Laws no one wants; why?

Great Debates
1

This week’s SD topic, laws against prostitution, plus a thread about the legality of speed traps, brings a question to mind: Why are there so many laws that almost no one wants?

For instance, when you have a highway with a 60 mph speed limit, and yet everyone does 70 or 75, it seems pretty clear that the great majority of people consider the 60 limit unreasonable. Yet the speed limit stays at 60. Not too many people think that smoking marijuana will turn you into a dope fiend, yet the draconian laws against pot stay on the books. Prostitution is considered by many a “victimless crime” (I’m not considering whether it really is or not), but it stays illegal.

The classic example was Prohibition. It made millions of Americans willing lawbreakers, but it took over ten years before it was finally junked. To say nothing about why it was made the law of the land to begin with.

In short, why is it that once these laws get on the books, it seems that no amount of public sentiment can overturn them? Is the government and the legal system set up so that a tiny minority of moralists can veto any attempt at decriminalization forever? It’s enough to make you a Libertarian.

2

No one changes those laws because it’d be damn hard to run a re-election campaign once you did.

“A vote for Hunsecker is a vote for stoned, speeding whores!”

3

Seriously, I think there are two reasons. One is the moralists (“Activity X is Wrong, therefore it should be illegal”), but I think they’re in the minority.

The other is, like I said before, it would be hard to be reelected on a record of eliminating anti-prostitution laws (for example). People too easily confuse wanting to remove laws for Activity X with support and encouragement of Activity X. It would take a whole crop of politicians that only wanted to serve for one term before a lot of these laws get overturned.

4

Hell, I’d vote for ya Hunsecker.

5

Also, I get a general sense that people don’t think many laws are important in an of themselves anymore. Maybe it was the whole Watergate/Vietnam “don’t trust the gummit” thing, or maybe the sheer number of stupid laws is the cause. Or maybe I’m imagining the whole thing.

But I remember trying to rally student support to prevent the Maryland legislature from raising the drinking age from 18 back to 21. The most common reaction I got? “Hell, I’m breaking the law now by drinking at age 16. The law won’t impede my ability to get alcohol. Why should I bust my butt to prevent a law I’m just going to violate anyway?” Same thing when they tried to ban kegs on my college campus.

That’s when manhattan’s budding political career came to a screeching halt.

Livin’ on Tums, vitamin E and Rogaine

6

Churches, PACs, and the like are typically pretty important to ye olde local politician because they can influence votes and do control fairly large sums of money. However, they don’t typically represent the opinions of the population. So, you end up with politicians balancing the not so serious desires of the public with the more serious desires of the money controllign blocs. If the people are apathetic, the churches and PACs win.

Also the reasons others stated.

7

Wow, the pro-stoned-speeding-whores contingent is stronger than I had expected.

Plank #2 in my platform is: Get Rid of The Damn Pennies, Cause Who Needs Em’?

Vote Hunsecker 2000

8

I hear certain sexual acts are against the law in some states, never been arre…oh nevermind.

If your head is wax, don’t walk in the sun.
-Benjamin Franklin

9

Lumpy:

My answers: (A) Because you don’t elect Libertarian candidates who would do so. (B) Yes. That’s your “representative” government at work for you and (C) I am a Libertarian. :slight_smile:

You can stand tall without standing on someone. You can be a victor without having victims. -Harriet Woods-

10

Yeah! Yeah! Two votes for Hunsecker.

This is how a revolution starts, ya know~

11

grrr

my underline didn’t work

12

Yes! One more vote, and I’ll be ahead of Keyes!

13

The Religious Right is very powerful, and legislators seem to have no problems with letting them get their way in legislating personal morality.

Yer pal,
Satan

14

Two votes, huh? Then I’m wondering who Hunsecker plans to vote for. =B^)

15

I’m waiting until Brian moves into my General Assembly district, or I into his. Then I’ll become his campaign manager, and we’ll show North Carolina a thing or two. (Movie fans: Cross “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” with “Damn Yankees”.) :smiley:

16

Satan summarized it well. Remember, folks, the squeaky wheel gets the grease – and the religious right sure knows how to squeak! They not only squeak, but they vote in large numbers, especially during the primary.

Also remember the uproar when Jesse Ventura told Playboy that prostitution should be legal and that religion was for the weak-minded. How dare a politician say such immoral things?!

