Originally Posted by Vyper
Your definition of freedom seems to imply that any law takes away my liberty. Thus the law against me coming to your house at night and stealing your television impinges on my liberty. Darn fascist!
|
That's largely correct in my view except of course for the ones designed to protect liberty. As far as stealing my television, my handgun will immediately remove all your liberty while protecting my own. Liberty lost is liberty protected in such case. Committing a crime forfeits your right to liberty.
Look, I'll save you some time here. I'm basically in agreement that there may be a need to adapt laws around current technology, ways of life, etc. I've never really been against necessary legal protections that preserve life, etc. What I do object to is the thinking that throwing a bunch of laws at a problem fixes it. That clearly isn't the case. People are still idiots. Some need Mother Government to hold their hand. I don't deny that. What I get sick of is having to pay for other people's stupidity all the time.
My objection(s) in this thread are more towards the process of determining what deserves new laws than the new laws themselves. The immediate response of "we need the government to outlaw this" is a dangerous one in my view. We aren't Europe. This isn't how our system works. The "change we can believe in" mentality has it wrong.