To trespass or not to....that is the question!

July 6, 2007

...A "Right", (as defined here), is a privilege protected by law. ...

The more rights everone has the less freedom we all have.

Amen

July 6, 2007

The demonization of good citizens that I've seen in this thread is sad and inappropriate.

Good citizens follow the rules, even when no one is watching.

DCC

Like the good citizens who founded this country obeyed every rule the King of England made.

And I would say that by definition they were not good English citizens

(and God bless 'em, thankfully so!)

DCC

1.1k · July 6, 2007

The demonization of good citizens that I've seen in this thread is sad and inappropriate.
Good citizens follow the rules, even when no one is watching.

DCC

Like the good citizens who founded this country obeyed every rule the King of England made.

Did I miss something, or are we still talking about geocaching? The founding fathers disobeyed the king of England because their rights were being systematically taken away. This discussion is about breaking the law to play a game. Cpt.B, it appears you are comparing apples to hand grenades.

Yes, you are missing quite a but, but I see Clan Riffster and Renegade Knight did a fine job pointing out many of the points you miss.

You're basic statement is that it is immoral to dissobey any law, mine is that you are wrong, some laws you are morally obligated to ignore. Would I tresspass to be first to find? No, but only because, to me, it's not worth the possible hassle, not because I think it's morally wrong to be on public property after dark.

I didn't wear my seat belt today either, guess I'm morally corrupt.

2.5k · July 6, 2007

The applicable reference here is that, if you feel a law is unjust, how can you consider not following that law to be immoral?

Because we live in a democracy, where there are channels to go through if you think a law is unjust. If you don't like it, do something about it, don't just break the law.

My main point still remains: Comparing geocaching in a place/time that is off limits to the American Revolution is utterly ridiculous.

Even the colonists tried to voice their opinions and work things out before they revolted. If you want to use them as a model, you've got to use all the steps.
The colonists were fighting for freedoms (please note the change of word: freedom, not right) far beyond their freedom to play a game. That's right, geocaching is a game.

No matter how much you declare that you're going into these areas because you think you have a moral right, remember that the area was closed to protect someone else in some way or another. That someone might even be you.

1.3k · July 6, 2007

<snip>

Because we live in a democracy

Actually we live in a Republic.

July 6, 2007

Remember... if no one sees you do it, it doesn't count!

(Just like food - if no one sees you eat it, it doesn't have any calories!)

July 6, 2007

Stick a fork in it

July 6, 2007

No matter how much you declare that you're going into these areas because you think you have a moral right, remember that the area was closed to protect someone else in some way or another. That someone might even be you.

'Scuse me a second, while I put my armor on. Being from Chicago, I don't want to get cut down by the crossfire. :blink:

I think the point that others are arguing is that legal doesn't equal moral. Is it morally wrong for me to go into a park after hours? If you believe that by democratic vote we can legislate morality, then you would say "Yes, it's morally wrong. It's against the law." But others, including myself, don't see it that way.

I may not have the legal right to go into the park after hours, but that has nothing to do with the morality of sneaking in to be FTF. "But it's immoral to break the law!" you might answer. To which I would respond, "No, it's only illegal to break the law."

A lot of laws, like the law against murder, happen to correspond to moral principals that are universally accepted. But others, like closing-hours regulation of public parks, don't. Some people feel that the government knows best, and they feel morally obligated to follow all laws. Others don't feel that way--they view the government as a less-than-benign institution, and they will break laws if doing so harms no one else, and if they feel the risk is low.

IMHO, the analogy to the Founding Fathers is actually spot-on. Those who say they will cache after hours, and the law be damned, are actually saying the following: "If I cache after hours, who do I harm? Certainly nobody else. And the government has no right to protect me from myself!" Those are precisely the principles the Founding Fathers took up arms over. And in their case, it all started with a spat over tea! Yes, it's only a game, and it was only a cup of tea two hundred thirty years ago.

I was one of the first people in this thread to argue against after-hours caching, on the grounds that it tends to bring the sport into disrepute. I stand by that. I think most people don't cache after hours for that very reason. That, and the legal hassle of getting caught. But if someone wants to assert a moral right to do it, I won't disagree. The laws are stupid, and the government certainly does not know best.

And now, back to our show! :rolleyes:

1.1k · July 6, 2007

No matter how much you declare that you're going into these areas because you think you have a moral right, remember that the area was closed to protect someone else in some way or another. That someone might even be you.

'Scuse me a second, while I put my armor on. Being from Chicago, I don't want to get cut down by the crossfire.

I think the point that others are arguing is that legal doesn't equal moral. Is it morally wrong for me to go into a park after hours? If you believe that by democratic vote we can legislate morality, then you would say "Yes, it's morally wrong. It's against the law." But others, including myself, don't see it that way.

I may not have the legal right to go into the park after hours, but that has nothing to do with the morality of sneaking in to be FTF. "But it's immoral to break the law!" you might answer. To which I would respond, "No, it's only illegal to break the law."

A lot of laws, like the law against murder, happen to correspond to moral principals that are universally accepted. But others, like closing-hours regulation of public parks, don't. Some people feel that the government knows best, and they feel morally obligated to follow all laws. Others don't feel that way--they view the government as a less-than-benign institution, and they will break laws if doing so harms no one else, and if they feel the risk is low.

IMHO, the analogy to the Founding Fathers is actually spot-on. Those who say they will cache after hours, and the law be damned, are actually saying the following: "If I cache after hours, who do I harm? Certainly nobody else. And the government has no right to protect me from myself!" Those are precisely the principles the Founding Fathers took up arms over. And in their case, it all started with a spat over tea! Yes, it's only a game, and it was only a cup of tea two hundred thirty years ago.

I was one of the first people in this thread to argue against after-hours caching, on the grounds that it tends to bring the sport into disrepute. I stand by that. I think most people don't cache after hours for that very reason. That, and the legal hassle of getting caught. But if someone wants to assert a moral right to do it, I won't disagree. The laws are stupid, and the government certainly does not know best.

And now, back to our show!

Very well put, thank you.

John, the main point regarding the Founding Fathers was that if everyone foilowed every law and rule, as CC says they should, there would never have been a Revolution to create this great country. Sometimes you have to do what you think is right, and if it is illegal that does not automatically make it immoral.

