Freedom vs Security vs Civility: Government's role???

[bucs90]

I've been unable to get many right wingers to engage in a discussion about actual governing. They love to spew ideological bumper sticker style phrases and ideas, but when it comes to actual governing, it's harder to get a real discussion.

But, I'll try again. So, what about the idea that freedom itself creates dangers to citizens. And that is the point when that society decides how it responds. Is it simply survival of the fittest? Or, do we govern ourselves through civilized laws? Or do we turn to a God or criminal gang to restore order?

For example.....the tech boom was a product of the great freedoms and capitalist system in America. We created technology that has literally changed the world. But with that, we accidentally created a very dangerous situation: Texting and driving.

Here where I live, texting/driving laws are popping up since the state wont pass it (SC is one of the few states it is still legal). So, you have a mostly right wing group of city council members, with a voter base mostly right wing, who are bitching about something needing to be done (yep, by the government) about this problem.

So, how do we balance freedom, security, civil society when it comes to those little nuisance situations, or very dangerous ones, like:

- Texting/driving ban vs freedom
- DUI laws vs allowing drivers to drink beer and drive
- Speeding vs Speed bumps
- Noise ordinances vs freedom to blare music at 2am
- Leash laws requiring dogs to be on a leash vs loose, aggressive dogs?


Many RW'ers don't want that conversation. Because it leads to the conclusion that, while we may not like paying taxes or necessarily like the government.........the most efficient way society has found to deal with life's little or big problems that we cant seem to solve on our own is a government funded by everyone pitching in.

 

[Saigon]

To my mind the line between freedom and anything else is the point at which it imposes on someone elses rights or freedom.

I am often confused that right-wing posters talk about small government and freedom, but want to outlaw things like abortion or gay marriage that have no impact on their own lives at all. If you on't want an abortion - don't have one. It's as simple as that.

To my mind something like texting and driving infringes on my rights as a driver on the road - and this I think it should be controlled.

Likewise with gun control. A farmer or hunter keeping a shotgun safely locked in his home does not infringe of my civil rights as a citizen walking past his house - a teenager with an automatic weapon he does not know how to use or store safely patently does infringe my rights as I walk past his house, because it increases my likelihood of being accidentally shot or caught in cross-fire.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Libtard/Neo-Con definition of "Actual Governing" :

43,000,000 babies murdered.

Fluoride in your drinking water.

Chicago

17,000,000,000,000 debt and climbing.

Trayvon Martin drama

Destabilizing the Middle East.

Detroit

Mock-child sacrifice rituals at the Bohemian Grove

Spying on All Americans.

Camden

Kidnapping Americans (NDAA)

Suspending Jury Trials for Americans (NDAA)

New Orleans

Suspending Habaes Corpus for Americas (NDAA)

Para-militarizing the police

California

Flying drones over US skies

Assassinating Americans (Michael Hastings, Breitbart, Seal Team 6 ---even Breitbart's Coroner!)

Senator Dianne Frankenstein

Declaring Libertarians and Constitutionalists Terrorists.

Labeling the Founding Fathers Extremists

Senator John McLame

Gun Grabbing

SCOTUS usurping the Right to Contract --- under the guise of tax.

Fiat currency.

Rewarding foreign corporations and manufacturing

Closing down United States power plants, forcing us to buy Mexican power.

Senator Lindsey Scam

Arming Al Qaeda

FORCING jobs overseas via tax/regulations

Training Al Qaeda

FEMA camps

Funding Al Qaeda

DHS purchasing 2 billion + rounds of hollow point ammunition

Directing Al Qaeda

O'Babble

GMO poisoning

Gitmo

9-11 investigation

No-Knock Warrants

Red-Light Cameras with extremely short YELLOW lights

Torture

New Orleans

Electronically rigged voting and Gerrymandering

State rights?

The War on Drugs (The War on Black People)

Senator Dick Turdin

Gun Free School Zones

Bridgeport, Connetcuit

Severe lack of armed guards in schools

Detonating a nuke under Eric Cantor's district (Virgina Earthquake my asshole)

Chemtrails -- yippee!

Benghazi

IRS targeting Tea Party

TSA molestation

DHS doing target practice on portraits of pregnant women and old men.

Spying on AP.

Demonization of whistleblowers

our education standards compared to other nations

Oakland, California

Flint, Michigan

Boston Bombing

FBI shooting Ibragim Todashev in the head 7 times while he was tied up

Libya

Muslim brotherhood

Egypt

 

[bucs90]

^^
Could "2nd Amendment"'s post be any more of a perfect example of my point?

