'There Should Be A Law' \ stacker news ~libertarian

pull down to refresh

1278 sats \ 5 comments \ @UCantDoThatDotRugged 22 Feb libertarian

When citizen doesn't get what citizen likes, citizen often cries, 'There Should Be A Law!'

In a representative republic, the citizen would lobby his representative and generate grassroots support to encourage a new law to prohibit, require, or regulate the action. ( And/or blackmail, coerce, buy off, threaten, capture, deceive... )

At what cost?

Those with the most resources often position themselves to get what they want. Those with the most sociopathic, psychopathic, and narcissistic tendencies often deceive their way into power or influence, and some would argue are more likely to over time. Look at what is happening in USA. I mean, just look.

Some would even say that 'There Should Be A Law' amounts to a lazy and selfish desire to have the force of government work on behalf of Citizen's personal preferences.

What say you?

view all related items

150 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 22 Feb

Some would even say that 'There Should Be A Law' amounts to a lazy and selfish desire to have the force of government work on behalf of Citizen's personal preferences.

That's so clearly what it is as to not even be a little bit controversial. The only exception being statements like "There should be a law preventing the government from..."

123 sats \ 1 reply \ @UCantDoThatDotRugged OP 22 Feb

Well, it seems your position logically leads to the conclusion that there should be no laws except those that abolish any existing attempts at government - which would certainly be controversial.

Solutions should be local and government should not be so large and citizens so acclimated to its protection that the overarching habitual tendency is to ask it to solve problems, except, at best, as a last resort.

But that perspective doesn't apply as well when the founders are framing does it? Or in an early colony, early in one of the 50 experiments? Is it not relative, depending on the heirarchy, depending on the problem?

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 22 Feb

it seems your position logically leads to the conclusion that there should be no laws except those that abolish any existing attempts at government

Not quite, although that is my view (depending on what we mean by "law"). We already have laws against almost every real crime; i.e. actions that have real victims. That means any clamoring for new laws is almost certainly "a lazy and selfish desire to have the force of government work on behalf of Citizen's personal preferences".

I freely grant that my views are highly controversial, but that particular point should not be.

17 sats \ 0 replies \ @Enemy_of_the_state 24 Feb

Laws seem like they are becoming less and less relevant.

Our governments have too much power and are too large for laws to benefit the people. Laws are selectively enforced, to the detriment of the people they supposedly protect.

There needs to be something else. What that looks like, I don’t know.

3 sats \ 0 replies \ @hasherstacker 22 Feb

It seems better not to have a law.