunately Pro did not provide an argument of why this is so. I gave reasons as to why exposing this misdemeanor may be negative and even harmful; Pro simply disagreed but did not give any type of basis whatsoever for his claims. Therefore I have won this point automatically. Moreover, Pro ignored my point regarding dictators who can manipulate the laws according to their own preferences, wants and needs in fascist countries. Of course this can be done anywhere; however, it is a bit more difficult to do in a democracy (and I use that word loosely...) like the United States. In conclusion, I have demonstrated that not all laws are meant to be followed at all times. There are unethical laws; after all, they are written and enacted by flawed beings. Some of them are flawed too. While it is not always moral or responsible to break laws, and for the most part laws should typically be upheld for the good and safety/protection of society, there are certain times where breaking the law is actually the responsible and moral thing to do. Laws are meant to be challenged and ammended if necessary. To follow them blindly and mindlessly regarding of their negative repercussions or blatantly unfairness is the real crime and punishment to society. Source: [1] http://www.helium.com...