Bumper sticker issues? Sure, talk about that all day.

Actual day-to-day governing, on the local level where most politics and governing happen? NO WAY!!! They don't want to talk about that.

 

[NightFox]

I've been unable to get many right wingers to engage in a discussion about actual governing. They love to spew ideological bumper sticker style phrases and ideas, but when it comes to actual governing, it's harder to get a real discussion.

But, I'll try again. So, what about the idea that freedom itself creates dangers to citizens. And that is the point when that society decides how it responds. Is it simply survival of the fittest? Or, do we govern ourselves through civilized laws? Or do we turn to a God or criminal gang to restore order?

For example.....the tech boom was a product of the great freedoms and capitalist system in America. We created technology that has literally changed the world. But with that, we accidentally created a very dangerous situation: Texting and driving.

Here where I live, texting/driving laws are popping up since the state wont pass it (SC is one of the few states it is still legal). So, you have a mostly right wing group of city council members, with a voter base mostly right wing, who are bitching about something needing to be done (yep, by the government) about this problem.

So, how do we balance freedom, security, civil society when it comes to those little nuisance situations, or very dangerous ones, like:

- Texting/driving ban vs freedom
- DUI laws vs allowing drivers to drink beer and drive
- Speeding vs Speed bumps
- Noise ordinances vs freedom to blare music at 2am
- Leash laws requiring dogs to be on a leash vs loose, aggressive dogs?


Many RW'ers don't want that conversation. Because it leads to the conclusion that, while we may not like paying taxes or necessarily like the government.........the most efficient way society has found to deal with life's little or big problems that we cant seem to solve on our own is a government funded by everyone pitching in.

Given that all your examples are either State or Local government questions, I don't see the issue. Communities and states should be able to set these standards without interference by remote centralized government, individuals have far more direct influence in the government closest to them and thus state and local politicians are far more accountable to their constituents. Besides if one doesn't like how one's community or state is being governed one can vote with ones feet.

"What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and power into one body, no matter whether of the autocrats of Russia or France, or of the aristocrats of a Venetian senate" -- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Joseph C. Cabell 1816

 

[bucs90]

I've been unable to get many right wingers to engage in a discussion about actual governing. They love to spew ideological bumper sticker style phrases and ideas, but when it comes to actual governing, it's harder to get a real discussion.

But, I'll try again. So, what about the idea that freedom itself creates dangers to citizens. And that is the point when that society decides how it responds. Is it simply survival of the fittest? Or, do we govern ourselves through civilized laws? Or do we turn to a God or criminal gang to restore order?

For example.....the tech boom was a product of the great freedoms and capitalist system in America. We created technology that has literally changed the world. But with that, we accidentally created a very dangerous situation: Texting and driving.

Here where I live, texting/driving laws are popping up since the state wont pass it (SC is one of the few states it is still legal). So, you have a mostly right wing group of city council members, with a voter base mostly right wing, who are bitching about something needing to be done (yep, by the government) about this problem.

So, how do we balance freedom, security, civil society when it comes to those little nuisance situations, or very dangerous ones, like:

- Texting/driving ban vs freedom
- DUI laws vs allowing drivers to drink beer and drive
- Speeding vs Speed bumps
- Noise ordinances vs freedom to blare music at 2am
- Leash laws requiring dogs to be on a leash vs loose, aggressive dogs?


Many RW'ers don't want that conversation. Because it leads to the conclusion that, while we may not like paying taxes or necessarily like the government.........the most efficient way society has found to deal with life's little or big problems that we cant seem to solve on our own is a government funded by everyone pitching in.

Given that all your examples are either State or Local government questions, I don't see the issue. Communities and states should be able to set these standards without interference by remote centralized government, individuals have far more direct influence in the government closest to them and thus state and local politicians are far more accountable to their constituents. Besides if one doesn't like how one's community or state is being governed one can vote with ones feet.

"What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and power into one body, no matter whether of the autocrats of Russia or France, or of the aristocrats of a Venetian senate" -- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Joseph C. Cabell 1816

Ummmmmmmmm.............because politicians- Dems and Republicans, run for office at the local and state level too. And this being a political forum, I ask questions like that, where MOST government takes place- at the local level.

For all the bitching and whining right wingers to about "Tha fedrul gubmint".....they'd realize that 90% of the governing being done to them is at the local level. But they don't want to talk about that.

