Esquire Writer Discovers that Too Many Laws Breed Disdain for the Law, Wants the Supreme Court to Uphold More Laws

Leave it to Esquire and its writers to take a perfectly good premise about how an overabundance of intrusive laws leads to disrespect for the law and turn it into the latest whine about how mean people have conspired to keep lefties from running things. Forget that the U.S. center-left was touting its political dominance and the impending demise of the opposition just four years ago — now Stephen Marche takes his generally well-considered "A Nation of Scofflaws: The end of law in America" and book-ends it with coherence-threatening paragraphs calling Supreme Court justices "buffoons" because they might (haven't yet) declare his employers' (he's Canadian) beloved Obamacare unconstitutional.

Fortunately, if you peel away the seemingly pasted on opening and closing verbiage, there's insightful, if not new, material to be found about how overregulation leads to growing disdain and disobedience for the rules:

According to one estimate, the average American commits three felonies a day. Most of these occur online, where we have created a parallel universe that everyone has agreed to treat as a cesspool of permitted illegality. One of the most astonishing contradictions of the recent SOPA/PIPA debates was how rabidly otherwise liberal, even socialistic people — citizens who would consider it obvious that the state should have a place in regulating every other kind of business — wanted the government out of the Internet. Everybody is a libertarian online. ...

But fear of a regulated Internet is only a symptom of a far more general distrust in the law and its makers. The drug war — over forty years of failure — has made us all comfortable being criminals. The word scofflaw was invented during Prohibition, when a Massachusetts man held a contest looking for a word that described upstanding citizens who simply ignored laws they disapproved of. Prohibition may have coined the term, but the drug war has made it a near-universal condition. Only twenty years ago, Clinton had to pretend he never inhaled. Today, Obama openly admits to vacuuming cocaine, as do workmates and brothers and neighbors.

The law has always been an ass, but the current crop of laws on a whole range of issues — from what we're allowed to put in our bodies to fair tax rates to who enters the country and how — is so patently ridiculous, so adrift in an ideological purity that has nothing to do with how ordinary people live their lives, that the country has more or less accepted that ignoring them is okay...

Why, yes, Mr Marche! You're right! At least from the time Tacitus scraped some version of "The more corrupt the state, the more laws," into his wax tablet to more recent years, when Winston Churchill quipped a gin-scented, "If you have ten thousand regulations, you destroy all respect for the law," people with a brain cell or two to rub together have recognized that human beings largely stop obeying the law of you hit them with an avalanche of red tape. That many of those same people have then gone on to generate bureaucratic avalanches has merely provided more evidence for the point. That evidence has come in areas like shadow economic activity, as people flee from high taxes and burdensome regulations, and gun control, because people seem not to trust governments that don't trust them.

Marche is also right to point out that Americans are conflicted about their scofflawry: "[t]he most profound irony of all is that within this permissive attitude toward lawbreaking runs a ferocious insistence on order — the United States has one quarter of the world's inmates for 5 percent of the world's population."

That's an oddity that may reflect the deep divisions in American political life between supporters of intrusive laws and those unwilling to be bound by those laws. It may also refect the long-time libertarian vs. puritan/communitarian philosophical split that has long made American life a tad confusing as we eagerly vilify and ban stuff that we also celebrate and popularize. Yeah, we're an oddly authoritarian and yet so rebellious bunch.

And so we look back at those book-ending paragraphs that have Marche warning us, "[w]ith the decision on health care scheduled for June, the country's already tenuous regard for the Court may grow even more strained."

U.S. News and World Report took a look at Obamacare last year and reported:

Section 3022 of the law, which is about the Medicare shared savings program, take up just six pages in the 907-page Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. But HHS has turned that into 429 pages of new regulations...

Ten thousand regulations, indeed, Mr. Marche! And if the court upholds Obamacare, don't you worry just a bit that, after a few years of those new rules, we will have, once again, "more or less accepted that ignoring them is okay"?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    take a perfectly good premise about how an overabundance of intrusive laws leads to disrespect for the law and turn it into the latest whine about how mean people have conspired to keep lefties from running things

    Well, that's pretty much all TEAM BLUE has left at this point.

  • Pro Libertate||

    See, the Constitution is a foundational document of limited government power when Republicans are running the government. That's the source of a lot of confusion.

  • John||

    [w]ith the decision on health care scheduled for June, the country's already tenuous regard for the Court may grow even more strained."

    Considering that something like 2/3rds of the country wants the thing declared unconstitutional, I don't think that means what he thinks it does.

  • Pro Libertate||

    The volonté générale is too important to be left to popular opinion.

  • wingnutx||

    The(important part of the) country's tenuous regard...

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    An Esquire writer is an idiot, wow, never would have guessed that.

  • ||

    Who was asking earlier what makes a face punchable? Because I may have to bump Pauli K down to #2.

  • ||

    They're all chinless wonders!

  • The Hammer||

    This guy was pretty funny in Forgetting Sara Marshall.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    It's the hand position that does it.

  • ||

    I'm getting ads for Christian Mingle and some sort of wedding invitation printing company at the same time. I'm so confused!!

  • John||

    I am getting Muslim mingle.

  • The Hammer||

    I've got Obama campaign ads and Jeep ads.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Don't you people use adblockers?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Somebody has to pay for the site. And it's either going to be me, advertisers, or someone I'm forcing to subsidize my visits. I don't want it to be option 1 and option 3 is rather hypocritical, so that leaves allowing the ads to display.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    It's not going to be you, Stormy. Go put your Garanimals on, and tend to your juice box.

  • John||

    At this point the Court must over turn the law. If they don't, liberals might have to face the consequences of their policies. And that is not a good role for them. Much better for liberals to be able to live in a fantasy world where they had finally seen the promised land of free health care for all and their God given permanent majority only to have it stolen by the evil Supreme Court.

  • Killazontherun||

    That is the choice narrative. They can write huffy stories along the lines of Supreme Court Overturns Obama Care; 78 Year Old Man Dies of a Heart Attack for decades to come if it is overturned.

  • John||

    Yup. every lost election, every evil in the world will be chalked up to this single decision. They will love it.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    I thought Citizen's United already had that honor

  • John||

    That too.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Citizen's United leads to the Obamacare decision which leads to dead babies and grandmas.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Reminder:

    Citizens United was created when some liberals got all pissy about a movie critical of Hillary Clinton was made.

  • Paul.||

    That is the choice narrative. They can write huffy stories along the lines of Supreme Court Overturns Obama Care; 78 Year Old Man Dies of a Heart Attack for decades to come if it is overturned.

    This falls into the same bucket as why a complete legalization of drugs will probably never happen.

    The minute you relax the drug laws, the media has the bully pulpit from which they can scream about every 13-yr-old who died from easy access to these dangerous drugs.

    See also: Guns.

    See also: Salt

    See also: Fat

    See also: Sugar

  • IceTrey||

    Society only needs three rules.

    Rule 1
    No person may initiate force, threats of force, or fraud against any other person's self or property.

    Rule 2
    Force may be used in defense against those who violate Rule 1.

    Rule 3
    No exceptions shall exist for Rules 1 and 2.

  • Robert||

    Every time I see the high incarceration rate in the USA as something from which to infer differences from other countries, I groan a little unless it's to make a racial point, because when adjusted by race, the USA's incarceration rate is not an outlier.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement