[flagged]
You almost always need to break that law to get that to happen.
You’re really calling the likes of Rosa Parks uncivilised [1]?
If the law is illegal or wrong, there is no higher calling than getting it overturned. There are two ways to do that in America: through the legislature and through the courts. To access the latter, you need a violation. (There is technically a third: not enforcing it. But that actually is a breakdown in the rule of law.)
there are wve past that, laws about how the law can be written, where they cant contreve more important laws like constitutions.
the most impactful way to challenge illegal laws is to not follow them, and the court process afterwards figures out invalidating that law
however, nreaking bad laws also brings attention to them so that legislative changes can be made.
But on the spirit of a good conversation (see @dang, I'm behaving :)) to your point of whether I have ever broke the law or not ... most likely yes, but not consciously.
Many times I have refrained from doing things for the sole reason that it would be unlawful, even though I disagree with it.
There's a big difference between that and choosing to consciously break the law for a menial pleasure.
Edit: So weird to be on the hot pan for defending the rule of law, lmao. What a terrible status quo.
Quoting from the swedish driver education book[1].
> It is not desirable to have 100% adherence to the rules. According to the criteria for a category B licence, you must display “good judgement when interacting with other road users”. A reasonable interpretation of this statement is that you may depart from the rules in some cases.
I feel the same can be said about many other situations.
You’re confusing lawbreaking/lawlessness with the rule of law [1].