So, since right wingers are so uninterested in actually doing the governing, or hearing issues and responding to ones that truly affect people's daily life, why should I EVER vote for another Republican again? EVER? At any level?

I couldn't give less of a damn about gay marriage or Syria.

But I do care about the people speeding on highways, selling drugs, letting THEIR guns get stolen overnight from unlocked cars. You know...real daily problems that the government CAN do something about?

Instead, I'll get speeches from Rick Santorum about how God doesn't want gays getting married.

 

[NightFox]

I've been unable to get many right wingers to engage in a discussion about actual governing. They love to spew ideological bumper sticker style phrases and ideas, but when it comes to actual governing, it's harder to get a real discussion.

But, I'll try again. So, what about the idea that freedom itself creates dangers to citizens. And that is the point when that society decides how it responds. Is it simply survival of the fittest? Or, do we govern ourselves through civilized laws? Or do we turn to a God or criminal gang to restore order?

For example.....the tech boom was a product of the great freedoms and capitalist system in America. We created technology that has literally changed the world. But with that, we accidentally created a very dangerous situation: Texting and driving.

Here where I live, texting/driving laws are popping up since the state wont pass it (SC is one of the few states it is still legal). So, you have a mostly right wing group of city council members, with a voter base mostly right wing, who are bitching about something needing to be done (yep, by the government) about this problem.

So, how do we balance freedom, security, civil society when it comes to those little nuisance situations, or very dangerous ones, like:

- Texting/driving ban vs freedom
- DUI laws vs allowing drivers to drink beer and drive
- Speeding vs Speed bumps
- Noise ordinances vs freedom to blare music at 2am
- Leash laws requiring dogs to be on a leash vs loose, aggressive dogs?


Many RW'ers don't want that conversation. Because it leads to the conclusion that, while we may not like paying taxes or necessarily like the government.........the most efficient way society has found to deal with life's little or big problems that we cant seem to solve on our own is a government funded by everyone pitching in.

Given that all your examples are either State or Local government questions, I don't see the issue. Communities and states should be able to set these standards without interference by remote centralized government, individuals have far more direct influence in the government closest to them and thus state and local politicians are far more accountable to their constituents. Besides if one doesn't like how one's community or state is being governed one can vote with ones feet.

"What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and power into one body, no matter whether of the autocrats of Russia or France, or of the aristocrats of a Venetian senate" -- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Joseph C. Cabell 1816

For all the bitching and whining right wingers to about "Tha fedrul gubmint".....they'd realize that 90% of the governing being done to them is at the local level. But they don't want to talk about that.

I don't speak for "right wingers" but I can say my issues are numerous when it comes to the federal government imposing arbitrary standards, expenses and regulation on my state and my local community. I expect the federal government to handle only those matters which are not in the purview of my state or local government, however this is not the case, we have FAR too many matters imposed upon us from the remote central authority in Washington and thus the heart of the conflict.

So, since right wingers are so uninterested in actually doing the governing, or hearing issues and responding to ones that truly affect people's daily life, why should I EVER vote for another Republican again? EVER? At any level?

Doesn't really matter if you vote for a Republican or not, both parties are two sides of the same statist coin. Neither party is interested in "governing" both parties are only interested in utilizing the machinery of the state to enrich and aggrandize themselves and the monied interests which control them.

Only a fool would believe that one party is "better" or more "benevolent" than the other.

But I do care about the people speeding on highways, selling drugs, letting THEIR guns get stolen overnight from unlocked cars. You know...real daily problems that the government CAN do something about?

Well then I suggest you take that up with your state and/or local government and eschew attempting to impose your wants on every other community in the country. How your community chooses to govern itself is not my concern it only becomes my concern when you attempt to impose your standards on mine under the auspices of the federal government.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

^^
Could "2nd Amendment"'s post be any more of a perfect example of my point?

Bumper sticker issues? Sure, talk about that all day.

Actual day-to-day governing, on the local level where most politics and governing happen? NO WAY!!! They don't want to talk about that.

Can you refute even one of those on my list? I'm purposely keeping the TENTATIVE conspiracy theories items OUT of the list.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I've been unable to get many right wingers to engage in a discussion about actual governing. They love to spew ideological bumper sticker style phrases and ideas, but when it comes to actual governing, it's harder to get a real discussion.

