Swift
Dan, what's your philosophy. It's kind of easy to shoot holes in other people's thoughts. Not being mean, just asking since you are the thread starter.
It is up to the people or the representation of the people to make the laws.
I see a lot of clinging to the democratic process to find what is right in this thread. A lot of people are kinda throwing up their hands and saying "society" should collectively figure out what's legal and what's illegal. If society wants to regulate things, then that's what's right.
Of course it might not be. It certainly wasn't in the case of Nazi Germany - the easiest example of majority opinion run amuck. In America the majority opinion was that black people should be slaves. At one point, that notion was decided to be against basic human rights, rights that are not up for a vote, rights that are above the majority opinion.
In a pure democracy, majority rules. Whatever the majority decides is law - no matter how immoral. In America, we have a republic, but largely today the majority still rules - and a few other people rule as well. This is because the framework of "limited government" or a government restrained from tyranny - even democratic tyranny - has been eroded. Where we used to have a notion that the rights no listed in the constitution are reserved to the people, we now have the notion that even rights expressedly present in the constitution are up for reinterpretation.
The bottom line is that government is in place to protect basic human rights - rights that are fundamentally logically inherent in human beings. How the government goes about protecting those rights is a narrow job appointed to a group of representatives. The respresentatives are voted upon democratically, and they are present to represent the interests of their constituents, but they are not elected to determine what is moral or what constitutes human rights - these things are already listed and quite purposefully beyond the reach of politicians.
Yes, we can ammend the constitution, but the standard for ammending the constitution is higher than democratic, it is reason.
The purpose of government is to protect rights, not to determine them. So when someone else's rights are violated, the government should act. This means police, it means protective laws, it means a military, a budget, a fire department, laws that protect children from their parents' abuse or neglect, laws that protect people from fraud, from violation of contract, etc. etc.
But the regulation of what you can freely offer to sell, the regulation of what you are allowed to buy, the regulation of what you can do with your body, etc. is not up for vote - it is illegitimate grounds for government. It is patently not in the government's charter.
The government has the task of protecting the people from other nations - a task which is wide open and leads to many things from trade embargos to invasions, to military research, disease research, general technology research, customs etc. But the task of protecting people from themselves isn't part of the deal.
Yes, some land can be publicly owned, but publicly owned land is a difficult issue - because it has the entire nation for an owner. The government must protect the value of this national asset in the interests of all of its owners. So it can regulate public property to prevent some people from effectivley devaluing the property of others, even if that person has a small stake in the land. Public property is tricky because of the number of owners it has, but not because it is special in any other way. But public property does not allow you to control arbitrary things that do not infringe upon other people's use of the land.
Example - you are capable of driving safely while smoking. As long as you are capable of driving in a manner that is safe for others, the government has no legitimate claim to regulate your behavior. Until you devalue the public property by physically placing your car in a way that prevents others from having proper access or otherwise preventing them from physically operating their vehicle in a safe manner, you shouldn't be bothered with.
You do not have a right to have your risks managed. Other people do things that put you at risk constantly. Your neighbor has a pool, your risk of drowning just increased. Your neighbor has trees, your risk of getting stung by a bee just went up. Your neighbor has a dog, your risk of getting rabies just went up. Lots of things increase your risk, but until someone harms you, or prevents you safe access to your property (like putting a bunch of bees in your backyard or something) you can't touch them. Likewise in your car, you can't pick on the other drivers around you because they're smoking or because they're using a radio, or have a distracting passenger. Until they do something that prevents you from having safe (risky) access to property that you have a stake in, you can't bother them.
You do not have a right to take away the rights of others, even democratically. You do not have the right to have others manage your risk. You do not have a right to regulate the arbitrary behavior or actions of others. Because these things are force, not in self defense, but in offense against the fundamental rights of others - and it is the government's job to prevent the erosion of rights.
Ok, I'll be serious. Government shouldn't really be involved unless it will kill us immediatley, or without immediate treatment. Kinda like lead paint, and Asbestos.
