Classical Values :: Getting Rid Of Laws

November 20, 2010

Getting Rid Of Laws

Every time a discussion of the correct scope of the laws comes up with social conservatives this little ditty or something like it is trotted out to justify the death penalty for picking your nose or for growing the wrong kind of plants.

So do you advocate getting rid of laws that deal harsh consequences for such acts as murder, robbery, and physical assault?

Well thanks for putting the fish in my barrel. I have my sawed off shotgun ready so how about a few blasts?

1. Laws against that kind of behavior are universal. Something on the order of 99% to 99.99% of humans would agree. Murderers don't want to be murdered. Robbers don't like being robbed. Thieves don't like getting their stuff stolen.

2. It only takes 5% of the population to disagree with a law to make enforcement very hard. Up around 10% to 20% it becomes impossible.

3. Criminal transactions are very hard to police - there is a willing seller and a willing buyer and if they are clandestine enough no one to complain.

4. Laws that create black markets corrupt police. Every where some one is getting paid to look the other way to let the deal go down. With crimes of malice such looking the other way is more difficult. People get emotionally involved when a relative is wronged. Or they are wronged.

5. By the time the USSR collapsed it was one big black market. Why even push in that direction? Do you know what the stability margin for civilization is? You want to test it?

6. Are you so thin brained that you are unable to conceive of solving social problems without government guns? Liberals have a similar problem.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

posted by Simon on 11.20.10 at 11:07 PM

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/10346

Comments

I have a question for certain people; would outlawing singing in the shower make singing in the shower immoral?

Alan Kellogg · November 21, 2010 01:34 AM

Every time a discussion of the correct scope of the laws comes up with social conservatives ...

I don't have the foggiest idea why you persist in believing that "discussion of the correct scope of the laws" is something which takes place between libertarians and social conservatives.

These groups do not encompass the totality of the Republican Party, let alone that of the USA.

My opinion of libertarians would rise sharply if they proved themselves capable of grasping that simple fact.

flenser · November 21, 2010 05:55 PM

Laws against that kind of behavior are universal. Something on the order of 99% to 99.99% of humans would agree.

It's the tyranny of the majority! Surely you're not saying that might makes right? Surely you're not one of those evil majoritarians?

flenser · November 21, 2010 06:05 PM

flenser,

I wonder if you can read. Why would you think such discussion only comes up with social conservatives? I didn't say that. Socons are as slippery as liberals. Probably because their position is just as weak.

And you are aware that our system was designed to prevent the tyranny of the majority. You have rights. They can't be taken away by a vote.

Liberals and socons believe rights are subject to vote. For liberals: "It ain't your money" for socons: "It ain't your body."

Social conservatives are unable to conceive of solving social problems without government guns. Liberals have a similar problem.

I'm heartened by your vociferous response. Evidently hiding behind "moral rectitude" isn't working as well as it used to.

And you still haven't answered my challenge:

Every time a discussion of the correct scope of the laws comes up with social conservatives this little ditty or something like it is trotted out to justify the death penalty for picking your nose or for growing the wrong kind of plants.

So how are you with the death penalty for growing certain kinds of plants? How are you with Wickard which justified Raich, which will now be used to justify the new health care law?

Many social conservatives were happy to lose a liberty they were not interested in (Raich). And that precedent will now be used to justify losing your liberty when it comes to medical care. See how that works?

The pot smokers have been punished. Now it is your turn.

So if you give up your mate's vagina to the government to stop abortion what do you think they will be doing with that little precedent?

M. Simon · November 21, 2010 07:11 PM

" the death penalty for picking your nose or for growing the wrong kind of plants."

Wow. Hyperventilate much?

notaclue · November 23, 2010 04:24 PM

Dear Mr. No Clue,

Newt Gingrich suggested a while back the Death Penalty for 2 oz of pot. You can look it up.

BTW I call phrases like that idiot catchers. So sorry it had to be you.

M. Simon · November 23, 2010 06:13 PM