BertDawg says:

Noted – that this supposedly transpired in the UK. It does, however, provide an excellent segue back to the point I was trying to make in the Paris Hilton post – about the relationship between laws and personal responsibility.

Setting aside specific merit considerations for the moment, and regarding only the very basic nature of laws and rules, there seems to be no escaping the conclusion that LAWS ARE THE ANTITHESIS OF FREEDOM (PLEEEAASE!!! – stay with me here), but it’s worse than that.

To the average citizen, each law has two consistent net effects: a) less freedom, and b) less money.

LESS FREEDOM: In the sense that a law, basically, defines that which we are required to do, or that which we are prohibited from doing, each law (to those who are paying attention and are capable of seeing it) also defines that little bit of freedom which we no longer have.

LESS MONEY: To make matters worse, we, as taxpayers, pay for the conception, creation, enactment, implementation, enforcement, and correction in the case of non-compliance. TAKE THE TIME TO CONSIDER each of these stages separately, and it becomes easier to see how much laws cost us. We pay dearly. We virtually
hemorrhage money into the process. (Another little morsel of food for thought – there IS one segment of our society which actually benefits from the erosion of our freedoms and the siphoning off of our money: the attorneys. To them it is like an exclusive toybox. That, however, is a separate, and pernicious, issue.)

One wonders how the founding fathers would react to the metamorphosis that has taken place in America, from the nation they envisioned to the nation we have today. It’s hard to imagine that they would be pleased.

ALL THIS IS NOT TO SUGGEST EVEN FOR AN INSTANT that we could exist satisfactorily without ANY laws – such a suggestion would be ridiculous. However, if one is able to grasp the concept that every law represents another little bite out of our personal liberties, and one considers that we have (at the local, city, county, state and federal levels) organizations and facilities – FACTORIES, if you will, HUNDREDS OF THEM – engaged in the production of NOTHING BUT laws, one begins to think about how many freedoms we have lost. Many of these bodies have been at it for over 200 years. When I think of the freedoms we have lost in just MY lifetime, it’s alarming. Unfortunately, however, it seems certain that the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens, as long as they have food, clothing,
shelter and TV to anesthetize themselves with, will remain oblivious to the situation. Media could bring about change, but probably won’t. It’s a matter of financial self-interest.

How encouraging it would be, if one day we were to wake up to a new conciousness in these United States of America – that we have entirely too many laws, and that our country is inexorably becoming less and less of, by and for the people. We need a moratorium on new legislation, followed by a study to determine WHAT LAWS WE ACTUALLY NEED in order to be the republic we were supposed to be, and a sweeping repeal of the volumes and volumes of legislation that we don’t actually need or want. AN ABSOLUTE BAN ON LOBBYISTS AND POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES IS ESSENTIAL, because what we have today is a BRIBE-OCRACY. For the laws which we determine to be crucial, I would suggest things like SOME of the Ten Commandments (ONLY the ones we agree on, like THOU SHALT NOT KILL, and THOU SHALT NOT STEAL) and some version of the Golden Rule. You know – IMPORTANT LAWS, but with VERY SHARP TEETH (more on this below).

We should be very thoughtful of what we allow our representatives to pass into law. Making something illegal because somebody COULD get hurt or killed takes away our freedoms and negates the concept of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Then, when we’re back to an easily understood legal code, we need to activate the legislative branch (and perhaps many of the lesser rule-making bodies, as well) only on an as-needed basis. And while we’re at it, perhaps we should consider
banning lawyers in any legislative position. All they really contribute is deliberate obfuscation in order to make themselves necessary as guides, at great expense to us. The exclusive toybox I mentioned earlier.

MORE ON SHARP TEETH, as promised: For example, let’s go back to the thread in the Paris Hilton post – DUI. DUI is a very serious problem. And yet, we know from experience that Prohibition doesn’t work. People will drink. So – what to do?? How about this. You can drink. You can drive. You can even drink AND drive, but if you do so, and you hurt or kill someone else while doing so, and after due process you are found guilty of it, YOU GET THE DEATH PENALTY!
No appeal. No second chance. YOU’RE OUTTA THERE! How long do you think it would be before DUI fatalities became of thing of the past?

This concept accomplishes several objectives: it PRESERVES OUR FREEDOMS, it honors the principle of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, it relieves society of the obligation to house, feed and care for problem drinkers, and it rids society of ACTUAL problem drinkers one at a time, and POTENTIAL problem drinkers by the thousands. Problem solved, and society is much better off for it. IMHO.

The VERY SHARP TEETH part of our new and improved legal code would have to be commensurate with the degree of harm caused by the transgression.

So what we would have after all is said and done, is a society where we have a LOT more freedom, a system EVERYBODY can understand, and everybody is responsible for their own actions, and motivated to play well with others, AND have more money in their pockets..

That surely sounds naive, no doubt, but wouldn’t it be great?

ardluais says:

After 200-plus years of nearly nonstop lawmaking, perhaps we’re regulated well enough. How about for every new law passed, another one has to be taken off the books.

BertDawg says:

[Double post. – ed.]