an allowance of law breaking facially seems to increase our freedoms on the other hand, it might be allowing the government to actually restrict our rights:

1. 1. instills a false belief of leniency in the populace
   2. diverts attention from other laws that impinge upon our rights more substantially
   3. the more stringent rules enacted, the more the population is desensitized, and the less appalled we are by new limits to our freedom

Eg's:

1. 1. brown-bagging liquor to avoid open container laws
   2. breaking the speed limit (probably mostly due to impracticability, but still set at a level less than enforced. exception of small towns where income is derived from speeding tickets (Big Pine, Independence, Lone Pine))
   3. jaywalking (not true in CA)

Are these examples simply instances of no/partial enforcement where the police have better things to do? Does this confound any ulterior restrictive motive of the government or just correlate for these simple examples?

-- MattDavisRatner - 27 Mar 2008

<--/commentPlugin-->