Legislating morality

Does it work? The US passed over 40,000 new laws and regulations alone last year. Are we any better a society for it?

Originally posted by whodey
Does it work? The US passed over 40,000 new laws and regulations alone last year. Are we any better a society for it?

Laws enforce interests. Whose interests are behind a given law? Ask them and they'll say their interests are moral ("greed is good" - Gordon Gekko.) Bad laws reflect a bad morality. Does morality work, is the real question.

Not many expect human laws to produce a utopia. They may restrict some evil from running too wild.

Laws can act as a breaking system. Not too many societies expect anymore that laws will produce a paradise utopia.

Originally posted by whodey

Does it work? The US passed over 40,000 new laws and regulations alone last year. Are we any better a society for it?

"The US passed over 40,000 new laws and regulations alone last year."

Legislation on the books for two centuries worked fine (whenever they were uniformly and effectively enforced).
The recent 40,000 new laws and regulations represent an evil agenda; its sole objective is to enslave.

Originally posted by whodey
Does it work? The US passed over 40,000 new laws and regulations alone last year. Are we any better a society for it?

How many of those laws would you classify as having anything to do with morality?
I must also point out that the word 'morality' covers quite a wide range and that some areas of it are not generally legislated or shouldn't be.
We shouldn't for example have legislation banning gay marriage on moral grounds.
I am not even sure that legislation against most criminal activities is on moral grounds. If anything I think a large proportion of legislation is about business and government and it could be argued that much of it is in fact immoral.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"The US passed over 40,000 new laws and regulations alone last year."

Legislation on the books for two centuries worked fine (whenever they were uniformly and effectively enforced).
The recent [b]40,000 new laws and regulations represent an evil agenda; its sole objective is to enslave.[/b]

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/45819570/ns/us_news-life/t/new-laws-toughen-rules-abortions-immigrants-voters/

You might want to read what some of the news laws are.

I question whether laws making abortion more difficult to obtain are enslaving, in your and Whodey's definition.

I also question whether a law requiring coaches to bench players as young as 11 when they're believed to have suffered a head injury, is enslaving.

In Illinois, Motorcyclists stopped at a red light may proceed through if it fails to change to green after a reasonable length of time. Enslaving?

Originally posted by JS357
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/45819570/ns/us_news-life/t/new-laws-toughen-rules-abortions-immigrants-voters/

You might want to read what some of the news laws are.

I question whether laws making abortion more difficult to obtain are enslaving, in your and Whodey's definition.

I also question whether a law requiring coaches to bench players as young as 11 ...[text shortened]... y proceed through if it fails to change to green after a reasonable length of time. Enslaving?

The all encompassing issue concerns the concentration of power in the clenched fists of a few federal administrators; state and county and local elected leaders are in touch with the will of their constituents. DC/One Size fits All leads to bondage.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
The all encompassing issue concerns the concentration of power in the clenched fists of a few federal administrators; state and county and local elected leaders are in touch with the will of their constituents. DC/One Size fits All leads to bondage.

They are very much in touch with their constituents. Their constituents don't include us.

I'm dropping out. This belongs in Debates. I'm partly responsible.

Originally posted by twhitehead
How many of those laws would you classify as having anything to do with morality?
I must also point out that the word 'morality' covers quite a wide range and that some areas of it are not generally legislated or shouldn't be.
We shouldn't for example have legislation banning gay marriage on moral grounds.
I am not even sure that legislation against mo ...[text shortened]... is about business and government and it could be argued that much of it is in fact immoral.

Morality in the egalitarian sense. What is "good" for society? That is the morality upon which all laws are formed.

Originally posted by JS357
They are very much in touch with their constituents. Their constituents don't include us.

I'm dropping out. This belongs in Debates. I'm partly responsible.

I don't think it does. I think this belongs in spirituality. Morality is a large aspect of our spirituality. It just so happens that both politics and religion adhere to a world view and belief system that is essentially impossible to prove as right. Both dictate morality and both demand compliance.

I suppose the only aspect that separates the two is the mention of God, but then, politics has had a long history of using God as their club. Either way the masterminds tell us what is best for us. I suppose without God in the equation they simply convey an intellectual superiority to know what is best for all society instead of saying that God told them pass certain laws.

Originally posted by sonship
Not many expect human laws to produce a utopia. They may restrict some evil from running too wild.

Laws can act as a breaking system. Not too many societies expect anymore that laws will produce a paradise utopia.

The fine line is to produce a civil society verses a society in bondage. After all, as laws increase freedom decreases. For this very reason laws should be passed with great trepidation, that is, if you value freedom. If you don't value freedom then passing laws is akin to going to the bathroom I suppose. Then again, I doubt that even I went to the bathroom over 40,000 times last year. 😛

Originally posted by JS357
They are very much in touch with their constituents. Their constituents don't include us.

I'm dropping out. This belongs in Debates. I'm partly responsible.

"They" and "their" allude to community organizers, union presidents and political action committees which represent a tight nucleus at the expense of the citizens registered on the local voting polls. It's all about the distribution of the near 'wealth' of the middle class to programs which pander to the willfully poor blocks of voters who will pull one lever when they arrive.

Originally posted by whodey
The fine line is to produce a civil society verses a society in bondage. After all, as laws increase freedom decreases. For this very reason laws should be passed with great trepidation, that is, if you value freedom. If you don't value freedom then passing laws is akin to going to the bathroom.

... to do #2.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"They" and "their" allude to community organizers, union presidents and political action committees which represent a tight nucleus at the expense of the citizens registered on the local voting polls. It's all about the distribution of the near 'wealth' of the middle class to programs which pander to the willfully poor blocks of voters who will pull one lever when they arrive.

Wow we do learn about our colleagues on idle afternoons.

Originally posted by JS357
Wow we do learn about our colleagues on idle afternoons.

Thought you, too, shared a disdain for the power elite which lust for control. You've always exhibited rugged individualism in the interest of safeguarding freedoms of expression. Please read the reply again: "poor blocks of voters..." Your objections?