For instance, lets imagine a new cache is hidden in a park that is closed between 8:00PM and 8:AM.

I arrive at 7:00PM, find the cache, and leave at 7:50PM. Cool. I arrive home at 8:30 and discover I left my GPSr at the cache. I have to be at work at 6:30AM, so to stay legal it will be tomorrow evening at 7:00PM before I can return. By then the odds are great someone will have walked away with it, so what do I do?

1. I wait, and probably lose it.

2. I try to contact someone in the park department for permission and probably fail.

3. Or I simply return and retrieve it, taking a miniscule chance of being caught and an even smaller chance that they won't understand if they do catch me.

What would you do?

I choose 3

July 6, 2007

I may not have the legal right to go into the park after hours, but that has nothing to do with the morality of sneaking in to be FTF. "But it's immoral to break the law!" you might answer. To which I would respond, "No, it's only illegal to break the law."

A lot of laws, like the law against murder, happen to correspond to moral principals that are universally accepted. But others, like closing-hours regulation of public parks, don't. Some people feel that the government knows best, and they feel morally obligated to follow all laws. Others don't feel that way--they view the government as a less-than-benign institution, and they will break laws if doing so harms no one else, and if they feel the risk is low.

That explains EVERYTHING.

I was wondering how folks could justify claiming smilies when they didn't sign the log, or open the cache, or find the cache, or even go on the hunt.

I now understand the thinking behind it.

Thanks.

July 7, 2007

A topic on the MiGO forums about this has been going with most favoring one side. What about YOU??

A cache is placed in a park that is CLEARLY marked with closing hours (listing mentions this as well). The cache gets published after dark (closing hours) and is waiting for it's FTF! Would you be LEGAL and wait until morning to go after it, or would you break the law, go against the rules of that cache and go after it right then?

To further that, would you consider any after hours FTFs tainted? Since no one should be there after hours, does the find count? Should the find be deleted if the owner knows about the after hours search?

This is a big concern for me as I'm worried what an after hours hunt would do to my relations with the S.P I am working with to place hides. One side is campground, only campers can hunt after dark there, but the beach, picnic and boat launch areas are on the other side of the road and they watch for trespassers after hours there! If a few rogue cachers were caught, the park MAY ask for the removal of the hides!

What say you? Are FTFs a reason to break the law?

4.7k · July 7, 2007

<snip>

Because we live in a democracy

Actually we live in a Republic.

less and less, and not for long.

14.3k · July 7, 2007

<snip>

Because we live in a democracy

Actually we live in a Republic.

less and less, and not for long.

A republic is a form of government maintained by a state or country whose sovereignty is based on popular consent and whose governance is based on popular representation and control. Several definitions stress that the rule of law is an essential feature of a republic.

Anyhow, why do you say "not for long?"

July 7, 2007

.edit

Edited July 7, 2007 by JustAne

2.7k · July 7, 2007

there are the big moral truths, and the little ones. i think this issue is mostly about little morals, but people who exercise little morals can usually counted on to have care for the big ones.

i usually don't like to bring my work into it, but i send more kids to the office over gum chewing than any other offense. why? because i assume that kids might forget to throw out their gum when they come to my room. when i spot gum, i make the general announcement that anyone with gum should throw it away. i always give a few moments for them to make the adjustment. some kids feel picked -on if you call them down for gum chewing in front of the class.

about five mintues later anyone who's still chewing gum goes to the office.

at that point it's not about the gum. at that point it's about disobedience and dishonesty. it is a big infraction? no. but it does show character, and it is an opportunity for me to make that point. if i can't trust you to throw out your gum when asked, i cannot trust you when you say you're going to get a drink, or that you left your hat upstairs and want to be dismissed a few seconds early to go get it, blah, blah, blah.

so i expect a person of integrity to follow the posted rules while playing a game.

Excellent post Flask!

Perhaps a bit of non-gubment edumacation is in order? A "Right", (as defined here), is a privilege protected by law. The founding fathers of the United States had no "rights" being taken away, since, at that time, they did not have a "right" to practice any religion not sanctioned by their government, nor did they have a "right" to withhold taxes to their sovereign. At some point, these folks decided that the existing laws were unjust, and took measures against them, committing acts of high treason against the Crown.

The applicable reference here is that, if you feel a law is unjust, how can you consider not following that law to be immoral?

Amazing view from a LEO.

If you stop me for speeding and I say, "the speed limit is unjust and I refuse to obey it," do you put your ticket book away, say "Amen, patriot! Have a great day!" and walk back to your car?

Violating an unjust law can not reasonably be considered "morally correct" unless the scale of morality tips to a bigger issue. This would be called "moral relativism" and does have some merit, but only in VERY unusual circumstances- of which hunting a cache in a closed park is not IMO one of them.

I believe we ARE comparing apples to hand grenades! You compare revolting against an entire governmental body to not liking a simple law about the use of our parks?
And you are trying to pare your argument down so finely that no one can disagree with you. You are then demonizing those that suggest that the entire universe of possibilities doesn't fit nicely into your preconceived box.

I've altered my opinion on this one. As a matter of principle I feel that I as a US citizen have a right to be on public land so long as I am not causing harm, as it belongs to all citizens. In this particular case I would probably consider current practices at the park. If the park hours were strictly enforced, then I would respect them, simply because why risk the hassle of legal problems over something trivial. Just because I feel I have the right to do something, there are times when exercising that right is not the smart course of action. However, as is often the case with these matters the rules are in fact not enforced and people regularly use parks after posted hours, in which case I would go ahead.

There is no moral requirement to obey unjust laws.

See above re "unjust laws"

Why is setting open and closed hours "unjust?" Perhaps the reason for the closed hours is simply that they don't want to waste YOUR tax money on staff 24/7. Could it be having the park open 24/7 would be "unjust?"

So, since closing a park is "unjust", perhaps the locks should be taken off the nature center doors, too? I mean it IS public property, right? You have a RIGHT to go in any time you want, right?

No matter how much you declare that you're going into these areas because you think you have a moral right, remember that the area was closed to protect someone else in some way or another. That someone might even be you.

'Scuse me a second, while I put my armor on. Being from Chicago, I don't want to get cut down by the crossfire.

I think the point that others are arguing is that legal doesn't equal moral. Is it morally wrong for me to go into a park after hours? If you believe that by democratic vote we can legislate morality, then you would say "Yes, it's morally wrong. It's against the law." But others, including myself, don't see it that way.

