Are rulebreakers a necessary evil?

That is against the rules.
Far too early for beer. X

 

We should always be questioning who made up the rules and their motivation. For instance, we have in many counties here in the US what is called Blue Laws regulating alcohol sales on Sunday. Why Sunday? What's so special about that day? And if it religiously motivated, how do such laws not violate Separation of Church and State?

 

on that note, why are only "christian" or government charities, allowed both building code and zoning variances to feed the homeless?
why not other religions given these same exemptions for the same kind of charity work, such as a neo-pagan soup line called dagda's caldron?

also i misread the thread subject a wee bit, i was reacting to the question "is law breaking neccessarily evil?"
ruel breaking seems to have become a part of democracy to create court tests of unpopular laws.

something that becomes needed when laws that are immoral themselves get written.
john lewis' "good trouble", all the peacible (though often outlawed) assembly in protest,
the key here is peacable, the ghandi thing, turning the other cheek in very vissible ways, does move the needle of public opinion and political process,
does sometimes be what it takes, but volunteering for martyrdom, even living martyrdom, does take a thick enough skin, a better man then i am gunga din.

there is a very major distinction though, between a ligitimate greevance, and the idea some people seem to have,
that freedom can be zero sum and somehow gained by robbing someone else of theirs.

and that's always been a pet irritant of mine, that its called conservative and right wing, dispite that it conserves nothing and destroys,
if not everything, certainly what i would consider freedom, which is to not be harrassed nor condemed for creativity or logic.
(and yes potentially the entire human species too, as a result of neglegent indifference toward environment if its someone else's)