But, I'll try again. So, what about the idea that freedom itself creates dangers to citizens. And that is the point when that society decides how it responds. Is it simply survival of the fittest? Or, do we govern ourselves through civilized laws? Or do we turn to a God or criminal gang to restore order?

For example.....the tech boom was a product of the great freedoms and capitalist system in America. We created technology that has literally changed the world. But with that, we accidentally created a very dangerous situation: Texting and driving.

Here where I live, texting/driving laws are popping up since the state wont pass it (SC is one of the few states it is still legal). So, you have a mostly right wing group of city council members, with a voter base mostly right wing, who are bitching about something needing to be done (yep, by the government) about this problem.

So, how do we balance freedom, security, civil society when it comes to those little nuisance situations, or very dangerous ones, like:

- Texting/driving ban vs freedom
- DUI laws vs allowing drivers to drink beer and drive
- Speeding vs Speed bumps
- Noise ordinances vs freedom to blare music at 2am
- Leash laws requiring dogs to be on a leash vs loose, aggressive dogs?


Many RW'ers don't want that conversation. Because it leads to the conclusion that, while we may not like paying taxes or necessarily like the government.........the most efficient way society has found to deal with life's little or big problems that we cant seem to solve on our own is a government funded by everyone pitching in.

Given that all your examples are either State or Local government questions, I don't see the issue. Communities and states should be able to set these standards without interference by remote centralized government, individuals have far more direct influence in the government closest to them and thus state and local politicians are far more accountable to their constituents. Besides if one doesn't like how one's community or state is being governed one can vote with ones feet.

"What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and power into one body, no matter whether of the autocrats of Russia or France, or of the aristocrats of a Venetian senate" -- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Joseph C. Cabell 1816

State and local government may not violate the civil liberties of a given class of persons, however, even if authorized by a majority in a given jurisdiction. When the majority in a state or local jurisdiction act in a manner offensive to the Constitution, the Federal courts are authorized by the Constitution to invalidate such state and local measures.

As to the bolded:

Incorrect.

One does not forfeit his civil liberties as a consequence of his state of residence, the majority may not seek to determine what rights a citizen will or will not have. Americans have the fundamental right to move freely about the country, to live in any state and community they wish, and to take with them their inalienable rights, which can be violated by no state or local government.

State and local governments are at liberty to enact measures they deem necessary and proper, provided such measures comport with Constitutional case law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I've been unable to get many right wingers to engage in a discussion about actual governing. They love to spew ideological bumper sticker style phrases and ideas, but when it comes to actual governing, it's harder to get a real discussion.

But, I'll try again. So, what about the idea that freedom itself creates dangers to citizens. And that is the point when that society decides how it responds. Is it simply survival of the fittest? Or, do we govern ourselves through civilized laws? Or do we turn to a God or criminal gang to restore order?

For example.....the tech boom was a product of the great freedoms and capitalist system in America. We created technology that has literally changed the world. But with that, we accidentally created a very dangerous situation: Texting and driving.

Here where I live, texting/driving laws are popping up since the state wont pass it (SC is one of the few states it is still legal). So, you have a mostly right wing group of city council members, with a voter base mostly right wing, who are bitching about something needing to be done (yep, by the government) about this problem.

So, how do we balance freedom, security, civil society when it comes to those little nuisance situations, or very dangerous ones, like:

- Texting/driving ban vs freedom
- DUI laws vs allowing drivers to drink beer and drive
- Speeding vs Speed bumps
- Noise ordinances vs freedom to blare music at 2am
- Leash laws requiring dogs to be on a leash vs loose, aggressive dogs?


Many RW'ers don't want that conversation. Because it leads to the conclusion that, while we may not like paying taxes or necessarily like the government.........the most efficient way society has found to deal with life's little or big problems that we cant seem to solve on our own is a government funded by everyone pitching in.

Texting/driving ban vs freedom
DUI laws vs allowing drivers to drink beer and drive
Speeding vs Speed bumps
Leash laws requiring dogs to be on a leash vs loose, aggressive dogs?

None of the above are Constitutional rights, the government may regulate and restrict such activities as they see fit.

The Constitution does require, however, that citizens be given equal access to such privileges, that they be consistently applied, that no class of persons is excluded, and that due process be afforded where appropriate.

With regard to:

Noise ordinances vs freedom to blare music at 2am

This is an example of a content-neutral time, place, and manner restriction, where an ordinance prohibiting loud music at a given time and place is Constitutional because there exists a legitimate governmental interest. The restriction is also justified because the state is not seeking to prohibit the ‘message’ the music may convey, just the loudness of the music. See: Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989).

