For some reason it seems near impossible to get politicians to work in the interest of the people. Each time we go through an election cycle, we get told what we want to hear, and then as soon as all the confetti has been cleaned off he floor, it is right back to business as usual.
This is not to say that this is an easy job, at each turn, there are many things to consider. Though I think it is fairly clear that our money and their time is not going to the places that we think it should go. This is also a precarious position to take, since the mob mentality often ends up being misplaced.So let us not assume that we should take the Group Think and run with it, but rather we should be looking for the true and factually based solutions to the problems we face. For the most part every one seems to agree on the basics, but we have gone far off the reservation with the sheer amount and complexity of the law.
One of the most troubling things I have witnessed is the way private company policy is treated as law. Combined with the blatant way that politicians do what is good for the few that own large companies and do little to help keep the playing field even for the workers. Please don't confuse my compassion for the workers with a plea for unions, since they rarely place interest of the workers at the center of their interest either. My argument is simply that the overall good of the people should come before the profitability of the company in all circumstances.
Take for instance the laws surrounding a parking space. If you pay for a space, you are in the act of renting a space from the city. Now without going in the direction of allowing all out gatherings or other stretches of the imagination in the space, I think it is fair to argue that if you are using the space for it's intended purpose, parking a car, then that should be the limit of the control the municipality should have over your actions within that space. Again, within reason. This, however, is not the case.
Say for instance that I am not wearing my seat belt. Should I really be ticketed for this? This is equipment on my car, that effects no one other persons safety. Yet, there is a penalty if I choose not to follow this rule. Penalizing me for my own behavior that effects only me, is simply a tax -- and an especially prejudicial one at that. This is not a public safety issue (which is what the state sites when it makes such laws), like say not having headlights. So this is not an area that should be legislated or one that should be able to be enforced by the court, since it is not violating the rights of another.
Now I am sure that I will hear the argument about texting and driving as and argument against my point. Shouldn't the government be able to make laws that prevent me from acting negligent? I would say that you are exactly right. There are things that one could do that could end in others being injured. Though that is a very slippery slope. Next you could say that drinking coffee while driving can cause and accident -- as the German's have. Should I be able to be ticked for this as well? This really makes you question the thought process of a drive through window. I would say that someone eating a meal is far less able to react to an emergency situation at high speed on the highway, then someone that is reassuring their wife that they are indeed stuck in traffic.
The fact that something bad could happen, shouldn't determine whether or not you have the right to do something. Though there is a possibility for me to be neglectful in this capacity, it should not be assumed that such a thing would occur. And I definitely shouldn't be fined or otherwise sanctioned for such an assumption.
Now the situation completely changes if I cause an accident while watching Youtube videos while doing 90mph on the highway. Since I would be, in such a case, negligent -- as most reasonable people, and likely a jury, is sure to determine. There are plenty of methods of evidence collection for such crimes. That is not to say that it is not a tragedy for such an event to occur in the first place, but simply to say that we already have laws for such an occurrences. There is no need to add complexity.
The fact that you have to wear a seat belt, in the same world wear you can buy a motorcycle and launch yourself through the air at twice the speed allowed on most highways, should cause all to question the system we are living in.
This is not taking a stance alined with chaos or anarchy, simply one that regards personal responsibility as the barrier against crime; not simply the law. The law should be reasonable and logical; following a natural progression.
For instance, if I can use my radio in my car, then I can use my cell phone(or other such device) in my car; or both should be deemed illegal or against best practices. Since the argument that something is a general distraction from your duties as a driver can be made, reasonably, in both circumstances.
The fact should remain that if I am doing something that a reasonable person would consider negligent, and I cause injury or property damage to another, then I should be held liable as such -- but not before an offense has been committed. That is a clear violation of personal freedom. The responsibility to know of, accept, reject, or mitigate the risk of an activity should be solely the responsibility of the individual. Looking at things this way, we are able to adjust far more easily to technological and social progressions.
It is not as if the prosecution of thought crime -- whether by public opinion, through corporate policy, and/or by way of judicial decision -- has been a rare occurrence or a recent invention in the United States. This should not stand to mean that it should continue unaddressed.
From slavery to the bank bailouts, rarely are the items the government are focused on something that is going to be good for the people as a whole. The governments actions often, if unintentionally, subvert the needs of the population. Change that is good for the people is accomplished, more-often-then-not, by forcing the government to change by dragging it along -- usually loosing some additional freedoms along the way. Progress would be immensely faster if the government was a body that could anticipate the needs of the people, while protecting their rights against infringement, even if that were to mean allowing some to subvert system (which is already happening anyway, mainly for the rich.). This is a natural occurrence in any system, and usually leads to the best results; ie. the internet. The time rights are most needed is when they are in direct opposition to the majority opinion.
It is critical to fairness in any social system, that logical connections be made, and held against bigoted opposition. Which unarguably the most crucial part of personal liberty. So is every system designed to be fair? No. Inherently, there are going to be things that favor one group or another slightly. The amount of disparage that is clearly evident in our laws ans policies is the what I am arguing. Naturally there is a financial focus, though that is designed into the system. Evidenced by congress voting themselves pay raises at a higher rate than those of the average worker. There is inevitably going to be times that a situation is just unfortunate regardless of how good our intentions or how well we plan for every inevitability. There is no chance that we will react without flaw in every situation, though that isn't an excuse to go completely in the opposite direction.
To say that a lawyer is someone that has to go to school for 12+ years in order to gain proficiency in one or two areas of practice, but then to force the rest of the untrained population to know such a complex system, is unconscionable.
It is not possible for one to know all of the particulars of each of the laws in each of the towns, cities, and states they plan to live, do business, or travel. Proof of this? Lawyers need to take a bar in each state in most cases, even though they understand the overall mechanisms that govern the workings of the law, and they are relatively similar, most attorneys that I have spoken with would suggest that you speak to an attorney in the specific state in question.
Along with all of the federal laws that may be applicable depending on the situation you will have recent decisions and definition of terms to contend with. Do not forget, also, that the law is ever evolving, so much so that lawyers must subscribe to an expensive service just to keep up with the recent changes. How accessible is the patent system to the small business man, who's ideas it was designed to protect?
So would you then assume then, that it is reasonable that the average person be held to account for all these variables? Is it reasonable to expect each citizen to consult a lawyer for each decision they make in their daily life? If so, we better start talking much more seriously about significantly increasing the minimum wage.
________________
Related:
http://www.stupidlaws.com/
http://www.dumblaws.com/
http://www.businessinsider.com/most-ridiculous-law-in-every-state-2014-2
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/394022/yes-stupid-laws-help-kill-people-david-harsanyi
http://www.usattorneylegalservices.com/stupid-laws.html
