Civics, Natural Law & Gratuitous Government Stupidity

Marie and I are continuing — slowly — to read and discuss Are You Liberal, Conservative or Confused? by Richard Maybury, which I mentioned here. Today we talked again about his presentation of the idea of “Natural Law” — which dictates that we should honor our promises and not encroach on other people or their property. I would argue that we also have a responsibility to protect the natural environment and provide at least a minimal standard of living for everyone, especially children, the elderly, and people who are severely disabled. But we didn’t get into that yet.

Instead we focused on the two tenets of Natural Law presented in the book:

1. Do what you promise to do.
2. Don’t encroach on other people or their property.

We had an interesting discussion with the Man about laws. Which laws fall into one of these two broad categories and which don’t? If a law doesn’t prevent someone from breaking contracts, harming others or damaging other peoples’ property, what is its purpose? It is just governmental paternalism — the Super Nanny State dictating what is best for all of us?

This is what we came up with:

Laws Guaranteeing that We Keep Our Promises:

• Payment Agreements (and other contracts)
• Civil Law

Don’t Encroach on People or their Property:

• Laws Against Assault
• Laws Against Murder
• Laws Against Theft
• DUI Laws
• Laws Against Child Abuse

Laws That Apply to Neither:

• Public Drinking or Public Drunkenness — My husband has a big issue with this one. When he was a city police officer, he had to respond to calls about public drinking complaints. They were always against Latino immigrants, hard working people who were taking advantage of the cooler evening air outside and enjoying a few beers after work. They never got a complaint about a comfortably middle class person swilling beer in his yard. Racism and classism is no less ugly when it comes in the guise of maintaining the peace.
• Laws Against Drug Use — We had some discussion and debate about this, but my husband and I hold the controversial position that all drugs should be legalized, or at least decriminalized. We’re coming from the perspective of a law enforcement officer’s family. Many good men and women die, in the line of duty, in a seemingly unwinnable war on drugs, while our most popular mind-altering drugs are sold freely by the bottle or case.
• Open Container Laws — It’s illegal to walk around town with an open beer, unless, of course, you buy your beer at a city-sponsored event, in which case I assume the city profits from people’s intemperance. *LOL* So does this fall into the category of “something that’s wrong unless the government stands to benefit?” :-/
• “Sodomy” Laws — Unless it involves a child or animal, or someone who is mentally limited, it’s really no one’s business. By the way, I have read — from several sources — that it is illegal to have sex in Virginia with the lights on. Who comes up with this stuff? By the way, I offer this link — Top Ten WTF Sex Laws in the U.S. for your entertainment. I haven’t taken the time to verify any of this information, so proceed at your own risk. I suspect they’re true. I am disgusted and disturbed by #10.

Laws That We Feel Fall Into a Gray Area — Between Public Protection and Government Paternalism:

• Laws Against Setting off Fireworks — Are you trying to prevent a fire, that might endanger other people and the environment, or just protect the would-be firework user from blowing his own fingers off? Are these laws justified?
• Trespassing
• Compulsory School Attendance — It could be argued that compulsory attendance provides a safety net for kids whose parents inflict blatant educational neglect. After all, children need societal protection until they are old enough to manage their own lives. It could also be argued that it infringes on the rights of families.
• Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor (as when a parent lets his teenager have an alcoholic drink)
• Building Codes
• Public Nudity
• Censorship

I was disappointed that none of us could think of many gratuitously stupid laws to add to the list. While I haven’t checked the facts, I offer this for your entertainment: a sampling from dumblaws.com (Yes, I googled “stupid laws.” Ask and you shall receive. )

“Uncle Eric,” in Richard Maybury’s book, proposes that legislators should be required to repeal five laws before being allowed to pass one new piece of legislation. They would be kept busy for a long time clearing pointless, foolish laws off the books — so they wouldn’t realize they were abridging their own powers until it was too late.

This little exercise gave us the chance to apply and analyze what we’d been reading, explore divergent opinions, and highlight the fact that there are many shades of gray. DYNAMIC THINKING! So I guess you can say we’re “doing” RDI while inching forward with our studies.

Many may disagree with the views in this post, of course — I may even change my mind on some issues when I have more information. That’s always a danger when one exposes oneself to learning new things. *LOL*

I’d love to hear which laws YOU would put on the various lists — Protecting people from encroachment on themselves and their property? Upholding contracts? Neither? Paternalistic laws? (And are these ever justified? Is it the government’s job to protect people from themselves?) Gratuitously stupid laws?