[David Armstrong]

Oh, come now. The Colonies had a history of disobedience, especially about taxes. But it was the Currency Act in 1764 that really set tempers flaring.[2] The next 12 years saw increasing numbers of protests and skirmishes with British rule. In those years men quietly organized and discussed what measures could be taken. Only after years of suffering did they finally say "enough!" in 1776.

But they did not, AFAIK, ever pretend to be following the rules. Their disobediance was quite forthright and open, as is appropriate for civil disobedience. "Protests and skirmishes" are far from "let's pretend we are doing what we promised to do but sneak around and hope nobody finds out we are really not doing what we agreed we would do."

David, you need a two hour listening session with my mother who lived through the Great Depression.

I listen to my mother and father, who lived through the Great Depression. What they said was the most important thing going at that time was a man's word, and that if you couldn't be trusted you were for all intents and purposes a social outcast.

Some were simply bigots who would not hire a Jew - or a German or an Irishman or "one of them eye-talians".

My people were the Irish.

Appealing to "the greater moral good" or purpose only works for those with similar morals.

Agreed, which is why I say the "greater moral good" concept is unworkable and prefer the concept of necessity as mentioned earlier. Your greater moral good may be my moral outrage. Thus the need for honesty and trust. I think one could make a pretty good argument that arguing a moral position to rationalize breaking the rules but then hiding the fact that one is breaking the rules is also rank cowardice, but that is probably a different thread.

But certain jobs pose a risk of injury or death by others not controlled by the business and if the employer cannot mitigate those risks, he must allow the employee to provide for his own safety when necessary.

So, when a business declares "no firearms" as part of their overall risk mitigation strategy, isn't it incumbent upon each employee to follow those rules? If the employee vountarily chooses to work for that company, the employee has an obligation to follow the rules he has agreed to follow by accepting the job. Anything else is dishonest, no matter how one tries to rationalize it.