I think, as a general principle, this is dead wrong. One could think an injustice so egregious that righting it needs to be pursued both within and outside the system, for instance.
The system is utterly worthless if you don't believe it can correct egregious errors. It's the mundane errors (parking tickets, etc.) which aren't so important, not the other way around.
So, a system that corrects 99.9% of egregious errors, while alternatives correct 20%, is utterly worthless?
If your 20% system of government prevents all such egregious acts, then it's more effective than your 99.9% government.
People do, so obviously you can.
You may believe you shouldn't, but you haven't really presented a coherent argument as to why that is the case.
So to believe in a system of government, you must therefore accept that this system of government is the most effective way by which to manage a group of people. If you believe this, then you necessarily must believe that to break the rules of this system of government is to introduce a less effective means by which to govern a group of people. It's simply the inverse of the belief.
If you believe the US government is an effective method of governing a body of people, then you must believe that to move outside of the system is to be less effective at governing a body of people. In its strictest sense, this means that you believe in every law and every process by which these laws came into being. In a more realistic sense, you understand that a body of people will want different things amongst different internal groups, and a government's job is to balance those wants and needs against one another.
Edward Snowden broke the rules of the system of government. If you believe the US government is effective, then (because of the argument outlined above) you believe he has introduced inefficiency, and is making the governing of the people of the US more difficult.
So when you say "people do [believe in a system of government and also act outside of it ]" you are incorrect. The act of moving outside of the system demonstrates, as outlined above, a lack of belief in the system of government which is being acted outside of.
Anyone who breaks laws as a means of enacting change does not believe in the incarnation of the system of government for which they're attempting to change. Martin Luthor King Jr. Oskar Schindler. Timothy Mcveigh. Osama bin Laden. Every one of them attempted to enact change by working outside of the system in which they were attempting to change.
It should be an indication to you that you find such an idea to be negative in the first place when Snowden is brought up. Why exactly do you think it's so negative that I say he doesn't believe in the US system of government? Perhaps because what he's specifically done in terms of actual policy change could have been accomplished without breaking any laws?
A secondary problem is that you conflate belief that a system is "an effective means" (your first paragraph) with the belief that it is "the most effective means" (your second paragraph). These are obviously very different beliefs.
> It should be an indication to you that you find such an idea to be negative in the first place when Snowden is brought up. Why exactly do you think it's so negative that I say he doesn't believe in the US system of government?
I never said I found it to be negative. Saying that I think the logic of your argument is invalid is not saying I believe the statement it was offered to support is negative.
Why?
> These are obviously very different beliefs.
Then make them both "the most effective means", if that makes it easier to understand.
> Saying that I think the logic of your argument is invalid is not saying I believe the statement it was offered to support is negative.
That's not what you're saying, however.
Because belief isn't all-or-nothing.
> That's not what you're saying, however.
Yes, it is exactly what I'm saying.
Why not?
> Yes, it is exactly what I'm saying.
Here, let me save us a few rounds:
No it's not.
Yes it is.
No it's not.
Yes it is.
No it's not.
Now how about you rephrase what you wrote so we can move forward?
> Why not?
There a point that can be reached in a discussion where you realize that (assuming the other participant is honest, without which there are other insurmountable problems) you just don't have the requisite common understanding of reality to have a fruitful discussion.
The point at which you question the idea that belief, in general, isn't necessarily absolute is that point, for me, in this discussion.
I agree. It is at this point when I cannot continue a discussion. Have a good day.
Meanwhile, we might all do well to read and reflect on http://lesswrong.com/lw/kg/expecting_short_inferential_dista...
A part of it that this comment misses, though, is that there's a difference between "system as described by the text of laws" and "system as it is run on actual humans." It is entirely possible that the optimum system as run on actual humans is produced by a set of laws that doesn't match it exactly. One can still "believe in" that system of laws, in that one believes that it is the system of laws that should be implemented because it produces optimal results, while still understanding that actual human behavior will differ sometimes and that that won't always be a bad thing.
Edited to add:
On reflection, I think you may be confusing morality and legality. It is true that you cannot derive morality without some starting point. However, once you have picked what you value, it does not follow that legality should match it precisely. Legality should be such that it optimally produces the most moral (and best by any other criteria, ideally) outcomes.