more laws = less liberty?
142351
more laws = less freedom\nmore centralized power = less liberty
1001919
There ia an abyssal difference between liberty (freedom) and license (anarchy).\n\nThe former is highly desirable because it allows an individual to make their own choices in life according to their own free will and the dictates of their (hopefully) well-formed consciences.\n\nThe latter is an excuse for trampling over everything and everyone in order to prove to oneself that one is a powerful being indeed. Sad, really.\n\nFreedom without responsiblity is anarchy. Period! Human nature being what it is, ie fallen, it could hardly be otherwise.
383683
The reason is that more people are affected and those rights affect more individuals.  It is not necessarily true.  The Patriot act can be viewed as supporting community rights, though I don't agree that it does.
1168864
Of course we don't have as much freedom as we did 30 yrs ago. There are cameras everywhere, we can't smoke, our children have to have social security numbers, paranoia runs rampant as any stranger is a potential child molestor or terrorist, we have restrictions on what can be brought into schools, federal buildings, etc, we have metal detectors, there are more rules and restrictions and fees in every aspect of our life, we have Homeland Security, and now our civil liberties are being taken away. In essence we have traded our freedoms to become safer but are we any safer than before? No. Our borders are not sealed, we can't eradicate terorism, or prevent crime, we can't legislate consciousness. I am amazed when people say 1984 passed and nothing happened. Perhaps we are not able to see what has happened to us objectively.
736449
I'M  WITH YOU.\n\nAll these security measures that have been implemented to give us  "security" will one day be used to regulate and control us.\n\nDear old Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who would surrender freedom for security deserve neither."\n\nThink about it. If a government or people in the background that influence a government was/were afraid the people may one day get fed up with them and stage a revolt what measures would they put into effect to prevent that?\n\n1) control their ability to move around quickly.  \nAirport security, travel records of buses and trains.   ID's.   There was even talk of a (GASP) NATIONAL ID!\n\n2) track all large money deposits.\nRequire banks to report anything larger than $5,000.  It would take money to stage a rebellion so tracking it would warn the government who is moving money where. They just get a warrant to search your property and find the tools of a revolt and lock you  up before you can do anything to get rid of the abusive bastards.\n\n3) Squash them like a bug. \nUse the military act to lock up suspected terrorists with NO trial and they NEVER see a lawyer.\n\nDo you realize that with the passage of the most recent law, the government can designate anyone (you) as a terrorist and lock them up forever?\n\n4) Use issues that will divide the people.\nThat will prevent them from working too closely together.  Abortion, gay rights, health care, and now the Iraq mess. That should hit about 95% of the population shouldn't it? Get them fighting, arguing amongst themselves so they don't concentrate on what is really happening in the background....\n\n5) Use cameras.\nSo we can watch who goes where and catch anyone talking against the beloved people in power.\n\n6) Pretend we don't mind if they have guns to defend themselves, but slowly learn who has them so they can be collected one day.\n\nGee does any of that sound familiar?\nIn the last five years all of that has been put into place. More regulation than in the whole 200+ years since this country declared independence.\n\nAmericans are about to be subjugated and they are too complacent to know it.
1019279
not necessarily.  \n\nHowever sometimes freedoms must be sacrificed to achieve safety.
485809
I agree that there are many stupid laws.  Stupid laws come from stupid people.  We live in a democracy.  We are ruled by people of average intelligence.  Its tyrany of the masses.  Its not perfect and its not always fair but what are the alternatives?  \n\nHowever, having said that, I think that we could do a little better if we actually allow the majority to rule instead of a vocal minority.
599728
Absolutely not. It's the first step down a slippery slope to a total government nanny state. Obviously you are better off wearing your seatbelt. You are better off not drinking or smoking, exercising 5 times a week, eating a balanced diet, chewing 15 times before swallowing your food, looking both ways before crossing the street, and not running with scissors.\n\nThank God we haven't reached a point in this country where EVERYTHING that you SHOULD do you MUST under penalty of law. This is a free country, right?
990959
Maybe we just need to ask for less government intervention in our lives
742951
None.  I don't want BIG government controlling my life - or my kid's lives - laying claim on them for any period of time.  "Mandatory" and "Freedom" do not generally mesh well together.
925753
I agree.  The government has gotten too big and intrusive.  They have manipulated many into thinking that questioning the government is "unamerican."  \n\nTaking away the right of habeus corpus goes against centuries of democratic law.  The absolute worst argument in support of removing our privacy rights is that if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't care.  This makes no sense.  Many innocent conversations and behaviors can be taken out of context and subhect an innocent person to a trial.   Anyone that has ever been falsely accused of a crime can tell you how hard it is to prove that you are innocent.  \n\nHopefully, we are going to see a backlash against this and a return of the power to the people.
736310
Yes. Eliminate unnecessary lawyers and vote Democratic.
633506
What's the point in having a law if you don't intend to enforce it?  Of course it can be enforced - it's a matter of getting sufficient resources and having the WILL to enforce it!  Which seems to be sadly lacking ... until election time ...
162484
Of course not!! In the United States to do so would make our country run by religion.  That in itself is wrong from any perspective.  Those countries which have such laws are going down a slippery slope that is detrimental to individual freedoms.
1026734
Firstly I just wanted to say that clarity within the law is a pre requisite of a succesful legal system, as for detail - I personally think that laws should not be made so detailed as to exclude potential offenders on technicalities as has been seen in the past. I know it seems like there are a lot of new laws coming out but you will find that the majority of this is just consolidating many old ones in line with the reccomendations of the law commission.\n\nI think we need to remember that the law needs to change in line with the changes we see in our society and as such only those who are out of touch with society should be confused by the law, most people instinctively know what is wrong and what is right and just go about their daily business.
1110598
Many United State citizens are not putting up with the loss of freedoms.  Just witness the ongoing issue with telephone monitoring by the U.S. government and the response to this.  We want to feel safe yet at the same time want to be free to do what we will and say what we want.  As far as turning into a police state I still do not get stopped by law enforcement to check my papers.  I do not have to pass through checkpoints when driving to work.  I want to travel to another state I do not have to clear this decision with any form of legal authority.  We are far from a police state.
567541
I don't know about the rest of the garbage that you have written but the part about should laws be based on extremes, I say yes, there is always a middle ground between two extremes that is palatable to every one, it might not be exactly what either side wants but it addresses the problem. So yes I say the best laws are based on the extremes.