 

[ScienceRocks]

Look at the top ten nations on earth to copy how much government we should have

Japan
South Korea
China
Germany
Britain
Russia
Mexico
France

Somewhere in there With MORE freedoms of course

 

[ScienceRocks]

Our founders studied the roman republic, Greece, and Britain for our system

 

[ScienceRocks]

I want the government we had in the 1960s WITH maybe some modern idea's thrown in...

 

[editec]

Mankind has always been a social creature ergo some kind of governance has always been part of our lives.

Complex societies spawn complex governments. IN fact you really cannot have one without the other

The more complex the society, the more restrictive laws that will be imposed on its citizens.

PURE FREEDOM of the individual is really only possible when an individual is solitary.

Finding the balance between anarchy and totalitarianism IS the constant struggle that societies must accept as their fate.

 

[Vox]

and this incompetent poster claims he was ever a conservative

 

[NightFox]

Mankind has always been a social creature ergo some kind of governance has always been part of our lives.

Complex societies spawn complex governments. IN fact you really cannot have one without the other

The more complex the society, the more restrictive laws that will be imposed on its citizens.

PURE FREEDOM of the individual is really only possible when an individual is solitary.

Finding the balance between anarchy and totalitarianism IS the constant struggle that societies must accept as their fate.

History clearly demonstrates that centralization of power inevitably leads to the state becoming an instrument of economic exploitation of the masses for the benefit of the few that are in a position to operate and control the machinery of the state. This is why the founders attempted to construct a government that was as decentralized as possible while still being able to fulfill national requirements that could not be effectively handled by the individual sovereign states (i.e. national defense).

The fact that we are consumed with a national hubris where everybody thinks what they want is what everybody else should get and are eager to utilize federal government force to impose their will on EVERYONE has accelerated this historical trend. We have become a nation of vultures using the federal government as a means to prey upon one another for the enrichment of the few, it's no different that what the European Nobility did during the feudal period, a heavily trodden road to serfdom.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I've been unable to get many right wingers to engage in a discussion about actual governing. They love to spew ideological bumper sticker style phrases and ideas, but when it comes to actual governing, it's harder to get a real discussion.

Is it remotely possible that the reason you cannot get "right wingers," whatever you think they are, to discuss things is because you start out with fallacies and proceed to condescension?

In other words you are the problem.

But, I'll try again. So, what about the idea that freedom itself creates dangers to citizens. And that is the point when that society decides how it responds. Is it simply survival of the fittest? Or, do we govern ourselves through civilized laws? Or do we turn to a God or criminal gang to restore order?

Freedom is dangerous?

Tell me something, which is more dangerous, freedom, or tyranny?

For example.....the tech boom was a product of the great freedoms and capitalist system in America. We created technology that has literally changed the world. But with that, we accidentally created a very dangerous situation: Texting and driving.

We created texting and driving? Is texting and driving inherently more dangerous than changing drivers while going down the freeway?

Instead of worrying about imaginary dangers of freedom, why not simply enforce laws about reckless driving? Is that too simple?

Here where I live, texting/driving laws are popping up since the state wont pass it (SC is one of the few states it is still legal). So, you have a mostly right wing group of city council members, with a voter base mostly right wing, who are bitching about something needing to be done (yep, by the government) about this problem.

No, what we have is a bunch of idiots that think more laws make sense. Since it is already illegal to drive recklessly, simply pull over anyone who is demonstrating that they are a danger to others, and don't waste time making new laws. This actually leaves police free to do things like respond to crimes instead of driving around trying to see into other people's cars to figure out if they are texting. Something which, it should be obvious is dangerous because it takes the police officers eyes off the road.

In other words, you want to fix an imaginary problem by making the world more dangerous.

So, how do we balance freedom, security, civil society when it comes to those little nuisance situations, or very dangerous ones, like:

- Texting/driving ban vs freedom
- DUI laws vs allowing drivers to drink beer and drive
- Speeding vs Speed bumps
- Noise ordinances vs freedom to blare music at 2am
- Leash laws requiring dogs to be on a leash vs loose, aggressive dogs?


Many RW'ers don't want that conversation. Because it leads to the conclusion that, while we may not like paying taxes or necessarily like the government.........the most efficient way society has found to deal with life's little or big problems that we cant seem to solve on our own is a government funded by everyone pitching in.