I may not have the legal right to go into the park after hours, but that has nothing to do with the morality of sneaking in to be FTF. "But it's immoral to break the law!" you might answer. To which I would respond, "No, it's only illegal to break the law."

A lot of laws, like the law against murder, happen to correspond to moral principals that are universally accepted. But others, like closing-hours regulation of public parks, don't. Some people feel that the government knows best, and they feel morally obligated to follow all laws. Others don't feel that way--they view the government as a less-than-benign institution, and they will break laws if doing so harms no one else, and if they feel the risk is low.

IMHO, the analogy to the Founding Fathers is actually spot-on. Those who say they will cache after hours, and the law be damned, are actually saying the following: "If I cache after hours, who do I harm? Certainly nobody else. And the government has no right to protect me from myself!" Those are precisely the principles the Founding Fathers took up arms over. And in their case, it all started with a spat over tea! Yes, it's only a game, and it was only a cup of tea two hundred thirty years ago.

I was one of the first people in this thread to argue against after-hours caching, on the grounds that it tends to bring the sport into disrepute. I stand by that. I think most people don't cache after hours for that very reason. That, and the legal hassle of getting caught. But if someone wants to assert a moral right to do it, I won't disagree. The laws are stupid, and the government certainly does not know best.

And now, back to our show!

But obeying the "other" laws referred to above, DOES correspond to moral principles that are "universally" (obviously hyperbole) accepted: Those moral principles are called "HONESTY" and "INTEGRITY," both of which are rapidly becoming rare birds.

2.7k · July 7, 2007

<snip>

Because we live in a democracy

Actually we live in a Republic.

less and less, and not for long.

A republic is a form of government maintained by a state or country whose sovereignty is based on popular consent and whose governance is based on popular representation and control. Several definitions stress that the rule of law is an essential feature of a republic.

Anyhow, why do you say "not for long?"

Not that I want to put words in Flask's mouth, but:

i would say, "not for long" because the American people have abandoned their moral standards at the highest levels. Few people trust their elected representatives to be HONEST with them or to do "the will of the people."

Our government is rapidly becoming a "what's in it for me" endeavour where everyone is looking for the government to GIVE them something... some looking for economic handouts and protection, others looking for security and peace. And increasingly more and more people willing to give up their freedom and their integrity in exchange for the "gimmes."

1.1k · July 7, 2007

<snip>

Because we live in a democracy

Actually we live in a Republic.

less and less, and not for long.

A republic is a form of government maintained by a state or country whose sovereignty is based on popular consent and whose governance is based on popular representation and control. Several definitions stress that the rule of law is an essential feature of a republic.

Anyhow, why do you say "not for long?"

Not that I want to put words in Flask's mouth, but:

i would say, "not for long" because the American people have abandoned their moral standards at the highest levels. Few people trust their elected representatives to be HONEST with them or to do "the will of the people."

Our government is rapidly becoming a "what's in it for me" endeavour where everyone is looking for the government to GIVE them something... some looking for economic handouts and protection, others looking for security and peace. And increasingly more and more people willing to give up their freedom and their integrity in exchange for the "gimmes."

Few people trusted the Government when it was founded either, that's why the Bill of Rights, which was not in the original Constitution, was added, to protect the PEOPLE from the GOVERNMENT. They are not rights granted to us by the government, they are rights reserved by us FROM the government.

Doomsayers like flask have always been wrong, i predict that treand to continue well past my life.

As for your speeding ticket response above, youo still don't understand the difference between legally right or wrong and morally right or wrong. The cop may agree with you that the "speed limit is unjust" but he will still write the ticket because it's legally wrong.

The difference is, laws change, what is morally correct doesn't.

Edited July 7, 2007 by Cpt.Blackbeard

July 7, 2007

Amazing view from a LEO.

But a correct one. Thank goodness there's a few of them out there like CR.

2.7k · July 7, 2007

As for your speeding ticket response above, youo still don't understand the difference between legally right or wrong and morally right or wrong. The cop may agree with you that the "speed limit is unjust" but he will still write the ticket because it's legally wrong.

The difference is, laws change, what is morally correct doesn't.

I suppose if you say I don't understand then i must not understand because you understand me better than i understand myself but I DO understand that i have a MORAL obligation to obey the laws that "we the people" have legally voted upon ourselves and "we the people" have therefore, by our acceptance of citizenship in the greatest country on the face of the Earth (EVER) "agreed" or "given our word" that we would do our best to abide by the decision of our elected and appointed officials.

We have a MORAL obligation to obey the law. Therefore there is no practical difference between legally right or wrong and morally right or wrong unless as stated earlier there is a SERIOUS circumstance that render a law itself IMMORAL.

What i REALLY don't understand is how that is so hard to understand. :rolleyes:

If "we the people" do not obey the laws "we the people" passed, "we the people" have anarchy, not republic, not democracy, simply ANARCHY.

And if we have anarchy, then one simply does what one pleases and the man with the biggest gun and quickest draw wins. The only thing preventing this now is that MOST people feel a moral obligation to obey the law. As one of our other frequent posters commented (in a different thread), 'freedom is knowing that you CAN do something and choosing not to.'

IF the great and noble experiment of the American republic does FAIL, it will be precisely because "we the people" have deemed it not to be our MORAL responsibility to obey the leadership "we the people" have duly elected and appointed to be our leaders.

24.7k · July 7, 2007

...We have a MORAL obligation to obey the law. Therefore there is no practical difference between legally right or wrong and morally right or wrong unless as stated earlier there is a SERIOUS circumstance that render a law itself IMMORAL.

What i REALLY don't understand is how that is so hard to understand.

....

Laws can be wrong.

At the local university the speed limit on the road running in front of it was 35mph. Everybody knows that "slower means safer" and so the city passed an ordinance making the speed limit 25mph. The natural speed is 35. By natural that's the speed that the average driver is comfortable driving in that spot. At 35 people are paying attention to their surroundings. At 25 good citizens are spending more time paying attention to slowing down enough to keep it at 25 becasue it's an unatturally slow speed than paying attention to the college kids who the 25mph speed is meant to protect. Thus 25 is both morally and actually wrong but legally correct. Just to save any debate over 25 vs 35 the authority who sets the speed limit did the engineering studies that said "35" would be the correct speed but politically they allowed the city to do 25 becasue they wanted to be a good neighbor. Not becasue it was safer.

