Ofcourse. I never said laws could be effective without law enforcement. There's more to the story, ofcourse. As Frank Herbert said in one of his dune books:
Good government never depends upon laws, but upon the personal qualities of those who govern. The machinery of government is always subordinate to the will of those who administer that machinery. The most important element of government, therefore, is the method of choosing leaders.
And another quote from one of his dune books, that I brought up in a thread on concerning the hypocracy of our drug laws:
Law always chooses sides on the basis of enforcement power. Morality and legal niceties have little to do with it when the real question is: Who has the clout?
I think his wording isn't 100% correct. I -definitely- agree that the law is based on who has the clout and the enforcement power. -However-, democracies have some power of making sure that the people with the clout/enforcement power have to morals that don't deviate too far from what we might call the average morals of the population as a whole; leaders who are too immoral generally don't last too long, especially in a country where democratic values are deeply enshrined. Some, in order to avoid the possibility of dictatorships, mandate that leaders can only be in power for, say, 8 years ;-). There are those who would argue that presidents are puppets, but I would counter that that analogy only goes so far; a president has the -potential- to be more then a puppet. Whether eir exercises that power and what the consequences might be for eir are other matters.
Baron Max said:
The fact that -some- people join protests just to have fun or to shake their fist at the proverbial 'powers that be' doesn't mean that all or even most of them are similarly unfocused as to the reasons for their being there.
Baron Max said:
I don't know about 'people'. I saw a large protest in Canada, where I live, concerning the restrictions on marijuana use. I joined in for a while, just walking along, until they got to a park; I stayed a while, picking up a button saying 'cops for marijuana' or something to that effect, read a bit about it, and then left. Tomorrow there's a rally concerning people on social assistance; I'm on social assistance so I may go. Then again, I may not. I personally believe more in narrowcasting; that is, focusing what I'd like to say more on a few individuals then chanting x, y or z thing, as a general rule. Ofcourse, Canada is a relatively peaceful country; I might feel differently if I lived elsewhere.
Baron Max said:
I see them a bit differently; morals are in essence ideas or memes, something that can be tested out against reality and can grow and grow and eventually settle into law. So instead of the expression you used, I prefer the idea of the butterfly effect; the discussions that take place everywhere may seem like silly little things, but upon closer examination and when taking into account how memes move so quickly, one can soon come to the conclusion that discussions can ultimately have quite profound effects indeed.
. I don't think it's -that- bad.. yet. but there's definitely room for improvement