The Uncaring Tyranny of Government

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Papewaio's solution is wise in a proposed measured solution, but ignores the central issues: the 'litter' is on so-called private property. What is the state's compelling interest in regulating that, and what is the state's right in enforcing that interest?

Well, when they put the law in place they never imagined it would go past the $50 fine, and it's not the job of the justice system to say "well, they didn't mean for it to go this far so we'll ignore it". I also don't think the law is just about littering--I imagine there are law enforcement concerns as well. If it is just about littering then it's a bad law but at $50 I'm not surprised that it's gone unnoticed.

You think it reasonable to fine people and throw them in jail because they smoke marijuana, take ecstasy, trip on acid and shoot heroin on their property? Is it reasonable a man can't smoke what he wants on his property without getting arrested? Is that what you consider reasonable?

What right does the government have to dictate such things? What pact did the man make with the government, what agreement did he sign that said he wouldn't have unlicensed vehicles in his driveway?

No, he had it forced on him - in a singular way no non-government entity could hope to replicate. The government declared it had the power to rule over the private property of citizens.

As Kukri said, we are leaving the land of the free, aided by government apologetics.



The law? The Law?! Does that excuse it? The fact that it was a law? Does that remove from our discussion whether it is right or just?

You mentioned a democracy, though this is a republic. But does the fact that a majority of people support something make it moral and acceptable?

What a pathetic concept. Laws are not the basis of justice. Justice should be the basis of laws. We should not have to convince people that a bad law should be voted out instead of thrown out as being against the rights of man.

Relying merely on democracy as the great decider of our morals will lead to the tyranny of 51% of the population.

And meek acceptance of the government as arbitrator of what is right will lead only to further erosion of liberty.

And what if someone wronged by a law, someone who's been put in jail for painting his house the wrong color as an extreme example; if he cannot garner enough support to change the law should he then be doomed, as well as anyone else who falls afoul of what ever the 50 percent plus one demand?

It is hard to fathom the mind which assumes, which takes as a starting position that the government is always correct, that it's actions to enforce whatever ridiculous law are reasonable. How can one decide it is alright to be ruled by people who did not care enough to do some simple thing to prevent this man's home being taken from him.

Oh, but they cry, they weren't required to. As if someone who was so insensitive to the suffering of others, so uncaring of people, should be able to rule.

I am not, I suppose, that surprised at the leftists on here, but I will ask them; is not the point of the government to increase the well-being of people? How, exactly, does this do that? How does enforcement of this law in this manner benefit the public?

CR

Sorry...but with your rant about leftists at the end I just had to change up your first paragraph. The right wing is the sole supporter of the biggest example of the uncaring tyranny of government, far larger than this one guy who tried to get out of paying a (possibly unjust) fine in a way that our system wasn't prepared to handle.