What you may not see is that we are discussing the difference between the law and what's right and that hey can be different. Not that most of the time we would all obey the law, and that most of the time the law is on the side of right.

2.2k · July 7, 2007

at the end of the day if you don't like or agree with the law then the correct course of action is to attempt to get that law changed. yes not easy but you should at least try.

is there a reason for the parks to be closed after dusk? near me the forest is likewise off limits at night but that is supposedly to protect the wildlife... and cycling is restricted to certain areas.

but in this case this is just a byelaw not criminal law.

we all break various laws all the time, fine, just don't whine if you get done for it.

by that i'm thinking of those people who get fined for speeding etc. then moan that it's the greedy police after the fines.... "well don't speed then and make them go without"

and if you get caught , have a better excuse than "i'm caching" don't get us all into trouble for your activities.

24.7k · July 7, 2007

...My main point still remains: Comparing geocaching in a place/time that is off limits to the American Revolution is utterly ridiculous.

...

The anology is accurate. I think you are distracted by the magnitude.

The principal that we should stand up for what's right is true whatever the level of the law. Rosa Parks broke a small rule but it was the right thing to do.

In Twin Falls this summer a young woman jumpped off the Perrine Bridge. Two pepole saw this jumped in their canoe and paddled out to help. When they got back to shore they were ticketed for not wearing life vests. They did the right thing. They broke the law to do it. (Oddly enough had they just jumped in and swam...no ticket would be in order. Life jackets are a boating requirment. Not a swimming requirment.)

http://www.magicvalley.com/articles/2007/0...tate/111240.txt

24.7k · July 7, 2007

...is there a reason for the parks to be closed after dusk? ...

A lot of rules, regs, and laws come from one agency looking to another one who did it first to copy them.

One park may very well have had a great reason for dusk till dawn rules. The next 900 did it because the first park did. A lot of rules are created that way.

9.3k · July 7, 2007

Because we live in a democracy,

Ah, I see the confusion now. Your avatar data indicates you live in New Hampshire, which is within the continental United States. Thanx largely in part to the founding fathers, the United States is not a democracy, nor has it ever been a democracy. It is a republic.

No matter how much you declare that you're going into these areas because you think you have a moral right, remember that the area was closed to protect someone else in some way or another.

First, I don't recall declaring any such thing. Second, the vast majority of park hours are posted for the convenience of government, not to protect me. Trust me when I tell you I don't need Uncle Sam to protect me from a squirrel... or even a whole herd of squirrels. I think I can handle it. The gist of my post, (which you've managed to miss once again), is that morality is not an issue here. Unnecessarily harming another person is immoral, not walking around in a park. Pretending that this is a morality issue doesn't gain you any credibility.

If you stop me for speeding and I say, "the speed limit is unjust and I refuse to obey it," do you put your ticket book away, say "Amen, patriot! Have a great day!" and walk back to your car?

If you want to try, I'll PM you my schedule and coordinates. Might be fun. Maybe that'll help me meet Roddy's "quota". :rolleyes:

we all break various laws all the time, fine, just don't whine if you get done for it.

Very well said. :blink:

Edit to add: Somebody beat me to the civics lesson.

Edited July 7, 2007 by Clan Riffster

8.9k · July 7, 2007

Sometimes the parks are closed due to budgets and such and therefore you shouldn't be using the parks during those hours. Imagine if you get hurt (from that herd of squirrels possibly) and need medical help to get out of the park. Your irresponsibiltiy now caused tons of problems. The park now has to go through the trouble of writing up a report (because LIKELY, they answer to a higher up), they have to decide what steps to take to remedy the situation you caused and they also need to figure out how to keep people like you out!

Most parks I know just can't afford to keep coverage for all hours (insurance again...but it seems to get overlooked so much), can't afford to have security to watch over the park (yes, that was one of the arguments before...if I know they enforce...) and can't afford to allow visitors to keep getting in and possibly getting hurt!

What next? High fences and armed guards to deter those that just can't follow a simple "unjust" law? Who pays for those? Well, if it's a city or county (maybe even a State) park, the answer is YOU...the taxpayer! Or maybe they just close the park, turn it into another parking lot and problem solved!

Ahhh the insurance problem! We have to regularly turn away those that would like to use our cart paths (golf course) for fun activities like rollerblading and biking. Not because we're jerks, but because we just aren't covered to allow those activities (you must pay to be able to even ride along with someone that's golfing, even if you aren't golfing...not our rules, the insurance rules).

Think about that...you need to pay to enter many parks and such too. Entering illegally means you are a risk to the park's insurance coverage. One slip up could cost the park extra in coverage costs, especially since we all know that many of these same law breakers would just LOVE to sue ANYONE even if they are at fault...and the parks are likely to settle as a lawsuit isn't cheap for either side, and many times the jury is a bleeding heart bunch who ignores common reasoning and sides with the poor injured law breaker ("awww, the poor soul was the victim of an unjust law").

One lawsuit could spell the end for that park! Insurers would likely raise their policy premium, the park can't afford that and really can't afford not having insurance, so the park closes...you lose! Hypothetical? Hardly, I have seen this first hand a few years back! And even if there isn't a lawsuit filed...does that mean all is well? Hardly, just because you didn't sue doesn't mean the next "victim" won't!

In those cases, I could imagine a park staff enforcing the law VERY strictly. Not because they want to, but to save the park from irresponsible actions such as illegal entry. Sad, but the parks must proactively protect themselves from such possibilities!

And heaven forbid you get attacked by thugs while in that park illegally...a whole new can of worms!

edit to add: awww crud, I suppose I'm just paring my argument down and demonizing again.

Edited July 7, 2007 by Rockin Roddy

1.1k · July 7, 2007

As for your speeding ticket response above, youo still don't understand the difference between legally right or wrong and morally right or wrong. The cop may agree with you that the "speed limit is unjust" but he will still write the ticket because it's legally wrong.

The difference is, laws change, what is morally correct doesn't.

