Do most laws protect our freedoms, or limit them?
Now I'm first!
Most laws today are a control on the citizens. Laws are being created about what you can eat, drink, smoke, what activity you do. This should tell you, YOURSELF, (no matter what political side you lean on) You are too incompetent to make your own decisions. Ask yourself if you are incompetent.
Originally our laws where supposed to protect us, especially from a tyrannical government. That's why we have the constitution and the bill of rights. However our whole governmental system has become corrupt. It didn't just happen, the people let it get that way.
"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me, as we change it."-- Barack Obama
Mamie, following that line of thinking shouldn't we have a law requiring all men to wear condoms?
Do you really believe that any authority is concerned with enhancing your liberty? If you do I've got this great bridge...
I wish I could reply to a reply. Where to begin....
The Teaparty wants religion in public schools, wants teachers armed, undermines science, believes in "legitimate rape", etc....
Aside from the name of the fictional character at the head of their "religion". What's the difference?
California passed hundreds of laws this past year. How does that benefit anyone? When the laws were simple, ignorance was not an excuse for breaking the law. At this rate, who could follow all the laws without a yearly class?
Randfan, I cannot take you seriously when you make hysterically outlandish comments like that. How can someone of my own species lack critical thinking? I guess some people do enjoy spoon-fed lies. The media owns you since primal instincts are synonymous with knowledge in the DNC audience.
Well... They do.
The GOP and the American Taliban (Teaparty) only care about the "long suffering" billionaires. The GOP has done NOTHING to improve life for the overwhelming majority of Americans.
Very poorly worded question. To answer it honestly they get the answer they want then some idiot will go on The View and say that the majority of American people agree with universal healthcare and that Republicans want poor people to die.
No surprise here ... Democrat frog freely jump into the pot and extol the virtues of the hot water. Unfortunately when the illiterate takers control the vote the rest of us are cooked along with them.
We must hold MrO and the Democrats accountable.
This is a misguiding question. In that a greater percentage of laws are meant for the freedoms we have to be protected yet in the past 20 years the laws have increased excessively to limit freedom in the USA to protect feelings rather than to protect freedom of individuals living in community
Is that a Mao quote?
Sounds good to me, ledfarmer. It used to be called personal responsibility. ????
Not the term I was searching for but close enough.
"Absolute freedom and liberties"? What about no drinking age? All drugs legalized? Everything legalized? Repealing all "restrictive" laws and letting everyone fend for themselves?
It doesn't limit freedom, it increases freedom... i just wish today's laws are made using the Holy Bible as a guideline like they were 50years ago.
I agree. Strong contract law, and a legal requirement for plain contract language would go a lot farther, and do a lot more good than most of the laws on the books these days.
Do you know how many laws we have? I think it IS closer to 99%.
We should have a very limited, streamlined, niche Federal government. State governments should be relatively strong compared to the Federal government. I think a police force is good if it's VERY strictly limited according to the Constitution.
Um...what? Are you high?
I would rather have more freedom coupled with more responsibility, than surrender my freedom to the overbearing, insatiable nanny state that exists today.
*A little 'temporary' security.* Security gained by the surrender of liberty can only be temporary because the state always tends to tyranny when left to its own intentions. It may ask for the surrender of liberty in exchange for security, but it will always follow that with violation of security.
I like the term 'nanny state' better. Minnesota being a perfect example of a nanny state. Along with California, Illinois, Hawaii, and most of New England.
The Constitution protects our rights and freedoms. However, I would say that the majority of laws enacted since the Constitution was written have limited our freedom. The Founding Fathers got it right the first time.
Not necessarily. If I want to smoke pot in my own home, not hurting anyone I should be able to, but I cant. If I want to marry another man, I should be able to, but I cant. If I dont want to wear my seatbelt, only risking my own life, I should be able to, but I cant.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." -Benjamin Franklin.
A granny state.
and retirment funds. Thats the only way we can have true freedom and true liberties. Gary Johnson said it best "the biggest lie told in American history is that the battle for freedom was won on july 4th 1776, because the battle for freedom is never over"
The more laws, the less freedoms. Do you want absolute freedom and liberties? Remove the granny state. Repeal seat belt, and motorcycle helmet laws. Legalize marijuana, lower the drinking age to 19, repeal federal speed limits, and let people take responsibility of there own health care...
There is a term for this, which i completely forget. We create laws to protect ourselves in exchange of limiting certain freedoms. From seatbelt laws to criminal laws.
They do both. Duh.
I think we have 60,000 gun laws, millions of regulations, drug laws (I wouldn't do drugs - but drug laws are stupid), media laws, all restrict freedom.
Generally laws prohibit your actions, or force you to comply involuntarily. Some laws increase freedom by communicating views on rights (e.g. The death penalty can be seen as respect for innocent life). But overall, most laws restrict freedoms or force you into unwanted freedoms. "No".
They protect. It's just the few laws that limit our freedom that get noticed the most.
Or better yet:
A government cannot protect what it cannot control
In the long run they do a little of both.
Yes, rape, murder, and thievery totally would make me a better person. *sarcasm*
I don't think the Bill of Rights is wax the question refers to, but since it is a legal document, they do technically qualify as laws... that apply to the governing body's ability to make laws which apply to the people.
Some people actually believe that either the Democrats or Republicans have freedom in mind. It's, nonsensical, I know, but this is the mind of a statist.
The idea behind civilization is making an agreement with others to give up personal freedoms to gain protection and higher quality of life.
"it's for our own good"
Seems to be a very common sentiment now days.
I am really surprised twice as many Democrats (vs Republicans) said "protect." I thought more Democrats wanted gay marriage and pot legalized. Those laws certainly limit freedom more than they protect it. What gives, Dems?
Bill Of Rights - 10 laws that restrict government
How many laws are there that restrict personal freedom? - Too many to count, and many you've never heard of.