We balance them quite simply, by using common sense. We don't pretend that the government can do no wrong, and then give cops an excuse to not pay attention to the road.

 

[bucs90]

No, freedom itself isn't dangerous. But freedom ALLOWS for danger, since that means people are free, or more free, to do whatever they please. Now, "freedom" may have some basic laws. But, that would also allow for a lot of irresponsible behavior, that could inevitably lead to far worse things. Like DUI. It is illegal to drink a beer while you drive, even if not drunk. "Open container" laws. They are there, because at a time not too long ago, it was LEGAL to drink a beer while you drove so long as you never got drunk. That was a great freedom. But, it allowed for people to risk it, and eventually, DUI became a soaring problem. So, we had to outlaw open containers to stop people from risking that extra drink and getting drunk. Sure, it didn't stop any drunks who were gonna do it anyway. But it stopped a lot who would've not meant to get drunk, but did since they kept drinking beer while driving.

You mention texting and driving laws. Sure, many cops have said it would be very hard to enforce. But some would be deterred anyway, just because the law is on the books. Like seatbelt laws, which have saved TENS OF THOUSANDS of lives. Anyway, yes, you have reckless driving laws. But, when is it "reckless"? Because if it's not illegal to text, then they can text. It only becomes "reckless" once they hit someone, right? So why not have the law against texting-driving, deter some, but also have an additional tool to enforce against those who it doesn't deter?

Or we can say fuck it, eerrrbody free ta do whateva tha fuck ya want!!!

 

[ScienceRocks]

I support what keeps America number one in
-Science
-Infrastructure
-Technology
-Free and fair market for business development
-Top economy on earth

What ever that does that = I am supporting it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, freedom itself isn't dangerous. But freedom ALLOWS for danger, since that means people are free, or more free, to do whatever they please. Now, "freedom" may have some basic laws. But, that would also allow for a lot of irresponsible behavior, that could inevitably lead to far worse things. Like DUI. It is illegal to drink a beer while you drive, even if not drunk. "Open container" laws. They are there, because at a time not too long ago, it was LEGAL to drink a beer while you drove so long as you never got drunk. That was a great freedom. But, it allowed for people to risk it, and eventually, DUI became a soaring problem. So, we had to outlaw open containers to stop people from risking that extra drink and getting drunk. Sure, it didn't stop any drunks who were gonna do it anyway. But it stopped a lot who would've not meant to get drunk, but did since they kept drinking beer while driving.

You mention texting and driving laws. Sure, many cops have said it would be very hard to enforce. But some would be deterred anyway, just because the law is on the books. Like seatbelt laws, which have saved TENS OF THOUSANDS of lives. Anyway, yes, you have reckless driving laws. But, when is it "reckless"? Because if it's not illegal to text, then they can text. It only becomes "reckless" once they hit someone, right? So why not have the law against texting-driving, deter some, but also have an additional tool to enforce against those who it doesn't deter?

Or we can say fuck it, eerrrbody free ta do whateva tha fuck ya want!!!

Freedom allows danger?

North Korea must be one of the safest places on Earth then, unless you happen to be the ex of the leader and get arrested.

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un's ex-lover executed by firing squad: report - Washington Times

They arrested her, and executed her within days, while forcing family members and other members of the band to watch. Then they arrested everyone that they forced to watch. Sounds like a great place to live, if you hate Freedom and want safety.

Why does the government want to make it illegal to drive with a BAC of .06? Hint it has nothing to do with safety, even though they will use that bugaboo to convince idiots, it is all about money. The proof of that is the fact that MADD has publicly stated that they oppose dropping the BAC limit because it will not make the roads safer.

You can blather on all day about how "right wingers" won't discuss the issues with you, but You just proved that you are the one that refuses to discuss the issues. If you really wanted to discuss them you wouldn't blather about safety when people bring up why the laws you are pointing to are not about keeping people safe. You would address the issues they raise, and explain why you disagree with them.

When was DUI a soaring problem? It really wasn't, the problem was that courts were dismissing cases because it was proven that cops were not properly trained in the road side test used to determine drunkeness. That, and some companies realized they could make money selling police departments Breathalyzers. As in all things, follow the money, not the rhetoric.

Why make a law that is hard to enforce? Money.

If a law is more about money than safety it should never pass. Feel free to make a case for safety by showing examples of laws that do not make money for the government.

Actualy, you provided a good example of that earlier, speed bumps. That probably explains why we don't see speed bumps in school zones, no money.