I suppose if you say I don't understand then i must not understand because you understand me better than i understand myself but I DO understand that i have a MORAL obligation to obey the laws that "we the people" have legally voted upon ourselves and "we the people" have therefore, by our acceptance of citizenship in the greatest country on the face of the Earth (EVER) "agreed" or "given our word" that we would do our best to abide by the decision of our elected and appointed officials.

We have a MORAL obligation to obey the law. Therefore there is no practical difference between legally right or wrong and morally right or wrong unless as stated earlier there is a SERIOUS circumstance that render a law itself IMMORAL.

What i REALLY don't understand is how that is so hard to understand.

If "we the people" do not obey the laws "we the people" passed, "we the people" have anarchy, not republic, not democracy, simply ANARCHY.

And if we have anarchy, then one simply does what one pleases and the man with the biggest gun and quickest draw wins. The only thing preventing this now is that MOST people feel a moral obligation to obey the law. As one of our other frequent posters commented (in a different thread), 'freedom is knowing that you CAN do something and choosing not to.'

IF the great and noble experiment of the American republic does FAIL, it will be precisely because "we the people" have deemed it not to be our MORAL responsibility to obey the leadership "we the people" have duly elected and appointed to be our leaders.

I don't need to understand you personally to know you misunderstand, I only need to read your replies.

You are totally confused about the difference between morality and legality.

Several years ago a couple of plumbers were buiried by a ditch collapse while connecting a new home to the city sewer. Two carpenters saw the collapse, jumped into the ditch and dug them out before they suffocated.

As a reward they were fined thousands of dollars for breaking the law by entering an unsafe excavation, the fact that they did it to save lives made no difference to the overzealous, overeducated beurocrat who cited them.

Public outrage was so high though that the fines were tossed out and a new law was passed to protect good samaritians from fines and prosecution if they break a law to save a life.

Thus, even the Government now admits that there are indeed valid reasons to break laws on occasion, so it's official.

Your trouble is that you are trying to use an absolute in a world where few exist. No law ever written will apply to 100% of the people 100% of the time. If I come to a stop light and no one is around, I still wait for it to turn green before I proceed. If I just got a call that my home was on fire I would blow that light and no one would fault me for it.

In the case of parks it comes down to money and convience, they don't want to spend extra money to keep it open if only a couple of people are going to use it. By closing it, if someone does go in, they are covered if something happens. If nothing happens then very few parks really care, they are just covering their behinds in case something does.

2.7k · July 7, 2007

...We have a MORAL obligation to obey the law. Therefore there is no practical difference between legally right or wrong and morally right or wrong unless as stated earlier there is a SERIOUS circumstance that render a law itself IMMORAL.

What i REALLY don't understand is how that is so hard to understand.

....

Laws can be wrong.

At the local university the speed limit on the road running in front of it was 35mph. Everybody knows that "slower means safer" and so the city passed an ordinance making the speed limit 25mph. The natural speed is 35. By natural that's the speed that the average driver is comfortable driving in that spot. At 35 people are paying attention to their surroundings. At 25 good citizens are spending more time paying attention to slowing down enough to keep it at 25 becasue it's an unatturally slow speed than paying attention to the college kids who the 25mph speed is meant to protect. Thus 25 is both morally and actually wrong but legally correct. Just to save any debate over 25 vs 35 the authority who sets the speed limit did the engineering studies that said "35" would be the correct speed but politically they allowed the city to do 25 becasue they wanted to be a good neighbor. Not becasue it was safer.

What you may not see is that we are discussing the difference between the law and what's right and that hey can be different. Not that most of the time we would all obey the law, and that most of the time the law is on the side of right.

The situation you cite is apparently well known to traffic engineers. One once told me that the absolute minimum speed limit is 25 MPH, below that the act of obeying the law takes far more attention than watching one's surroundings. Still the <whiney voice> "for the chiiiildren" </whiney voice> types insist that ridiculous speed limits like "10" and "15" be enacted.

When I was a cop I would never ticket someone for our tiny little town's "15" zone for precisely that reason. But occasionally the mayor comes around and wants to know why we aren't enforcing the limit. So I stop and warn.

Quoting from my father-in-law, who was the police chief in another small town, "the sum total of the IQ's of the city counsel men and the mayor would not add up to my hat size." :rolleyes:

You are right about the existence of bad laws, but wrong about the morality of disobeying them. I have no truck with someone admitting that they disregard an ill-conceived and counter-productive law, but to claim that disobedience is the morally right thing to do is simply without basis. Respect for authority, especially in a country where the citizens decide who is in those positions of authority, is a clear moral principle.

Disobedience is not the best way.

Also, it is selfish. If you disobey the bad law rather than getting the bad law changed you do a disservice to others who feel compelled to be "good law abiding citizens" (and who actually might get caught and punished for breaking the law) because you just ignored the bad law and left it in place to hinder their path.

It's kinda like if you encounter a tree blocking the road- you have a 4x4 and a chain saw- do you go around the tree because you can, or do you stop and remove the tree from the road? Either choice in this case is OK, but which is the more moral, to take care of yourself only or to help others as well?

1.1k · July 7, 2007

at the end of the day if you don't like or agree with the law then the correct course of action is to attempt to get that law changed. yes not easy but you should at least try.

is there a reason for the parks to be closed after dusk? near me the forest is likewise off limits at night but that is supposedly to protect the wildlife... and cycling is restricted to certain areas.

but in this case this is just a byelaw not criminal law.

we all break various laws all the time, fine, just don't whine if you get done for it.

by that i'm thinking of those people who get fined for speeding etc. then moan that it's the greedy police after the fines.... "well don't speed then and make them go without"

and if you get caught , have a better excuse than "i'm caching" don't get us all into trouble for your activities.

Actually quite a few laws are repealed or changed simply because nobody follows them, Indianas fireworks law is a prime example. It used to be illegal to use any fireworks that exploded or left the ground, but everyone ignored it and launched them anyway, so the state finally wised up and legalized them. No attempt was ever made by the public to get it changed, everyone just ignored it. :rolleyes:

1.1k · July 7, 2007

It's kinda like if you encounter a tree blocking the road- you have a 4x4 and a chain saw- do you go around the tree because you can, or do you stop and remove the tree from the road? Either choice in this case is OK, but which is the more moral, to take care of yourself only or to help others as well?

Well, according to the county government here, it is illegal for you to remove that tree, only highway employees can touch it. You can't remove the tree, plow snow, grade a gravel road, etc.

