Entry 2101, on 2021-01-11 at 11:56:27 (Rating 3, Politics)
Patrick Henry, a founding father of the US, famously said "Give me freedom, or give me death!". At least, that phrase is attributed to him, and the word was "liberty", not "freedom", but I think the meaning is practically the same.
Of course, it is a rhetorical point, and most people (including me) who quote it wouldn't really want to swap lack of freedom for death in almost every case, but the sentiment is still a powerful one. Maybe "freedom is important" is more accurate, but less memorable.
Most people would say that they value freedom highly, but in their words and actions they often betray that thought. It's too easy to say we need freedom in situations where the person agrees with the circumstances, but that when it is less convenient freedom can be dispensed with. This particularly applies to freedom of speech (I'm likely to comment more on this in the future since freedom of speech is so much under attack today) but is also a factor in other situations.
While freedom is generally considered something worth pursuing, there are situations where it can be problematic. During social crises acting for the good of the group will often result in better outcomes that acting as an individual. The COVID pandemic is a classic case here; many people gave up their freedoms willingly to suppress a greater threat to society as a whole.
And freedom is never absolute, anyway. Few, if any, societies give their members the right to affect other members of that society through violence or theft. While we live in groups there have to be restrictions on freedoms just to make the group work successfully. So again, the less catchy "freedom is important" is the more appropriate phrase here.
But, despite the obvious requirement for restrictions on freedom, I still think it isn't emphasised enough. How many power structures exist which restrict what the individual can do? These exist from the lowest level of friends and family, through to small groups, to workplaces, to official organisations like police, to local government, and to national government. There are so many rules and regulations that no one can possibly know them all, yet ignorance of the law is not considered an excuse - but regrettably, for a law to work at all, that is necessary.
In fact, that requirement to know and abide by all laws is an interesting one. How are we supposed to know what these laws are? They're not available anywhere in an easy to understand form, they're not taught to any extent in schools, and few media sources portray them in an accurate or complete way. Given that, how can ignorance not be excusable?
I'm fairly sure I break several laws almost every day, but it could be a lot worse than that because there are almost certainly laws which affect me but I am unaware of. And I'm only discussing laws here, because failure to comply with those results in the most severe repercussions. There are also by-laws, rules, and policies to worry about. It's amazing that there is anyone still free, who hasn't been locked up for some indiscretion!
So what's my point here? Well, it's simple: there are far too many laws and other rules, and the punishments for breaking them are, in most cases, both too severe and ineffective.
Do we need rules even if they restrict freedoms? Unfortunately, yes. Do we have far too many; so many, in fact, that no one can possibly know even a fraction of them? Well, yes. Maybe if we had less laws, but laws which are more fair and reasonable, people might be more compliant... and more free.
So, in the interests in leaving "Abstract land", what are 5 examples of rules/laws that you deem "unnecessary" ?
Comment 2 by OJB on 2021-01-19 at 12:06:04:
I'll give you 5 categories where many laws are either unnecessary, counterproductive, or absurd: drug laws, traffic laws, freedom of speech and offence rules, crazy building regulations, "moral" laws relating to sexual behaviour and religion, copyright and patent laws... oh, was that six?
Comment 3 by Anonymous on 2021-01-19 at 12:07:16:
No, I asked for specific items... you are still talking in general terms. It's very easy to live in that land isn't it?
Comment 4 by OJB on 2021-01-19 at 12:08:06:
Drug laws: people being prosecuted for using small amounts of relatively harmless drugs, often used for medical purposes. Traffic laws: driving slightly above speed limits in very quiet areas where extra speed is harmless. Free speech: being prosecuted for making factual statements about groups seen as politically disadvantaged. Building regulations: ridiculous zoning laws. Moral: blasphemy laws. Patent laws: stifling innovation by patenting generic concepts. These are just laws related to issues I've heard in the news recently. Is that helpful?
Comment 5 by Anonymous on 2021-01-19 at 12:09:36:
Helpful yes, but still just your opinion. For example, "extra speed is harmless" according to who? You because you are a much better driver than most people?
Comment 6 by Anonymous on 2021-01-19 at 12:10:55:
No, people are often not the best judges of their own abilities - sorry. You call it it law made by "some nameless bureaucrat in an office in Wellington", I might counter by calling it a law passed by a Government elected by a majority (clearly just not a majority you are a member of) possibly backed by research and ancient statistics.
Comment 7 by OJB on 2021-01-19 at 12:11:38:
If you re-read my last paragraph you will see I concede that there is a need for laws and other rules, but that I think there are far too many of them. I also think, despite your contention above, that many of them aren't well-founded in fact. If they are, I challenge you to explain the "facts" behind the examples of bad laws I gave above. I remember reading that the average American breaks (unknowingly in most cases) three laws every day, yet they do no real harm. If that isn't a damning commentary on our legal system, what is?
Comment 8 by Anonymous on 2021-01-19 at 12:12:44:
So in summary, there are lots of laws/regulations that you don't agree with and are therefore invalid. While I strongly disagree with the outcome of the recent cannabis referendum, I live in a democracy where majority rules and therefore possession and consumption of said drug remains illegal.
Comment 9 by OJB on 2021-01-19 at 12:12:59:
I think everyone does what they want in the end. Many people will decide to follow every law, but even the option to do that is a personal choice. I prefer to ignore laws which I think are pointless or corrupt. I realise I'm breaking the law, and if I am caught I can only blame myself. Even then, I prefer to do what I think is right.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE