How far should laws go?

by sleepy 4 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  sleepy

  As jehovahs witnesses we were under the burden of strict laws.Laws that were supposedly designed to help us lead better and happier lives.We didn't always enjoy following them but may have felt they were nessesary for humans to live by.

  Now we are glad to be out of the burden of such manmade laws and like to lead free lives, but we in fact still under laws, that of our governments.How far should these laws go in directing how we lead our lives , and do too many laws just become a burden to live by.In Britian we are often amazed at the laws passed by the european union that effect our lives in Britian even governing that you must sell in killos not pounds for example and Bananas must be striaght not bent.

  The UN is now saying that Britian must create a new Law banning the smacking of children, while at the moment this is up to the parent.But will an increase in such laws create a society were we have lost all freedoms will it gradualy end up like living in the "society"?Should what is moral be left up to individuals or must it be inforced by law?Are there other ways of creating a civil society were people don't want to do wrong rather than just not being allowed to do it?Will our lives soon be completely governed by law?
• 

  coffee_black

  There are already so many laws on the books, that if you started reading them the day your were born, (which of course, you can't) and read every moment of your life 'till the day you die, you still couldn't read them all, let alone know them all. More are being passed every day. We are unaware of nearly all of them, except the ones that directly effect us. It's scary, really. I grew up at a time when we had to read Orwell's "1984" as part of English Lit. They don't require that any more. People don't seem concerned with the direction things are going...a little more control each day. No one even notices. Big government is already here.

  What is really strange to me, is that the people who were horrified at the "1984" scenario back then, are the same ones who are working to make it happen now.

  cb
• 

  Amazing

  Excellent post Sleepy: This issue could inspire a whole series of posts from me and many others. I agree with CoffeeBlack that there are tons of volumes of laws on the books ... with some modification ... it is not as scary as it seems ... for example, Title 10 US CFR is about 1000 pages ... just one of many laws, but it deals with the technical aspects of regulating nuclear power plants in the United States. It is a good law for the most part. It takes teams of experts at each nuclear plant to impliment various sections of the law. I had one whole section to myself on my team.

  Because of the burden of too many laws, many disaffected Americans have joined private state militias, or other groups. Some are good, and some not so good. Some have blamed 40 years of Liberal Democrat rule and have become Conservative Republicans, whle some have blamed big business and have become Liber Democrats. Most all of these groups hate the United Nations, and fear that the US is surrendering its sovereignty to it ...

  The Watchtower may seem right on this one ... given how the nations are now increasingly subscribing to the UN, one might fear that the Watchtower religion may have finally given a correct prophecy ... but I believe that the recent emergence of the UN as an important player has no bearing on Bible prophecy ... and most nations are not about to give away their sovereignty ...

  Having too many laws is a sign that we have too many control freaks running things ... and the only way they know how to handle social problems is to make more laws, make more severe punishment, and tax us to death ... it is an inevitable progression and will eventually lead to a major revolt vis-a-vis revolution, and then things will quiet down and then start back up ... the fearful thing is how far will things go, how serious will the revolt be, and how long before we are back to normal ...

  I trained my children to obey the 4 NEVER PRINCIPLE RULES and they will stay out of trouble with any law: 1. Never engage in harmful sexual conduct, 2. Never use physical or psychological violence in any manner except serious self-defense, 3. Never misuse the property or money of others, 4. Never use illegal drugs ... I told them that these are basic and violation will often lead to jail and serious fines. Follow these and they will steer clear of 99% of the law enforcement issues. The rest are civil issues, like driver licenses, or license to practice certain professions, which are well regulated enough that they will know what to do when the time is right.

  This still leaves the issue of too many laws and begs the question of what we do about them: As JWs we had no say or voice in rules and policies of the Society ... it is a total dictatorship. In civilized society outside the Watchtower, we do have a voice in government and can openly protest, circulate petitions, gather at rallies, demand change ... this is a frequent feature in the USA ... but the voices are often clamoring for more laws ... be it a group of aggrieved citizens or busniess interests seeking regulation, or some influential Hollywood movie personna ... so I see no real trend away from this ... but rather a series of progressive new laws until we have no life ... and then boom, society will eventually rebel ... but I hope not in my lifetime.
• 

  Francois

  Couldn't agree more. Look at what's happening in New Jersey right now. The democrat party knows full well it's illega to swap an old incumbent who can't win (Torricelli) for someone who has a change within 51 days of an election. It says so PLAINLY in New Jersey law. Does the NJ democrat part care? No. It names a different candidate. Does the democrat-controlled NJ Supreme Court care? No. It says, in effect, "screw the law, the dems have gotta have a candidate." I don't find anything in NJ law that says if the democrat party screws up and doesn't have a candidate prior to 51 days, that it gets a pass on the election law, plus the NJ "Supreme Court" to help them pull off this illegality, which also included excluding the votes of our men and women in the armed services.

  Essentially the NJ democrat party wanted to change the rules after the fact; the fact that it lost.

  This very same thing happened in Florida in the presidential race. Several heavily democrat counties couldn't count their toes so the Florida Supremes jumped in to help them make certain that "every votes is counted (except of course for those pesky military absentee ballots." But no matter, the Florida Supremes, all democrats I believe was going to allow this assault on the US constitutions to go forward. However, the EL BIGGO SUPREMOES in D.C. said, "Naw, we don't think you get to apply the constitution in a shabby manner like this, and threw out the florida supremes "opinions."

  Essentially the FL democrat party wanted to change the rules after the fact, the fact that it lost.

  So we see the democrat party cares not one particle, not one whit, not one good god damn about the constitution, nor the laws, as long as it can maintain control of the senate. Why is this?

  If you look at all the democrat "victories" over the last forty years, you will see that these victories wee not won by a majority of peoplle voting at the polls. These "victories" were obtained by democrat politicians and democrat interest groups taking issues they had lost in the polls, the elections, to the COURTS, which were and are dominated by democrat judges.

  Now, who approves the nomination of judges for US District Judgeships and above? It ain't Tululla Bankhead I can tell you. It's the United States Senate. And that's just why the democrat party is rarin' to ignore the law and the constitution to get some democrat, ANY democrat to run in this fall's election so that it can maintain its razor-thin majority in the senate, so it can continue to keep those nasty republican judges out of office.

  Do you really want to have the kind of people running this country who insist that they have the right to ignore the law whenever it's more convenient for them to do so? Look at all the things they decided Bill Clinton should be able to get away with, things they should ignore. Maybe they'll decide to ignore the law when your son or daughter is caught with a half-ounce of marijuana and send him or her away for life with no parole. Or maybe the democrat party will decide it doesn't like what you said about them in a letter to the editor of your local news paper about their illegal tactics, and say the First Amendment don't count when it comes to your particular letter. And off your ass goes to jail or worse.

  The democrat party KNOWS it can't get its hair-brained, half-assed, fully-Marxist bills through the congress. It's much easier to take the issue to a federal judge no one has ever heard of before and have him DECLARE the desired policy is the equivalent of the law.

  The damned democrat part scares the shit out of me. And don't write back and say, "They ALL do it." They damn-well all DON'T do it. Not by a long shot. And I'm no republican either. Not enough spine. They're on the right tract alright, but not enough spine. I like the Libertarian Party myself. On any given issue, they're likely to say, "That ain't a federal issue. You go and take it up amongst yourselves at the state level; we're busy providing for the national defense and stuff like what it says in the US Constitution." God bless 'em.

  There's my political rant for today. How was it?

  Oh, and in answer to your question "how far should they go"? Not very far at all. And certainly not as far as they've been going for the last fifty years.

  francois

  Edited by - Francois on 4 October 2002 10:59:18
• 

  ThiChi

  I read an article awhile back that every year, at the National, State, County and Municipal level, there are 15,000 new laws created every year.

  One hundred years ago, ignorance of the law was no excuse. Dont rob. Dont steal my hourse. But now days, I submit to you, ignorance of the law can and should be a valid defense. Dont step on that mouse. Dont have a get together without a permit.

  Edited by - thichi on 4 October 2002 14:33:26