I think laws should be as concrete and absolute as possible, which means they should also be used sparingly.
The red light is a good example, as you pointed out the fact that you were tired and not actually malevolent, and that no one was hurt is of little consequence. The law exists because that action (stopping at red lights) needs to happen every time without question. The lack of consequence was mostly good luck. I once happened across an accident where the drivers were not so lucky. The driver who ran through the stop sign was innocent in her intention, but someone still lost her life. Incidentally, if the deceased had been following the law about wearing her seat belt, she might have survived. I think both laws should exist and should be enforced with little regard for intent, because it harms no one and can prevent great harm to others. The seat belt one is arguable, but I'm glad that law exists. The stop sign is not arguable in my opinion.
There are plenty of laws I'd argue should not exist. First, any law prohibited by this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
I know that's an American thing, but it's really fundamental. Y'all should get one of those.
Beyond that, I'll go with low-hanging fruit. There should be no law restricting use of any kind of substance for your own consenting self, whether for medication or recreation or ritual. I'd like laws that punish misrepresentation of what a substance is (you can't sell me cocaine and call it super coffee sweetener, for example), but that (compelling truthfulness) should be the only consumer protection. We should only be stopped from doing that which directly harms others, like lying about what's in the coffee.
Yes, I completely agree. The laws are there to be obeyed and applied at the time they were current (not retrospectively). Of course there can be some variation in the application of the punishment (like if I kept running red lights, I would expect to also lose my driver's licence). The consequence of a infraction (a car crash) isn't the purpose of the law, it is the avoiding of the potential situation where my own actions impinge upon someone else's health or security.
I would say the same about the seat belt. If something bad does happen, it is possible to argue that the only victim is yourself. However, it is also passing on the cost of treatment to society. You take up a hospital bed that could have been used for better uses....
It's a good idea, but I think in the end it is too much of an ideal statement! To take an extreme case, the right of people to freely assemble. I would definitely agree in principle, however, if people wish to freely assemble with weapons (without using them), I'm not particularly keen on that!
Likewise, if a particular religion has as part of it's exercise, some questionable ideas that potentially impact upon the freedom and rights of others, then perhaps it should be restricted?
However, yes as a guiding principle, but I fear it is too high-minded to use as anything more than a guideline!
Having witnessed that particular traffic fatality, I would say the cost to society goes beyond medical care. There is also trauma to not only the familes but community members (like me) who end up involved. But still, it's arguable. I'm fine with seat belt laws but against drug prohibition, and my only logic is whether or not I believe they do more harm than good.
I'll stand by our first amendment 100%, because the key principle is
Any law that restricts these things, or forces them in a particular direction, is a bad law. So if people peaceably assemble with weapons it might be a very bad idea, or a renaissance fair, or zombie apocalypse training, but that is not something the state can discern in making a law.
There might be lots of specific and local examples that make necessary for individuals or communities to put limits on assembly, religious practices that harm others, even speech (I will not allow some kinds of speech around my young child, for example). But none of these are reasons for anyone to trust the state to do it with laws. It's too blunt an instrument. Let's say your religion demands human sacrifice. Obviously that's murder. But what if your sect only does a symbolic sacrifice? How can the law decide? If the religion is deemed too dangerous, when do you begin to violate the law- when you use certain symbols or words, when you associate with people of that religion, when you have certain thoughts or beliefs?
Better to keep laws as concrete as possible. Murder is illegal. Religion, expression, and assembly, a judgement call for individuals and communities to make on an ongoing basis.
Drug prohibition (I include medical drugs) is a tricky one as in most cases we fly blind with limited or unreliable scientific studies, compounded by the reproducibilty problem and fact that we can't just do direct tests on humans! But I do agree that there is a problem of mixed standards with drugs of all types (legal and illegal).
When you mean Congress, are you speaking of the top level government? So, not states in America? I still find it a good aspirational guide, but I think it is a bit too broad to apply broadly... (that came out ineptly...)....
The winners and the next SBI Giveaway (Superpowers) is here:
https://steemit.com/steembasicincome/@bengy/steemitbasicincomegiveawaysuperpower-kk3c7w2ju9