I’m not sure, but I think Americans believe more fervently in the saving grace of the almighty Law than the British. I occasionally reel off dozens of fantastically repressive UK laws (including the one that forbids gatherings that include “the emission of a succession of repetitive beats”) to looks of perfect horror here. Then I end it all by saying “Of course, no one pays any attention! Ahahaha!”, and watch everybody fall off their seats. In the US, there’s a background buzz that nothing keeps your neighbour in check but the letter of the law and the iron force of the Constitution. Gotta keep the rule of law, or society will collapse in a hail of gunfire, trespassing, double-parking and moider. There’s no pity for those who break the law. In Britain it’s much more “Okay do what you want – but try not to get caught, alright?”
I’ve grown far more sympathetic to the American line over time, but I’ve never seen anyone state the alternative position quite as elegantly D2 Digest. Bit too elegantly, in fact. If you read his work – including the entry on why Lessig is too damn sincere, and why drug laws don’t work, and why we should keep them – you could conclude that they’re the careful posings of a Economista Angry Young Arse. Not surprising – if you’re going to insist that bad laws can have good effects (or Antinomialism, as he calls it), it always helps to be nice young Oxonian who can probably talk your way out of a tight corner with a Christchurch-educated judge when the need arises. But at least he’s not a libertarian Angry Young Arse, right?