We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
A rule not ultimately backed by the threat of violence is merely a suggestion. States rely on laws enforced by men ready to do violence against lawbreakers. Every tax, every code and every licensing requirement demands an escalating progression of penalties that, in the end, must result in the forcible seizure of property or imprisonment by armed men prepared to do violence in the event of resistance or non–compliance. Every time a soccer mom stands up and demands harsher penalties for drunk driving, or selling cigarettes to minors, or owning a pit bull, or not recycling, she is petitioning the state to use force to impose her will. She is no longer asking nicely. The viability of every family law, gun law, zoning law, traffic law, immigration law, import law, export law and financial regulation depends on both the willingness and wherewithal of the group to exact order by force.
When an environmentalist demands that we “save the whales,” he or she is in effect making the argument that saving the whales is so important that it is worth doing harm to humans who harm whales. The peaceful environmentalist is petitioning the leviathan to authorize the use of violence in the interest of protecting leviathans. If state leaders were to agree and express that it was, indeed, important to “save the whales,” but then decline to penalize those who bring harm to whales, or decline to enforce those penalties under threat of violent police or military action, the expressed sentiment would be a meaningless gesture. Those who wanted to bring harm to whales would feel free to do so, as it is said, with impunity — without punishment.
Without action, words are just words. Without violence, laws are just words.
An exception is laws that remove subsidies or other official interference that shelters people from the consequences of their own actions. Those aren't exactly "rules" in the sense that you're talking about, but they are official action aimed at addressing a societal problem resulting from bad behavior.
That too is violence. Though not physical violence, hurting someone's financial situation is violence as well as it ends up harming someone as punishment.
It's the very basis on which fines are based (in theory, in practice they're just an income generation scheme for agencies in most cases, and many people consider them just another cost of living item on their budgets).
Me too - as long as it is a bus full of Libertarians who understand the post above. "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress" by Heinlein and "Freehold" by Michael Z. Williamson are some of the better libertarian space utopias.
Washington State passed a initive (I-594) that requires a background check for private transfers of guns. A few billionaires pushed this law through with a lofty sounding name few voters even know what they voted for. The purpose of this law is to terrorize gun owners. How could that be? Well suppose you take your son and your nephew out to learn how to use a shotgun and somehow the law hears about this "crime". You will go to jail, mandatory jail time. Because "transfer" means even to allow someone else to shoot your gun while you are present or to hold your gun or to brrow it to go hunting is a "transfer". Obstensibly the law is to prevent the wrong people from getting guns but the truth is it was intended to terrorize honest people so that it scare honest people away from owning guns. They knew this when they wrote the law. They also knew that the criminals and school shooters wouldn't be deterred by this law. The law is explicitly to put honest people in jail for an honest mistake.
What remains to be seen is how many more innocent acts will put you in jail under this law. If you are cleaning your gun at the kitchen table and your nieghbor picks up part of the gun or all of the gun to look at it do you go to jail? The way the law is written you probably would. Simply allowing the gun to be placed in someone elses hand without first completing a federal background check is a jailable offense.
I doubt that this law is constitutional but on the other hand Our courts have failed to uphold our constitution before.
The Only Ones who enforce these "laws" had better understand what is soon coming back at them and theirs. They have already set the Rules of Engagement. Time for them and their families to enjoy the fruits of their labors under their very own Rules...
Need I remind you GWTW that WA state also passed a law offering a reward to anyone finding the wrong type of garbage in the wrong can you put out for pick up. That is to say if you have food garbage in your recycle can and your neighbor looks in your can and reports the food garbage the neighbor gets a reward- you get fined a penalty. Nice eh?
I agree with Geo Will on may things: maybe four of his six things will be acceptable. HOWEVER, item #1 "abolish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau" would be a disaster for the GOP.
Republicans must understand how many former democrats voted for them. We the middle class people of America HATE WALL STREET I know that is uncomfortable for the thousands of east coast folks whose lives are dependent upon those jobs. It is the lack of transparency, the willingness to cheat and then the ability to buy their way out of jail--those are just some of the reasons we HATE WALL STREET
To begin this new era with a very outdated ideology about the wonders of dishonest business would be tantamount to beginning this era with just one more effort to abolish abortion. It would fail and take down the GOP with it--AGAIN! Leave what appears to be some ability, some access to protection in place and go elsewhere to make change. At least look like you care about our financial well being as much as you do your own! Sheesh !