This is counterculture from the underground. (lafinjack) wrote in talk_politics,
This is counterculture from the underground.

Would you support a rule/stipulation/guideline/whatever that any law enacted to ban or restrict an activity would have to prove that said activity is harmful to society?

For instance, last night's vote on the initiative to ban gay marriage in North Carolina. Gay people marrying each other hurts noone, yet it was banned after already being illegal in the state. The United States' drug war is another example, where the ban arguably does more harm than no ban at all by creating a black market where there otherwise would be none.

The purpose of laws (either their existence or lack thereof) is to form the society we want to create. If we can't prove harm, then the passage of such a law is irrelevant at best, and in most cases I can think of creates more harm.
Tags: hypothesis, law
  • Post a new comment


    Comments allowed for members only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded