Every day, people go faster than the speed limit. They download music illegally. They get high. They lie to the government, e.g. cheating on taxes. Underage teens surf porn sites. Others drink alcohol underage. They download full software illegally. They all break the law of their country. Every single day many of these, if not most, are very common. You might have done one of them today. But why?

Laws are based on practicality, while they appeal to principles. This does not mean that a law is necessarily good, or even that the principle they appeal to is morally sound. It simply means that a law is meant to be reasonable, serve a purpose, and helps society. For example, the speed limit is a restriction appealing to the damage known to be likely if a collision is made, and this not simply on how many people can handle the high speeds. The purpose is to minimize damage, and effectively reduces the extent of damage in collisions (whether with cars, deer, ditches, or others).

Because the law is not in itself a principle, nor moral in itself, should we obey it? Yes. Does that mean that one should never go above the speed limit? That is exactly what I mean. It is wrong. Why? Because it is breaking the established law. "But that doesn't sound like a sufficient reason," many will say. Yes, it may seem the case that going 26 mph in residential areas is rather silly to be considered wrong. But let us not get distracted from what the law is.

First of all, the law is supposed to be reasonable. Therefore, anyone should be able to obey it. It is not outside of your ability to go under or equal to the speed limit. Secondly, the law serves a practical purpose in that it should have an obvious or implied reason that people will understand readily. Higher speeds are more dangerous, and we are restricting potentiality by limiting speeds on roads. Any law that does not have a practical, understandable reason behind it is therefore impractical and defeats the first purpose -- though not necessarily subjectively defined. Further, a law is meant to help society. People get hurt, things are destroyed, claims are filed -- all of which are parts of societal regression.

"I see, but that still doesn't make something necessarily wrong if I break the law." Actually, yes it does. Remember that laws are set up and are for society. It may be obvious that laws are beneficial to society, so it can be obvious that you are willingly setting aside your own benefit when you break a law. But it doesn't end there, for it applies to others benefit and it is set up by the society. People in a country agree on what conduct is acceptable, and what is not. They agree on the principles, or at least their application, such that they can live peaceably together. These agreements of conduct -- and some other criteria, such as location and duration of dwelling, etc. -- are what qualifies one to be a member in that society.

But a society is not just an informal or remote concept, because it is composed of the people who interact. The people within this construct of society have a social contract with each of its members. Each member recieves benefits from the society. The members have access to trade and goods, have standardized living conditions, are protected from those who harm, and are socialized into moral, responsible persons within the context of the culture. The society gives them security and unity. The society keeps the population consistent and prevents unreasonable deviation.

The members within a society recieve each of these benefits, and their membership is largely defined by them. Indeed, it is because of these benefits that members are also defined by their allegience to abide by the laws. The members agree not to murder each other, and therefore expect others not to murder them. They agree to not steal, and therefore expect others not to steal from them. This reciprocity is necessary, for without reciprocity laws are worthless -- the principle to which they appeal may stand firm, but the law is hollow because there is no mutual agreement.

Therefore we see that any member who refuses to obey the agreed laws has therefore defied, rather ungratefully, the very laws that have protected him and his peers have obeyed. Any such member has breeched his social contract. The society deals with the offending member according to the severity of the breech. If significantly destructive, the individual may lose his membership entirely. Such a result may follow with exile or death, for he is without any of the benefits of the society -- such as protection, socialization, and others. However, a society may restore an individual into right-standing, and the people within that construct may resume imparting their benefits.

Given such a case, a law is therefore within a member's ability, but also it is his duty to obey them. But why would it be wrong if I went 71 mph on a road with a speed limit of 70? It is wrong simply on the basis of respect and honesty, responsibility and duty, reciprocity and unity, reliability and integrity. These concepts are matters of virtue, they are not the laws but rather the principles to which the laws appeal. Therefore, anyone who willingly exceeds the speed limit has knowingly been irresponsible by bringing division and has not reciprocated the protection -- not only to some minute degree, but simply has.

Now, what if I break the law and am not caught? I am still dropping my end of the contract, only within my own integrity and honesty. Does this make the law nullified? By no means: it ultimately means that I am a law breaker who is without society chastising me for my ungrateful disdain. My lawless behaviour may not be felt by the society, but the psychological consistency has been compromised.

However, what if a law is impractical, or what if it appeals to an immoral (or defective) principle? Change the law. Do not break it until the other members agree with you, that breeds division and rebellion among the people, not the destruction of the law. Therefore, nullify the law before it is broken such that you maintain your allegiance and respect to the society. It is the duty of a free, responsible member of society.

Romans 13:
[1] Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
[2] Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
[3] For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.