I try and look at our freedoms in this country in an objective manner. I usually think the answer to problems is less government, enforcement of existing laws (and repealing a great many unneeded ones), and tough noogies to people that aren't smart enough to survive the trials of life the rest of us have.
There have been several threads and concepts posted over at
Cam Edwards concerning banning certain things or practices in the public interest:
First, we have the idea of banning firearms, banning certain kinds of firearms, etc. Most people that know me know my position on this...that none of it is going to do any good. You can't legislate people into morality, and you can't stop someone who has it in their head they're going to harm someone else. Banning firearms will only take guns away from law-abiding citizens and criminals don't obtain their guns by legal means, nor do they care how many laws they're breaking in the commission of their violent acts. There are plenty of laws already on the books that a)adequately punish criminals, and b)give sufficient legal recourse to the victims. Most people I know in the blogosphere agree with this point of view.
**********
Secondly, we have
this story about OU banning alcohol on their campus dorms and fraternities because of several incidents regarding underage drinking. This goes right along with the gun-banner methodology in my mind. Why ban something just because a minority of people can't be responsible? Why not let the students choose how they want to spend their time? Aren't there enough laws on the books already to punish underage drinkers? Isn't freedom supposed to be messy?
It just means more students will have to go off-campus to go party, logically resulting in more drunk driving accidents. At least if students could drink in their own dorm or frat or could walk to the party they wouldn't feel the need to get behind the wheel and compound the problem. They're going to do it anyways, that's just part of (most peoples') college experience at one point or another.
Decisions like this aren't going to eradicate the problem of binge drinking, underage drinking, or people being dumb enough to mix other drugs with alcohol. It's a feel-good policy for the parents and school administrators so they can think they did something.
**********
Then, we have
this story about an official in Pennsylvania wanting to ban kids from movies after 7 PM. I think you can see where I'm going with this...more utter stupidity. How often does this occur?...often enough to ban all children from the movies after 7? Are we to ban all parents from bringing their kids to the movies because of a few irresponsible parents who won't remove their children when they're unruly? Is there not sufficient recourse available to the offended moviegoer in the form of asking management for their admission back because of a less-than-pleasant experience?
**********
TO SUM IT ALL UP:
These are not apples, oranges, and bannanas issues. They're one and the same. Posters (and blog authors) who are on one side of one issue completely change their minds when it comes to something they find apalling, annoying, distasteful, etc. It's akin to wanting to regulate pornography on the Internet but screaming for your own 1st Amendment rights otherwise. Or banning smoking (and soon no drinking, dancing, or talking) in bars when people have the choice to frequent that establishment or not. We have to tolerate that which we find distasteful if we want to be able to enjoy that which we find acceptable. How about a little intellectual honesty, people?
Nerk said it best in Cam's OU thread, so I won't try and inadequately re-hash it:
----------
"There are certain laws that are designed to protect society and then there are certain laws that are designed to protect people from themselves. Some laws prohibit things that are universally viewed as "bad" such as murder or rape (I'm sure you've heard the term malum in se), and there are laws that prohibit things because the occurrence of the prohibited action cannot occur in civilized society, such as speeding, littering, etc. (malum prohibitum).
The distinction is that laws designed to protect society are necessary for several reasons such as the possibility of being a deterrent, an avenue for prosecution when the law is broken so that violators can be fined and/or imprisoned (punishment), a way to stop the violators from doing it again (prevention - if they're in prison, they don't kill anybody else), and the sense of "justice" that society needs (retribution).
On the other hand, laws designed to protect you from yourself are largely less effective at preventing the prohibited behavior. If you're going to kill yourself, is a law against suicide really that effective at anything? Deterrent? No. Punishment? No. Prevention? No. Retribution? No."
----------
It's simple. Either you're on the side of freedom or you aren't. All of these above threads concern more nanny-state bullshit laws or policies because somebody gets annoyed and says, "There should be a law!!"