So while you say the moral thing to do is remove the tree, the government says it is illegal. Now which do you choose, help yourself or help others?

I remember the story of the King who ordered all the first born children in his Kingdom be killed because a prophecy told him a first born child would cause his downfall. Would you kill your first born because your Government made it a law, or would you have the moral backbone to break the law and do everything possible to save your childs life, legal or not?

Not breaking a law when you really should is morally wrong, no matter how many times you claim otherwise.

9.3k · July 7, 2007

It's kinda like if you encounter a tree blocking the road- you have a 4x4 and a chain saw- do you go around the tree because you can, or do you stop and remove the tree from the road?

That depends... Am I going for an FTF?

20.7k · July 7, 2007

The situation you cite is apparently well known to traffic engineers. One once told me that the absolute minimum speed limit is 25 MPH, below that the act of obeying the law takes far more attention than watching one's surroundings. Still the <whiney voice> "for the chiiiildren" </whiney voice> types insist that ridiculous speed limits like "10" and "15" be enacted.

When I was a cop I would never ticket someone for our tiny little town's "15" zone for precisely that reason. But occasionally the mayor comes around and wants to know why we aren't enforcing the limit. So I stop and warn.

Using your own example, is it morally wrong for someone to drive 17 in a 15 mile an hour zone even though it is well known that the 'absolute minimum speed limit' should be 25?

Quoting from my father-in-law, who was the police chief in another small town, "the sum total of the IQ's of the city counsel men and the mayor would not add up to my hat size."

You are right about the existence of bad laws, but wrong about the morality of disobeying them. I have no truck with someone admitting that they disregard an ill-conceived and counter-productive law, but to claim that disobedience is the morally right thing to do is simply without basis. Respect for authority, especially in a country where the citizens decide who is in those positions of authority, is a clear moral principle.

Disobedience is not the best way.

Also, it is selfish. If you disobey the bad law rather than getting the bad law changed you do a disservice to others who feel compelled to be "good law abiding citizens" (and who actually might get caught and punished for breaking the law) because you just ignored the bad law and left it in place to hinder their path.

I can kind of see your argument that moral people follow just laws. And that it is the duty of the citizenry to attempt to have unjust laws changed. However, that doesn't necessarily make the inverse correct.

In my opinion, it does not follow that moral people must follow unjust laws or that the disobediance of same is necessarily immoral.

Also, while I believe that it is one's duty to attempt to have unjust laws changed, it does not necessarily follow that a person has a moral obligation to follow that law until it has been changed. Clearly, not following the law may have legal ramifications, but that is removed from the moral perogative.

As I understand, citizens in nazi germany were required to turn in any known jews and jewish sympathisers. Disobeying that law would certainly be illegal, but would it be immoral? I don't think so.

8.9k · July 7, 2007

In which case, I leave the tree and hightail it for the cache! Every man for himself at that point!

24.7k · July 7, 2007

...The situation you cite is apparently well known to traffic engineers. One once told me that the absolute minimum speed limit is 25 MPH, below that the act of obeying the law takes far more attention than watching one's surroundings. Still the <whiney voice> "for the chiiiildren" </whiney voice> types insist that ridiculous speed limits like "10" and "15" be enacted.

When I was a cop I would never ticket someone for our tiny little town's "15" zone for precisely that reason. But occasionally the mayor comes around and wants to know why we aren't enforcing the limit. So I stop and warn.

Quoting from my father-in-law, who was the police chief in another small town, "the sum total of the IQ's of the city counsel men and the mayor would not add up to my hat size."

You are right about the existence of bad laws, but wrong about the morality of disobeying them....

Not so. You have just said the 15mph speed is bad because it actually does put people in danger. Thus to obey is is morally wrong because we have a higher duty to not run over the chiiiiidren than to go 15mph. Hand in hand with that we also would need to work to change the law.

This is simple. Most times we don't have to deal with such conflicts because the law and what's right are not in conflict. I think it gets much more complex when people work hard to rationalize their actions by obeying the law only to do what they know is wrong.

14.3k · July 7, 2007

In which case, I leave the tree and hightail it for the cache! Every man for himself at that point!

I've done a 100 yard dash before.

1.1k · July 7, 2007

As I understand, citizens in nazi germany were required to turn in any known jews and jewish sympathisers. Disobeying that law would certainly be illegal, but would it be immoral? I don't think so.

Godwin's Law. Game over.

20.7k · July 7, 2007

As I understand, citizens in nazi germany were required to turn in any known jews and jewish sympathisers. Disobeying that law would certainly be illegal, but would it be immoral? I don't think so.
Godwin's Law. Game over.

I almost called it on myself, but that's against the rules, as I understand them.

3.2k · July 7, 2007

Deleted. Just stated the obvious.

Edited July 7, 2007 by baloo&bd

24.7k · July 7, 2007

As I understand, citizens in nazi germany were required to turn in any known jews and jewish sympathisers. Disobeying that law would certainly be illegal, but would it be immoral? I don't think so.

Godwin's Law. Game over.

WWII Germany is a prime example of the difference between the law and the morally right thing. The Nuremberg Trials taught us that "following orders" (required by law) is no defense because what's right is more important. That's a gross oversimplification of the issues, but it is the foundation of the principal behind them.

Godwins law is more in how you evoke it. It doesn't (or shouldn't) preclude a valid example.

4.7k · July 7, 2007

...A "Right", (as defined here), is a privilege protected by law. ...

The more rights everone has the less freedom we all have.

Amen

no, no, no. let me 'splain this to you.

the more RIGHTS everyone has, the more FREEDOM everyone has. that's what freedom is about. freedom of speech, freedom of movement, right to bear arms, freedom to congregate. these are all RIGHTS. if people have fewer RIGHTRS, they have less FREEDOM.

i think you're confusing it with the more LAWS we have, the less freedom everyone has.

...unless you're thinking that you have a right to abridge OTHER people's rights, in which case you might feel put upon if they tried to excercise their freedoms.

it's in the constitution. go check. i'll be over here happily humming sousa marches.

Stick a fork in it

ok...

i tried it, and i'm not sure what it was supposed to help, or even what "it" is...

do you perhaps have more detailed instructions and maybe some advice about how it's meant to entertain, enlighten, or assist?

(...now, where did i put the neosporin?...)

