If an individual believes that it's OK to break a law for personal reasons, does moral consistency require that he should be accepting of other people's law-breaking?
For example, is it morally inconsistent for a thief (who believes his crimes are justified in some way) to criticize a murderer?
What about if I said it was OK for me to routinely run a red-light on my bicycle (knowing that this is illegal in my city). Would it be inconsistent if I were to criticize a truck-driver who also ignores red-lights?
I could argue that a thief is less harmful than a murderer. A cyclist is less likely to cause injury than a speeding truck. This seems all very plausible, however I've allowed myself to become a judge of what laws can be followed and what can be ignored.
Would a morally consistent position require me to give the truck-driver and the murderer the same right to judge his own actions? Or in other words - how can I permit myself a low-level of law-breaking but but continue to argue that people should respect "big" laws like not murdering people or not driving trucks recklessly?