posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 02:05 PM
Originally posted by bsbray11
Well, I suppose what I support is as much freedom as possible then. It wouldn't make any difference to me whether a law was federal, state or local
if it invaded my privacy or took legal rights from me: I'd be pissed any way.
Not every law which restricts you personally is pointless though. The entire operating principle of a code of laws is that the majority of the
population is willing to be restricted in order to be protected from the effects of the restricted activity.
If there was a law that truly affected only the individual, with not consequent benefit to society, for example a law saying that everyone must clip
their toenails on the 1st and 3rd sunday of a month and report to the police station for nail inspection, under penalty of being made to watch an
NSYNC video, they're well out of their league and you ought to be quite annoyed.
Other laws infringing your rights simply wouldn't be constitutional, and nobody is proposing that we simply shift those kinds of laws down to the
state level. Suppose there is another terrorist attack, and they pass a bigger, even less constitutional version of the patriot act which deprives you
of legal representation or the right to remain silent. That can't pass and stand on any level, federal or otherwise (in theory anyway- truth be told
America scares the hell out of me sometimes.)
Other laws are inconvenient because we are in the minority of people who did not desire to trade that restriction for its protection. For example,
they could outlaw eating fast food or using cellphones in a moving vehicle in hopes of cutting down on car accidents. Now, if you ask me, this is sort
of a nanny-state thing- it has the stench of irresponsible midget-socialist political activists, but it's not necessarily a "bad" law- just one
that I don't think ought to be passed. These are the kind of laws we want decided on a state by state basis, or perhaps even at a lower level in some
cases, because 1. It makes the answer appropriate to your local situation. 2. It gives you the option of moving to a place where your views are in the
majority. 3. It makes it easier for you to do the grass roots thing and make a difference in your own area, because you don't have to reach the whole
Uncompromising is a very easy position to take when it comes to laws, but barring the outbreak of total anarchy we may as well consider what sort of
happy medium can be achieved. I think pushing decisions to the lower levels is one way to do that.