<snip>

Because we live in a democracy

Actually we live in a Republic.

less and less, and not for long.

A republic is a form of government maintained by a state or country whose sovereignty is based on popular consent and whose governance is based on popular representation and control. Several definitions stress that the rule of law is an essential feature of a republic.

Anyhow, why do you say "not for long?"

because we are witnessing the end of the republic. if history teaches us anything, republics sooner or later cede to empires.

on our present course the republic is already dying. we're giving up our rights in exchange for dubious protecton. we're giving up rigorous thought for cheap entertainment. we're giving up independent thought for whatever a slick speaker with an easy answer tells us. only money has a voice. corruption and graft are rampant.

meanwhile we are becoming corporate shills. once we despoil our landscape, we cannot easily reclaim it. once we give up our freedoms, we rarely get them back. habeas corpus? forget it. you don't have it anymore.

usually a republic dies slowly, under such accomplished sleight-of hand that the subject people don't even notice that they no longer steer the government. you can kiss "for" and "of" goodbye. little by little all that's left is government OF the people, and by the time you see it coming, you will already be enchained.

all righty... next topic.

i have a cache in a park the posted hours of which are dawn to dusk monday to saturday and sundays from 1:00 pm until dusk. the place looks like a city park, but i think it is a donation from a very nearby church. to break the hours would be discourteous at best. there is much talk of how geocachers are good citizens and present a good face to the community.

if the donor of the land were to see you wandering aroung in that park during services, they'd be rightly annoyed. if i heard about it, there'd be one less cache.

1.1k · July 7, 2007

As I understand, citizens in nazi germany were required to turn in any known jews and jewish sympathisers. Disobeying that law would certainly be illegal, but would it be immoral? I don't think so.
Godwin's Law. Game over.
I almost called it on myself, but that's against the rules, as I understand them.

I do believe it is against the rules for the implementer to invoke the call.

WWII Germany is a prime example of the difference between the law and the morally right thing. The Nuremberg Trials taught us that "following orders" (required by law) is no defense because what's right is more important. That's a gross oversimplification of the issues, but it is the foundation of the principal behind them.

Godwins law is more in how you evoke it. It doesn't (or shouldn't) preclude a valid example.

A Double Godwin's Law on the same page. And the latest one is even a better example of Godwin's Law where one mentions Nazis but then goes on to say that invoking the Nazis makes it a valid argument. A testbook example.

Thanks for playing.

14.3k · July 7, 2007

...A "Right", (as defined here), is a privilege protected by law. ...
The more rights everone has the less freedom we all have.
Amen
no, no, no. let me 'splain this to you. the more RIGHTS everyone has, the more FREEDOM everyone has. that's what freedom is about. freedom of speech, freedom of movement, right to bear arms, freedom to congregate. these are all RIGHTS. if people have fewer RIGHTRS, they have less FREEDOM. i think you're confusing it with the more LAWS we have, the less freedom everyone has....unless you're thinking that you have a right to abridge OTHER people's rights, in which case you might feel put upon if they tried to excercise their freedoms. it's in the constitution. go check. i'll be over here happily humming sousa marches.
Stick a fork in it
ok...i tried it, and i'm not sure what it was supposed to help, or even what "it" is...do you perhaps have more detailed instructions and maybe some advice about how it's meant to entertain, enlighten, or assist?(...now, where did i put the neosporin?...)

<snip>
Because we live in a democracy
Actually we live in a Republic.
less and less, and not for long.
A republic is a form of government maintained by a state or country whose sovereignty is based on popular consent and whose governance is based on popular representation and control. Several definitions stress that the rule of law is an essential feature of a republic.
Anyhow, why do you say "not for long?"

we're giving up our rights in exchange for dubious protecton.

What rights? Freaking doctors in England are trying to kill us good guys! Wake up man!

Back on subject: You should not trespass because no cache is worth it.

Edited July 7, 2007 by TrailGators

4.7k · July 7, 2007

A Double Godwin's Law on the same page. And the latest one is even a better example of Godwin's Law where one mentions Nazis but then goes on to say that invoking the Nazis makes it a valid argument. A testbook example.

Thanks for playing.

BRAAAP.

no, but thank YOU for writing in. all those who have read godwin's law (you know, the part farther down the page) understand that when the dilemma of following or vilolating morally wrong laws or orders is a component of the discussion, godwin's law does not apply. because the nuremberg trials are very reasonably included as part of the argument rather than as a namecalling device, it is permitted under the law. godwin's law was never intened to stop all references to nazis, nor to void all analogies made thereby.

so although there is a teXtbook example of something here, you have identified it incorrectly.

edit: emphasize "x".

Edited July 7, 2007 by flask

4.7k · July 8, 2007

In Twin Falls this summer a young woman jumpped off the Perrine Bridge. Two pepole saw this jumped in their canoe and paddled out to help. When they got back to shore they were ticketed for not wearing life vests. They did the right thing. They broke the law to do it. (Oddly enough had they just jumped in and swam...no ticket would be in order. Life jackets are a boating requirment. Not a swimming requirment.)

http://www.magicvalley.com/articles/2007/0...tate/111240.txt

wow. that is a stunning miscarriage of justice. or maybe not? could be the officers present had a duty or directive to ticket them. the judge has the option of dismissing it, and it would be proper to do so under the necessity defense.

i was schooled in it as a kid. i had the opportunity to be acquainted with some people who were the first ever to be acquitted using it in a political protest. fascinating people. ultra left wing wackos, but interesting nonetheless.

mine was a fascinating childhood. my parents' house was, for a time, kind of a hub of friends, friends of friends, activists, artists, travelers, blah, blah, blah.

one of the world's leading astronomers. a theater professor. a pair of botanists just passing through. a socialist electrician. a decidedly conservative breeder of dobermans. a woman with a marimba who'd heard the party was at our house on tuesdays. people we didn't even know came to dinner. strangers in the house were normal. but they could play and sing or tell stories or explain physics or test the soil in the garden.

and the place was full of kids. for entertainment my friends and i went to see shakespeare plays and to the symphony.

some of you who have been trying to figure out what i'm on about are finally leaning back and saying "ah".

