Sorry for my assumption that you prance. Quite prepared to accept that you don't........
I once lived in Germany and was astounded by the way people would line up on the side of an empty road waiting for the green man light to appear. Jaywalking is probably wrong, possibly against the law, but give me London's anarchy any day. I don't set out to inconvenience others, I certainly don't aim to pick up fines, but at the same time over-policing especially through an increase in cameras seems set to provide us with a more cowed and less tolerant society.
Oh-uh, don't mean to offend Germans either. Hummel hummel.
I am with the law breakers - it is a naive position to assume that all laws are equally worth obeying.
I want the police to prosecute burglers and muggers, but a judicious blind eye when I cycle West on the road on Union Street (instead of the ridiculous cycle lane/pavement) is also what I would desire.
That's the crux of it. If there's a law that we don't agree with, then should we obey it (because society makes laws and we live in it), or should we all live out our personal interpretation of laws/only follow laws that we think are acceptable.
This is where I hoped we'd get to.
There's got to be sense in questioning laws and their validity. There are probably loads of laws that a majority would agree are wrong in some way. But should we try and change them through the existing mechanism (democracy), or should we opt out of that and each live our own modified anarchy (term used loosely. Dropping litter unlikely to rock foundations of civilisation)?
And if we do opt for personal "anarchy", then do we have any cause for complaint if we get nicked and have to pay the penalty?