OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

More About Rules

Entry 2150, on 2021-09-06 at 21:03:08 (Rating 3, Comments)

Before I move on to a new subject - probably some of the issues around the latest terrorist attack here in New Zealand - I want to just tidy up a few elements of the compliance with rules debate I have blogged about several times recently.

I recently received an email from one of my readers which disagreed with some of my points. Let's have a look at what this person said, and what my response was, along with some comments...

First, he said this: I can see that you do not agree with the lockdowns, but I think that they are the correct policy in the short term.

My reply was this: I didn't say I disagreed with them completely, just that I thought they were poorly planned and executed. I also realised (like you) that they are only a short term solution.

Comments: I read my post again and I don't think I either stated or implied that I completely disagreed with lockdowns. I just said they were arguably (I actually used that word) unnecessary, and that imposing them equally on the whole country when there is no evidence of COVID in the South Island was clumsy and unnecessary.

I also said that lockdowns were only a short term solution, and we need to move on at some stage, which is a point my critic agreed with. I can see that lockdowns might be useful until other measures are available - such as high levels of vaccination - and the fact that New Zealand has failed so obviously on this and other measures is a major reason why we do rely on lockdowns.

Next, he said this: However we must abide by the restrictions even if we do not agree with them entirely.

My reply was: Well that's where we differ politically/philosophically. If I see something I think is wrong, I'm not going to go along with it, whether it is the law or not. I understand your perspective too. Actually, this could be the basis for a new blog post on this subject, before I move on to something else.

Comments: So this is that blog post I promised! I fully understand that there is strong social pressure to be a "good citizen" and respect all of our laws. Also, there is the concept of the social contract and how following laws is just an agreement we have with our society which allows us all to live relatively peacefully.

I do understand this argument, and after reading various works of philosophy on this topic, as well as Steven Pinker's book, "The Better Angels of Our Nature" I agree that we only survive as a society through rules and laws.

But that doesn't mean that uncritical acceptance of every rule is a good idea either. It is important to have some skepticism towards laws and law-makers. After all, most laws originate with politicians, and few people have a lot of respect for them. So why should we have respect for the laws they make?

I don't hold extreme views on this, and I completely accept that some people claim that following every law is important, but no one does. I mentioned a study n the US showing the average citizen breaks 3 laws every day - mostly withut even realising it. It's hard to see how an exact adherence to every law is practical, or even possible!

As I said in my reply: this is very much a matter of political belief and philosophy. I do have significant elements of libertarianism in my outlook on life. I highly value individual freedom, and being a free thinker. I don't like being part of the crowd or doing what I'm told. Do I sometimes take that too far? Well, almost certainly, but the basic concept that following my own morals instead of those imposed by politicians still stands.

His final comment was this: I wonder what she will do about the latest terror attack. Perhaps she will ban knives and put a buy back scheme in place.

My reply was: Yeah, that gun buy back has been an epic failure... just like everything else Cindy has done.

Comments: I am often a bit harsh in my opinion of our prime minster, "Cindy" (AKA Jacinda Ardern). I actually recommended her as leader of the Labour Party a few years ago in response to an email from the party. Of course, I don't think they listened to me, but it does show how I recognised her political skills. I also voted for her party, Labour, two elections ago.

But as her dishonesty and incompetence became more obvious I found myself being more and more resentful of her. Now I find her genuinely repulsive. When asked, my usual response is "I hate the bitch!" Yeah, I'm not following her disingenuous advice of "be kind".

By the way, I totally understand that the National opposition hasn't got much to offer. My current favourite politician is actually David Seymour, and the lefties really hate that.

The gun buy back and the sarcastic comment about a knife buy back probably more properly belongs with the next post about terrorism, so I will leave that for now.

So, to finish my thoughts on obeying laws, rules, regulations, and policies: I think they are very important as a guideline, but in the end we all need to act based on our own ethical beliefs. Disobey laws if you think it is the right think to do, because everyone should do what's right, but don't disobey laws unnecessarily, and be prepared to accept the consequences.

Comment 1 (6846) by Anonymous on 2021-09-07 at 10:04:31:

Your text: "But as her dishonesty and incompetence became more obvious I found myself being more and more resentful of her. Now I find her genuinely repulsive. When asked, my usual response is "I hate the bitch!" Yeah, I'm not following her disingenuous advice of "be kind"."

Wow... I don't want to get personal or anything, but your language is quite strong isn't it? I wouldn't call it misogynist because I could only make that claim with certainty by knowing your mind (certainly it's patronising to use Cindy as a name and it's inappropriate to call her a bitch). It's quite aggressive and nasty - are you happy with this? Do you think it's an intelligent response? I know right wing people tend to get quite angry at times and all, but seriously, consider seeing someone about it.

Your quote: "I don't think I either stated or implied that I completely disagreed with lockdowns”.

Well, at time you are quite misleading. You provoke, make strident, definitive comments, then backtrack by claiming "Oh no, I don't say that". You tend to structure your arguments somewhat like this:

Example: "The left / Cindy / Government / lunatic left seem to think harsh lockdowns are a good idea, even though they deprive people of individual rights."

Then, you proceed to catalog arguments against lockdowns without mentioning one piece of evidence in favour of them. Do you see how this is interpreted? You seem to present evidence in favour of your own argument, and only offer dismissive pejorative statements on the thing you are against. Hardly a balanced approach. It's easy to see how people can claim you are "against" things you claim to "not be against" given his approach/pattern.

Your quote: “If I see something I think is wrong, I'm not going to go along with it, whether it is the law or not.”

And if everybody did this? Or, is it only the intellectually superior that are afforded this luxury, all others must follow the law? If I don't agree with the law that says you can own a 55" LCD TV and me not, I think it's fair enough to steal yours because I don't agree with private ownership laws. Sounds fair to me.

Your quote: "But that doesn't mean that uncritical acceptance of every rule is a good idea either”

Totally agree. We need to be vigilant and critical of any new (and existing) laws. However, it is possible to be critical of a law, to not agree with it, to not like it, but also to be socially minded enough to understand that this is a democracy and following laws we sometimes disagree with is a cost that, on balance, is worth the benefits democracy affords us - aka, suck it up Buttercup.

Comment 2 (6847) by OJB on 2021-09-07 at 11:16:36:

Politicians can be very divisive and I think they need to be prepared for strong negative feedback, I have heard a lot worse said about Trump, and other political figures, so I guess it's OK. And it has nothing to do with misogyny. If I was simply against female leaders would I have recommender her as leader? Would I have voted Labour? No, I don't like her because of her dishonesty and incompetence. It would be the same for a male leader. Also, I don't use the phrase in a genuinely hateful way, it's just a way to shock people into seeing not everyone thinks she is so great.

I like to show both sides of the argument, and admit that it can be argued both ways, but then offer my preferred interpretation. That is all. Yes, people with leftist tendencies to usually rate freedom as less important than I do. Is that a problem?

I'm not trying to offer a completely fair appraisal here. This is my opinion, so that is what I spend most time on. If you want a more mainstream opinion, there are plenty of other sources.

Yes, as I said in my final paragraph: don't disobey laws unnecessarily, and be prepared to accept the consequences if you do.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.