'splains a lot, don't it?

it's a dangerous mix, all those strongly held views at the dinner table. the republicans sit down to dinner with the socialists. people from the plains states and people from the deep south. we had 'em all at our dinner table. we talked about art and sports and politics. you start to want to find the middle ground. not the middle ground of giving up your principles, but the middle ground of wanting to work from what you have in common.

8.9k · July 8, 2007

In which case, I leave the tree and hightail it for the cache! Every man for himself at that point!
I've done a 100 yard dash before.

If I did the 100, I'd be too tired to retrieve the container!

2.7k · July 8, 2007

...The situation you cite is apparently well known to traffic engineers. One once told me that the absolute minimum speed limit is 25 MPH, below that the act of obeying the law takes far more attention than watching one's surroundings. Still the <whiney voice> "for the chiiiildren" </whiney voice> types insist that ridiculous speed limits like "10" and "15" be enacted.

When I was a cop I would never ticket someone for our tiny little town's "15" zone for precisely that reason. But occasionally the mayor comes around and wants to know why we aren't enforcing the limit. So I stop and warn.

Quoting from my father-in-law, who was the police chief in another small town, "the sum total of the IQ's of the city counsel men and the mayor would not add up to my hat size."

You are right about the existence of bad laws, but wrong about the morality of disobeying them....

Not so. You have just said the 15mph speed is bad because it actually does put people in danger. Thus to obey is is morally wrong because we have a higher duty to not run over the chiiiiidren than to go 15mph. Hand in hand with that we also would need to work to change the law.

This is simple. Most times we don't have to deal with such conflicts because the law and what's right are not in conflict. I think it gets much more complex when people work hard to rationalize their actions by obeying the law only to do what they know is wrong.

This thread has become a major straw man convention!

Disobeying a bad law when obeying would create a greater evil is obviously the right thing to do.

On topic, "trespassing for a FTF", the end simply does not justify the means, as it RARELY does in circumstances other than the "straw man" cases discussed so far.

No, I would not kill my child if the government said I should. In fact I abhor the fact that the government says I CAN (or at least that my wife can legally hire it done).

I would slow down to 15 MPH and be very careful of the chiiiiildren, even though it is unnatural and requires a lot of extra effort.

I would not jump in the boat without a life jacket to save a drowning person, because I have better training than that. Nor would I jump in and swim to rescue him unless he was unconscious. Two drowned people are not better than one.

I would not have turned in my Jewish neighbours if I had been in Nazi Germany. (at least I HOPE that is how I would have handled it- it is SO much easier to second guess people when you are NOT "in their shoes.")

if I had been in Lt. Calley's unit, I would not have shot the villagers even though it would have been disobeying a military order. (at least I HOPE that is how I would have handled it- it is SO much easier to second guess people when you are NOT "in their shoes.")

</new straw man>

Straw men galore! How many more can you come up with?

Trespassing to find a cache is wrong, legally and morally. But that's just my opinion.

Y'all have fun doing whatever is right in your own eyes. You certainly don't have to answer to me for it.

2.7k · July 8, 2007

In which case, I leave the tree and hightail it for the cache! Every man for himself at that point!
I've done a 100 yard dash before.

If I did the 100, I'd be too tired to retrieve the container!

What difference does that make? Claim the FTF anyway. There are no moral absolutes... especially in caching.

July 8, 2007

Stick a fork in it.

As in- Stick a fork in it, it's done.

As in- this thread has wandered so far from the OP's question it's not even relevant anymore.

The last thing I would be thinking of "IF" I was in the park after hours going for the FTF is:

Nazis

The King of England

Democracy

Morals

The republic

Godwin's Law

Tea

or what anybody in these forums thinks about it.

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI

8.9k · July 8, 2007

We already know that Deane. Leave this alone, it's way too entertaining to just walk away from! I'm amazed at some of the comparisons and what ifs!

But no, nothing to do with Nazis etc...funny how some will rationalize to make their view seem right! I guess obeying the law simply because it IS the law isn't common practice anymore? Oh well, you'll do what you feel you must to gain that precious FTF (or any cache I suppose).

Come on gang...give us some more far-reaching and nonsensical rationalizations!

THANKS CC, Too Tall and others for your great insight...thanks to all who've made this thread so very entertaining. Don't stop now!

20.7k · July 8, 2007

... On topic, "trespassing for a FTF", the end simply does not justify the means, as it RARELY does in circumstances other than the "straw man" cases discussed so far. ...

The thing is, you are giving your personal opinion. Others may believe that spending five minutes in a park at 9pm to make a FTF is worth the risk. After all, the risk is their's, not mine or yours.

Stick a fork in it.

As in- Stick a fork in it, it's done.

As in- this thread has wandered so far from the OP's question it's not even relevant anymore.

agreed

The last thing I would be thinking of "IF" I was in the park after hours going for the FTF is:

Nazis

The King of England

Democracy

Morals

The republic

Godwin's Law

Tea

or what anybody in these forums thinks about it.

It depends on how long I'm in the park. If it's just a quick grab, I'll likely think about making the find, how to get back to my car, what I'm going to eat later, etc. If it's a long walk to the cache, any topic could pop into my brain.

... I'm amazed at some of the comparisons and what ifs!

I realize that this topic is totally black and white, to you, but for many others there is a thousand shades of grey in it's interpretation and possible situations that come up. To answer your question as rigidly as you presented it, I believe that nearly all geocachers would agree with you that one should not enter a park after hours if they are aware that it is closed. Where we differ is the results of that action. In my opinion, the cache finder assumes the responsibility for his actions and that a few such actions is ferociously unlikely to affect the game as a whole. It's hugely unlikely that it will affect the game even if we drill down to the single cache that it happened to.

But no, nothing to do with Nazis etc...funny how some will rationalize to make their view seem right! I guess obeying the law simply because it IS the law isn't common practice anymore? Oh well, you'll do what you feel you must to gain that precious FTF (or any cache I suppose).

Come on gang...give us some more far-reaching and nonsensical rationalizations!

The nazi (and other) examples were given to show that there is a difference between legal obligations and moral ones. In my opinion, when people calls someone immoral simply because they might violate a minor regulation they are flinging an inappropriate personal insult simply to win an argument and should be ashamed of their actions. Edited July 8, 2007 by sbell111

July 8, 2007

Break the law because of a game? No way. I intend to ADD to the reputation of geocachers in the field not take away.

DITTO

To trespass or not to....that is the question!

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment