I believe copyright and the other laws you cite as "to prevent competition or to somehow limit or restrict competition in specific markets" are invalid, by virtue of addressing no real harm. Do you dispute it?
Murder in the second degree is not premeditated, and is distinct from manslaughter.
Are mss-shooters not guilty of muder because they killed many people? Or maybe you'd say that's several successive cases of one-on-one killing? What if it's a bomber instead who kills a dozen people with one device?
I'm not exactly sure how you came to that conclusion. If you're interested in a conversation, I would say:
When I said "benign violation," I meant in the sense that the comic proposed of a violation which should simply be ignored, by the perpetrator, by witnesses, by law enforcement. Such a thing does not exist for the reasons I have spent dozens of comments trying to express.
Harm can not be regional. It can not be social, it can not be relative. There either is harm or there is not. Perception of harm is all of these things, but that's why we need to cut through perception and get to the heart of is there harm or not. Violations of invalid laws should be noted and prosecuted because that is the mechanism for identifying this invalidity.
No. A law based on a faulty perception of harm is invalid and should be corrected. The mechanism for doing so is the judiciary - or, as you noted, getting the legislature to recind itself, which I've neglected in this conversation. But I concede nothing, sir.
Valid means there's real harm. Wether we have souls or should consider harm to them if we do is a religious question I'm not prepared to address. Wether a woman harms a man by wearing shorts, or a man harms himself by entertaining unwholesome thoughts, is a question worth considering should we want to go down that path. Who is commiting the crime? Is it wrong for a store to display jewelry, or is it wrong to break the glass and take them?
To your hypothetical: the police officer is violating his oath, the woman is violating the law, the law is invalid. There is no such thing as a benign violation.
Maybe I'm being unclear, so I'll tie it back in: 100% surveilance as refered to in the comic IS A GOOD THING when tied to 100% enforecemnt because violations of these invalid laws will be caught and prosecuted and THEN the judicial mechanism can identify them and correct them. The implications in all of this is it's a "benign" violation so it should go unremarked and that is the issue that perpetuates the problem of invalid laws and selective enforcement.
They are still there because they are not enforced, thay are not put through the judicial mechanism. And because of that we all break them every day, and because of THAT we can all be hit be selective enforcement. THIS is precicely what I'm talking about when I say simply ignoring the laws does not fix it.
I know of no state that has a zero-tolerance drinking-and-driving law; there is a legal limit after which it is recognized that you are impaired and a danger. The crime isn't drinking-and-driving, it's driving-while-intoxicated.
Just because you don't care enough to report a crime doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed.
Statutory rape is about coersion, and the 'exceptions' you mention merely recognize that there was no coersion, and thus no crime.
The $1 mark is another legal limit thing, presumably recognizing that something worth less than $1 is not a dangerous influence.
Stalking is defined as a repeated or prolonged behavior; walking down the street behind someone is not stalking.
You're trying to find exceptions when all you're doing is emphasising how precise and reasonable laws are.
Civil disobedience is what I've been talking about the whole time, but it only works in concert with a functioning judicial mechanism. Civil disobedience that goes unprosecuted is *simply* disregarding the law. Once prosecuted, the invalidity of the law is identified and can be remedied. This is why 100% surveilance is a good thing and there's no such thing as a "benign" violation in the sense of "should not be prosecuted."
As to your other question... "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them..."
YOU get it! These other guys are saying surveilance is bad because "benign" violations will be caught and prosecuted, but YOU get it - violating an invalid law leads to prosecution that demonstrates the invalidity and rectifies the problem!