Wouldn't America be better off if we were more careful about the laws we enact?

Question

From both sides of the aisle. If the act doesn't hurt anybody else why make a law against it? Im a conservative and that would include gay marriage. And if I don't want to wear a helmet when I ride that should be up to me etc. There are way to many laws that interfere with personal choice. And neither liberal nor conservative is free from guilt on this. What do you think?

Stiggo629-Does that mean we should be required to wear a bubblepack suit? I know that it might sound appealing to you but I just as soon not. Give me my freedom back.

Answer 1

Why is it that the safety laws are always the ones brought up when discussing overregulation? The state has a legitimate interest in protecting the health and well being of the citizens. For your information, if you are killed or seriously injured due to inaction which could have been prevented, you are not the only one hurt. Your family, if you have one, suffers. Your job, if you have one, suffers. Those relying on the performance of your job suffer. Those relying on your activity in the economy suffer. If you're hurt, and are not insured, the government will have to pay for your care. So, you see, it isn't all about you. Due to the potential negative impact, the state has the right to require you to take reasonable steps to protect yourself from death and injury. So buckle up and/or put on your helmet.

You're right about gay marriage, though.

Answer 2

There was a great science-fiction story I read some years ago (no, I cannot recall the name of the story, unfortunately) that featured a society in which any 3 citizens could form a committee and enact a law. Of course, another 3 citizens could meet to repeal that law.

The end result was this: only the *best* laws that made the most sense actually remained as laws. The stupid laws were always repealed.

Answer 3

First Law would have to be more freedom of the States laws and they would have to make all the lifestyle laws, so that Americans can relocated to states that support their personal issues and lifestyles and still feel like the belong to a country or state that has proper moral values.
Only the most basic human rights should be mandated by the Feds.

So I would guess that in California you could be gay, if you wear a helmet. And it New York only Gays can wear a helmet. J/K

Answer 4

Yeah, I think we've over-legalized the country in general. People should be allowed to take risks and live with the consequences.

I wouldn't have such a problem with people on the Right if they'd just keep their communities the way they want to keep them and stop trying to force their ideas about private life on everyone else.

Answer 5

Poo Poop Dee Doo..........

AMEN and GLORY HALLELUJAH!

The freedom of a people is judged not by the number of laws it's social structure possess, but by the absence of the number of laws.

Our problem comes from government wanting to punish the body whole for the inequities of the finger.

*kiss*

Answer 6

Most of the laws coming out of Congress are bad: McCain-Feingold, Medicare prescriptions, immigration reform. Special interests seem to get the attention of Congressmen, with their cash contributions. The average citizen cannot afford to send a $1 to support his cause.

Answer 7

Yes

Answer 8

You are absolutely correct. We have way too many laws and more laws that won't be enforced are useless. In the end, they always seem to include hostility towards US citizens.

Answer 9

I think laws are enacted for the overall benefit of society. There probably is not a law that ever existed that everybody agrees with.

Answer 10

I agree, the problem is that everyone holds the government when things go wrong and eventually they will pay. Basically what law has become is harm reduction.