Regarding Christopher Lucero’s letter (Jan. 21), I seldom do things “unwittingly.” I usually do them “deliberately,” and my letter of Jan. 11 falls into that category.
I knew exactly what I was saying and I knew exactly what I was promoting. There is no regulation, rule, or law, that is universal, to be enforced always and everywhere regardless of the circumstances, as they are based on temporal morals and values (that is, they change with the times), which are situational and subjective — nothing is “set in stone.” That is one of the reasons we “pardon” people.
Some laws should rightfully be bent and some should rightfully be broken, depending on the circumstances at that moment. To live otherwise would be dangerously constraining, placing yourself at a considerable disadvantage when facing life’s nastier challenges. What good is it to be in the “right” when you’re dead?
To what end do I promote momentary lawlessness? As a demonstration, that we need not blindly “kiss the ring” or “bend the knee” to imperfect, man-made institutions, that and the notion that being “dubbed” a criminal is not necessarily a bad thing.
As for the Age of Enlightenment, the question to ask is how and why it came to an end. It was because people like Mr. Lucero took “sophistication” and “rational thought” to a nauseatingly condescending extreme — beyond the reasonable tolerances of human nature, and that is when people reject and rebel.
But you’re in the “right,” and that’s all that counts.
Arthur Saginian
Santa Clarita