But also, not everybody so easily agrees that these laws are unnecessary. Yes, most people speed, but that doesn’t mean they’re in favor of removing speed limits. Is it hypocritical? Hell, yes. But they’re human. Also, many think, “Well, yes, the limit is 65 and I go 70, but if it were 70, people would go 75, and that’s too fast!”

Lumpy said:

Because I think, in this case, you’re overestimating how many people want it legal. There are an awful lot of people who find it incredibly immoral and have no problem with it staying illegal.

And I’m sure a lot more people drink alcohol than frequent hookers!

17

Just a note on the speed limit issue:

In California, if I recall correctly, one of the factors used to determine speed on state highways is ambient speed levels. If more than a certain percentage of drivers drive faster than the posted speed, the state has to consider raising the limit. I recall this specifically because they were forced to raise the limit on a section of Highway 1 between Watsonville and Santa Cruz from 55 to 65 for precisely this reason.

18

Now I will address the main issue raised in the OP:

One of the things to consider when we think about government is its purpose in existing. I mean, why have it at all?

People have studied this for quite some time, and we have written tracts discussing the issue from the Greeks, the Romans, the Chinese, etc., all from more than 2000 years ago. Writers from the 1400’s on were often obsessed with some aspect of the issue, and, of course, Das Kapital is in many ways an exploration of the question.

I think that most people would agree that the reason for having government is because anarchy is less preferable. That is to say, without a government, some things that need to be done to have a society in which we wish to live don’t get done. Thus, the basic principle to distill from this is that government exists to do for society those things society won’t do for itself.

To this notion all brands of philosophy regarding government can attach themselves, from the minimalists (like Libertarians) to the maximalists (extreme socialism, for example). Each can debate WHAT is necessary, but by then you aren’t debating morality, only the price. :wink:

Which brings us back to the thread. If, indeed, the purpose of having a government is to have it do things we wouldn’t do ourselves, it shouldn’t be too surprising that some of the things government does we find unnecessary. Sure, some things government does we can all agree on. No one questions laws making murder illegal. But if government is doing its job, some of what it does will make some of us unhappy, because that is its purpose, doing what we won’t do ourselves.

Most of us find speed limits annoying. We think ourselves capable of driving at higher speeds safely, and dislike the loss of time involved in slower driving. Yet, without a speed limit, we would have people driving at whatever speed they choose, and total chaos would result. In the face of consistent evidence that increased speed causes increasing chance of accident (see, for example, that idiotic race recently between the two basketball stars in Charlotte), some limit seems needed. Government steps in and imposes one. Now, why any specific limit? Well, in many cases the limit represents a compromise between the desire of the populace to unimpeded travel and the conscience of the populace which won’t permit too many accidents. Where that compromise falls will vary from place to place and time to time (see for example the speed limits in Michigan versus Ohio, and, of course, the debate over the national 55 limit). Any change in a limit will make some happy and some upset; many won’t care until it applies to them personally in a given situation.

Which gets us back again to the idea of what government is for, and why we don’t like what it does at times. If government is there to do things we won’t always do ourselves, we will, by nature, find ourselves restrained from doing what we wish. One would hope that the response to this by an individual would be to: a) accept the limitation on personal freedom as a necessary, if irritating at the moment, part of avoiding anarchy, and b) work to make sure that his or her opinion about what government should be doing is included in our great debate process on the issue (voting, speaking to officials, running for office, etc.). More often than not, though, what runs through our mind is: a) I am going to ignore this rule since I don’t see the need for it, and b) I shouldn’t have been punished for breaking the rule cause it’s unfair and I don’t like it, and I’m gonna do all I can to see I don’t get what I deserve for it (see for example, the threads regarding radar tickets and police without lights). One can perhaps understand that it is awfully hard to be thinking of the needs of the many when you have the blinking cherry behind you.

In sum, government exists because no government is not preferable. Government exists therefor to do what you and I won’t by ourselves do. We won’t like everything government does for this very reason. Where government is acting to impose moral choices we don’t agree with, or acts to limit our personal freedom, it becomes hardest to agree that government is not screwing up. :slight_smile:

19

“It is to secure our rights that we resort to government at all.” — Thomas Jefferson to Francois D’Ivernois, 1795

20

DSYoung said:

I’m sorry, but your example has nothing to do with your claim.

Increased speed, in and of itself, has nothing to do with a couple idiots racing on a public street. Idiocy is to blame, not speed.