[eno_]

Or perhaps more aptly, selling corn with an unsigned implied contract, backed by a draconian law, forbidding the buyer to use it to plant corn, which is then ignored.

Surely that is just thumbing one's nose at both an assinine contract and an asinine law. And surely one can do that without it leading to widespread lawlessness.

[Tribune7]

Surely that is just thumbing one's nose at both an assinine contract and an asinine law. And surely one can do that without it leading to widespread lawlessness.

Exactly. If one has something -- food, clothes, money -- and it is taken without his consent or due process, it is theft. It always was wrong and always will be wrong regardless of what the law says.

On the other hand, if one has something and one wants to give to someone else it is only "theft" if the law defines it as such. Once the law is changed nobody can call it "theft."

And if the law is unenforceble or fails to make sense to the average person, it is not going to be obeyed anyway.