Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: 45Auto
You make a good argument for anarchy. I will bet that there is not a single law on the books that someone has not violated at one time or the other. I would futher venture that there are people who every day violate some law of which they are entirely unaware. I probably violate speed limits every day.

Evidently you missed the point of my rant. Anarchy is the absence of law, and leads to the rule of the strong, so I was definitely not advocating Anarchy - I was asking how we decide what should be in law.

One of the great advances of Western Civilization was the concept of the "rule of law" as opposed to the "whim of the King". Laws are written down so people can understand them and not violate them -- that tends to promote cooperation, which builds wealth enjoyed by all.

One of the great setbacks of Western Civilization was the invention of the "regulation". Given the 40,000 pages of IRS Regulations, the 1,000,000 or so pages of regulations by Federal OSHA, EPA, ... etc. as well as similar duplicative regulations by the States ... and similar duplicative regulations by the Cities (e.g., building codes) ... I would not be surprised if every one of us violated multiple laws every day. So I agree with that part of your assessment.

As Ayn Rand noted, honest men cannot be ruled. So passing a million laws enables the honest men to be ensnared and thus ruled.

And the results can create absolute disasters. How many people died at Waco because it was suspected that Koresh didn't pay a $200 tax? And how many people at the Murrah building died because no one was punished for those deeds? A woman and her child died at Ruby Ridge because it was asserted that her husband, at the insistance of a BATF agent, cut off the barrel of a shotgun 1/16 of an inch too short. Vin's "Send in the Waco Killers" is full of this kind of insanity. The rule of law is one thing --- the rule of 10,000,000 laws is quite another - a sane person couldn't even read them all before he died.

If you are going to have a government, you should ask, "How do I decide which immoral things I am willing to use force to prevent?"

Libertarians generally conclude, "Only when others are using force or fraud against another".

Moslems conclude: "Everything that is not allowed in the Koran is forbidden", with death penalties, lashings, and amputations to show they are serious.

The founders of our Republic appear to have concluded: "Only give the Federal Government limited powers, but the States and Localities can pass any laws they want to", including the Stocks for adultery, and death for sodomy.

It is a serious question, and I hope it is not too hard a question for the populace at large to consider. In general, people get the kind of government they deserve.

On the positive side, I am encouraged that, after the Supreme Court said it was OK for a State or City to take someone's property for any potential public benefit ... enough people sent enough nastygrams to enough politicians that Laws are being passed to prevent cities from doing this.

42 posted on 08/04/2005 4:41:06 PM PDT by Mack the knife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]


To: Mack the knife
Your rants were pretty good, however...

And how many people at the Murrah building died because no one was punished for those deeds?

This justification doesn't cut it.

The moral fabric of a society needs to built into the hearts of the citizens, which allows for the government governing them to stay out of the morality business. Many people believe the way to reverse moral decay is more laws, more external force to make people behave better. The federal government was never constitutionally given power over society's morality, but through our courts it has grabbed up a lot of power in that area, which is how we've gotten into much of the fix we're in. Misuse of the tenth & fourteenth amendments has done harm to our society & using it further, in the attempt to reverse that destruction is not the answer, the magic bullet which will make all right again.

This incest case should have been sent back, left to the state. If any state wants to allow marriage between a brother & sister, so be it.

59 posted on 08/05/2005 10:33:26 AM PDT by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson