Hi,
I don't understand what you were trying to say with your minitrue post, lordraleigh.
The second makes more sense to me:
Laws usually exist to protect the interests of their creators first, of their supporters second and of the people as a whole third.
If no one broke rules and questioned things, we would still be under the hold of the Catolic Church and of their "truth" and believe that the Earth is flat.
I agree that rules aren't perfect and some may even be pretty mediochre. In such case the rule should be studied and changed if needed. But not randomly broken by individuals.
I do think that there are situations where breaking a rule is the lesser of two evils. (eg. when someone's life is at stake.) This is what I meant by saying "as little crime as possible" in my first post. However, even then, the rule wasn't made to be broken, and breaking it should be avoided if possible.
About
Galileo Galilei: I tend to think his crime was not his observations, rather the way how he published his findings.
If you consider doing that you probably dont deserve to be protected. A right to education is all thats needed.
Well, I agree that education can take one a long way. But many good values aren't taught in the schools anymore, they just tend to concentrate on making people productive. But that's getting off topic again.
Just my opinions.
