Survival UK Forums

At what point does one decide that their survival/health/general welfare, or that of others, supersedes the "law" as imposed by the unknowing and uncaring?

When does one decide to do what they need to do in spite of the laws?

When does the legal penalty pale in comparison to the alternative?

I am not advocating breaking a law, just asking what one might consider their limits.

---

All of this in regard to the personal survival of one and all of course.

when you feel theirs no other wayout, this feeling will be different for everybody.

If things have got to the stage that you feel you need to break laws to survive, then there is probably going to be a countrywide problem and all bets will be off.

When the benefits outweigh the risks.

when society collapses and no one obeys the law but does whatever they like.

H.D.Thoreau sums it up best for me. Civil disobedience is the duty of all people to keep those who control "The law" from using it against the people.

http://www.constitution.org/civ/civildis.htm

this is going to be different for everybody , bm with a new borne baby outlook must be very different than many others.

when you feel you can get away with it , or pushed to the limits of choice , fear knows no bounds.

(12 May 2014, 10:35)Tartar Horde Wrote: [ -> ]H.D.Thoreau sums it up best for me. Civil disobedience is the duty of all people to keep those who control "The law" from using it against the people.

http://www.constitution.org/civ/civildis.htm

Truly depends on if you believe that the state exists at the will of the people or the people exist at the will of the state.

---

A secondary interest is the existence of certain "inalienable human rights" which no majority vote or government mandate can deprive one of.