Stupid Laws

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I know how it works. You're handwaving around the issue. Whether the big group of people tells the small group directly or funnels their wishes through some sort of committee is not really important. Why does *anyone*, big group or individual, have any right to impose upon others? What magical pixie dust differentiates a group of voters from a mob with pitchforks and torches?

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreement. The power comes from getting the masses to believe it exists. You gradually structure a situation where they punish each other for doing a certain thing, and then you control that thing.

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

not wearing a seat belt is also pretty stupid.

[ QUOTE ]
I know how it works. You're handwaving around the issue. Whether the big group of people tells the small group directly or funnels their wishes through some sort of committee is not really important. Why does *anyone*, big group or individual, have any right to impose upon others? What magical pixie dust differentiates a group of voters from a mob with pitchforks and torches?

[/ QUOTE ]

The weilder of the pitchforks and torches [or military and police, in the relevant case]. The fact that government can enforce their decisions through coercion makes them the powerful force. The fact that the decisions of the government are, at least theoretically, governed by the will of the people provides them with legitimacy. The fact that they have legitimacy makes it unnecessary for them to use their force en masse... much.

Most of the people in this forum seem to be advocating anarchy. Good luck with that. I guess we'll see whether Reasseau or Hobbes was right.

--

On another note, I think that the most reasonable argument for 'paternal' laws is that they're avoiding mass-devastation. The human race is compulsive, weak, and self-destructive. Especially considering the way in which our consumer economy has evolved, it would be extraordinarily dangerous to allow people, en masse, to consume whatever self-destructive products they desire. Alcohol is bad enough, but is relatively limited in its detriment to users and its addictive properties. If heroine, NMDA, Cocaine, etc. were broadly marketed and available in stores, I can only imagine the droves of addicts.

This would have devastating effects for the economy, and potentially the so-called 'moral fabric' of society. Most people are interconnected in one way or another, and to let a large portion of the population disintegrate into rampant drug use because you'd like to 'do whatever you want' is irresponsible and probably ultimately self-defeating.

I agree that seatbelt and other similar laws are unreasonable violations of personal freedom. That said, I wonder if an exception should be made for single parents. If a parent is the sole provider of a child, the government may have to provide care for the child in the event of the parent's death. Thus, it does not seem necessarily unreasonable to me to require such people to wear seatbelts, as minimizing their chance of death would minimize the cost to taxpayers.

Now, I do find it ridiculous that taxpayers ever have to foot the bill for orphaned children, but assuming that that is never going to change, it seems like single parents have a bigger obligation to minimize their chances of dying than people with no dependents.

But other than this possible exception, I do think seat belt laws are ludicrous.

The problem with this dogr - is you can take any single action and rightly link it to an impact on other people, since nobody lives in a vacuum. Getting a bad haircut, masturbation, consuming fast food etc. And I'm not suggesting these links aren't real. But if we legislate based on secondary, tertiary etc consequence, we have reasonable grounds to outlaw anything we find distasteful, anything that has political utility to a particular legislator, anything at all, and this is happening. We have to draw the line at 'direct' consequences.

Marko: I just fundamentally disagree with you. I'm not convinced your assessment on the impact of legalising drugs is anything close to correct, but even if it is, so be it, civil liberties are infinitely more important to me. That's the consequence of having a government that treats it's citizens as adults, these issues should not be the domain of legislative bodies. Many people are stupid, or make bad choices, on issues that only harm themselves, or only 'maybe possibly' harm others through a complex series of degrees of seperation. Not hindering that process is the essence of of a free society.

I agree 100%. #2 and #3 irritate me to no end. Usually they are ineffective as well as patronizing (see gun control, "war on drugs," etc.).

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
If I get into an accident with a guy and I'm at fault, I might have to pay his medical bills. I'd be upset if I realized I was paying ten to fifty times more than necessary because he didn't take the two seconds to put his seatbelt on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a better solution to that problem than imposing a fine for not using a seat belt would be to make the other driver pay some percentage of medical bills if he wasn't using a seat belt.

Somehow I find the increased risk of death or serious injury should I have an accident a much stronger incentive to use a seatbelt than the $50 or $100 fine I will have to pay if the cops catch me without it.

[DrButch]

"Parental" laws are important because a large body of people do not have the knowledge, experience, or research to appropriately conclude that specific behaviors may not only harm themselves but others as well.

Seat belt laws and helmet laws save people huge amounts of money in reduced unpaid hospital bills and reduced utilization of medical facilities.

It's one thing to say "dumb people who don't use helmets deserve what they get". If that were the only reason to have helmet laws, then it essentially is a limitation of a person's rights. However it's another thing to say that *I* have to pay for their stupidity. Suddenly it becomes a societal issue and the laws deserve to be on the books.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

"Parental" laws are important because a large body of people do not have the knowledge, experience, or research to appropriately conclude that specific behaviors may not only harm themselves but others as well.


This post is so offensive I have to go somewhere and vomit.

[Sifmole]

[ QUOTE ]
Now, I do find it ridiculous that taxpayers ever have to foot the bill for orphaned children,

[/ QUOTE ]

Should we just burn the orphaned children like firewood then?

Sorry kids your parents, and only known living relatives, died in a horrible accident. There is apparently about $35 in a savings account to hold you over. Here's a 50 cent cardboard box, it should hold all three of you -- I mean how big is a 4 year old?