Posted on 11/11/2012 5:29:55 PM PST by Renfield
>>No.
>
>I understand why.
Then by all means, please elaborate.
Is there a way to unequivocally prove that? Does Illinois, for instance, have more laws than New York, Florida and Massachusetts?
No person could ever possibly meet your expectations of perfection.
No thanks, Rand!
Heh -- That might be worth something if I was looking for perfection, I'm not.
No stealing, assault, murdering, rape, nor treason?
Fraud is stealing (you aren't getting what you pay for). Abortion is Murder.
Even with just a few laws you will still have lawbreakers, but the rules will be easier to understand and harder to circumvent.
Do you honestly think the presence of a few paragraphs in a book somewhere will stop anyone from doing anything they are determined to do?
Only moral people or people who fear losing something or people who just have no desire to break them will obey them, anyway.
But ours isn't a situation where the only choices are literally millions of overlapping and often conflicting laws and regulations, versus no laws at all.
Those powers not granted specifically to the Federal Government were reserved to the States and the people.
There is a broad middle ground which can be far less invasive and overbearing than the mess we have now, more responsive to the needs of an area, and requires far fewer extra-Constitutional Federal agencies and officers to enforce.
Let the Federal agencies return to the task of 'guarding the guards' and guarding the borders, rather than be the primary enforcers of those state laws, and be the bastion against corruption rather than the source of it.
I'm all for it. There is no practical way to deport 12 million people and anyone that thinks it can be done is delusional.
The GOP had a chance to do something about this issue and did not.
It does not matter either way, GOP voters will continue to bicker over single issues while the only issue that really matters at this point is the deficit and the debt. If that does not get solved - if it can be at this point - no other side issue or concern has a chance.
You better get your priorities straight.
No one in their right mind gives a s**t what he thinks.
Have you noticed that you are not winning that debate. I agree with you. But if you can't save all of them, do you think you might consider saving some of the unborn. Have you noticed who will be appointing the next Supreme Court justices?
You are correct. The GOP establishment will pounce on him. As Rand said, "The Dems want to cut nothing and the GOP wants to cut next to nothing. Neither party comprehends the magnitude of the problem."
On a side note, what exactly does it mean when the Federal government spend $360 billion more in October than it took received in October?
Don’t listen to me tonight. I’m in a real crappy mood and just spouting off.
I did. You failed to address the question. " Do you honestly believe that murder, rape, robbery, etc., rates would diminish if there weren't laws against them"?
I also said simply, that no law will stop the determined.
Do you think that people will instantly go on homicidal looting and pillaging sprees without the law?
Do you think another law will cause criminals to stop suddenly and give up their life of crime?
Get it through your head that criminals don't care what the law is. That is why they are criminals--at least the rape, murder, and stealing lot.
There are also "criminals" who, as I said, filled in a low spot in their yard (Failed to file an EIS and damaged an intermittent wetland without a permit), or violated some other arcane regulation, regulations which are being promulgated or amended at the rate of hundreds of pages daily in the Federal Register. Light toilet reading? I don't have the time, nor do most people to keep up with the changing rules. That's too many, when the basic crimes against person and property really haven't changed.
But hey, if you like BIG Government, that's up to you. As for me, give me Liberty.
You still failed to address the question. Another one for you; Are you an anarchist?
I believe the specific duties and powers of the Federal Government were laid out in the Constitution and restricted by the Bill of Rights.
What was not delegated to the Federal Government belongs to the States and the People.
Most of what our (Federal) government is doing is well outside the scope of original intent, even allowing for technological changes.
Restoring those boundaries and reigning in the Federal Government would go a long way toward eliminating Federal deficits and reducing Federal debt, and would encourage the states to be fiscally responsible as well because they would have to take up the slack.
Fine. You still failed to address the question I posed earlier. Without laws and penalties for breaking them, you have anarchy.
Why do you believe people decided we needed zoning laws, littering laws, vehicle laws, hunting and fishing laws, etc.?
Laws will only constrain those willing to abide by them. Too many laws and there is no way for even those most inclined to abide by all of them. That paves the way for tyranny.
Who determines what is basic? " Do you honestly believe that murder, rape, robbery, etc., rates would diminish if there weren't laws against them"?
Those are almost all State and local ordinances, not something imposed on the entire population from afar.
If people don't like them they can vote out the SOBs who wrote them and have the laws, etc. removed.
Fat chance with doing that from any election district against a Federal Law.
Why do you think people are fighting Agenda 21--as if we need the UN to tell us what we can do with our back yards.
Zoning laws at best provide for reasonable planning (things like keeping the school from having a chemical plant next door),--at worst decide who can and cannot develop their property to their advantage, but when adjacent property is developed, taxation can be used (with reassessment) to force a sale of that same property to cronies of those on the zoning board, and then the property (after the forced sale) gets the OK to be developed and everyone but the original owner (who wanted to develop in the first place) cashes in. It can work either way, and I have seen both.
Littering laws are a means by which to punish the messy. How often are they enforced, really, except as a petulant imposition by a ticked off police officer who has little or nothing else to charge someone with? No I'm not for littering, just being realistic.
Vehicle laws? Which ones? The ones which say you can't drive a car without a catalytic converter on it if made after 1975 in the middle of nowhere in North Dakota? Or the ones which rationally attempt to limit the speeds at which drivers drive in certain areas where you might get run over if you try to go that slow? Right of way laws (make sense, pity so many don't understand them or ignore them). Licensing laws? (revenue)...Liability Insurance laws? only those with something to lose need apply. They also pick up the tab for 'uninsured motorist' coverage, the laws are so effective.
Hunting and fishing laws: often actually requested by conservationists and hunters to manage game populations. Make sense, but only rarely if enacted by the Federal Government (to limit invasive species)--keep them at the State level.
But again, the laws which make the most sense aren't the one-size-fits-all Federal edicts which can't rationally cover the wide scope of geographic and cultural environs in the US, except for the basics. Leave the details up to the individual States or more local jurisdictions, as the Founders intended.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.