I had a piece in yesterday’s Sunday Age on dobbing, a big, big issue facing Australia today. Reliably, the gang at Larvartus Prodeo piles on.

Andrew Norton comments here. I don’t think our positions are significantly different. Andrew argues that the appropriate judge between what is legitimate and illegitimate dobbing is the extent to which the infraction harms the broader community. Drug use and jaywalking are therefore exempt from dobbing, but water cheating is not.

My argument is that our reaction to dobbing is largely defined by the extent to which we consider a law legitimate. As I write in the article:

Dobbing in a thief is unobjectionable. But dobbing in a water cheat or a slightly faster driver seems un-Australian or anti-social. This perhaps makes sense: these latter laws are not as well accepted by the individuals and the community.

It’s easy to sympathise with a home owner who waters on the wrong day, or splashes water on the roof of their car to give it a quick rinse. If we dob them in, it seems as if they’re being punished for a crime they didn’t really commit.

Laws against excessive water use may very well be legitimate. Our government may very well know is better for us, and be pursuing the most appropriate policy. But the public reaction to individuals being dobbed in over excess water use seems to demonstrate a certain skepticism about the legitimacy of that policy. This may very well change, as the law gains greater acceptance.

Also, curse my lack of internet at home.