What "law"? Just because the authorities in New Jersey try to attack (Massachusetts) university students for a proof of concept project doesn't mean the law is on their side.
But even if the law is on the side of the students (which I believe is obvious), that doesn't necessarily mean much if they don't have the same level of legal support that the state has at its disposal. This is why MIT fully supporting their students is so vital.
The laws are obviously not worth the paper they're printed on--they are neither wholly reformative nor punitive in nature, and their administration could best be described as whimsical if not outright malicious.
So, no, why should we assume our kids should follow that bollocks?
What "law"? Just because the authorities in New Jersey try to attack (Massachusetts) university students for a proof of concept project doesn't mean the law is on their side.
But even if the law is on the side of the students (which I believe is obvious), that doesn't necessarily mean much if they don't have the same level of legal support that the state has at its disposal. This is why MIT fully supporting their students is so vital.
The laws are obviously not worth the paper they're printed on--they are neither wholly reformative nor punitive in nature, and their administration could best be described as whimsical if not outright malicious.
So, no, why should we assume our kids should follow that bollocks?
Having issues with the government / laws does not mean that people get to just toss them out the window.
What is the point of following the laws if they are increasingly just used to justify somebody else's paycheck?
Think very hard about your statement: if there is no practical way of reforming a system, disobedience becomes the only viable alternative.
Because if they don't they'll go to jail.
Two hundred years ago, the law allowed slavery. So that made it ok?
1 reply →