- Joined
- Jun 22, 2013
- Messages
- 20,264
- Reaction score
- 28,062
- Location
- Mid-West USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Law should act to punish the willful or negligent harming of another.
Any other use of law (force) is dubious and must be carefully considered.
There may arguably be social value in certain moral standards... but the spiritual value of morality only exists when it is chosen, not coerced. :shrug:
There are thousands upon thousands of laws and they are increasing at an exponential rate as legislators seek to justify their existence (and thus their salaries and perks of office). The body of law is so vast that the legal precept "Ignorance of the Law is No Excuse" has become farcical.
Once upon a time that precept was understandable, if exercised harshly, because the law was based upon simple religious precepts everyone was made aware of through the prietstly class. Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, etc. However, as other members state, most of such laws were also based on simple ethical considerations even the non-religious could understand.
The problem is that as societies became ever more complex, so too did the moral restrictions placed upon citizens. Many of these restrictions were and still are based soley on religious precepts. Prostitution, gambling, drug use, and other "vices," where the victim is primarily the person engaging in the vice. It has come to a point where there is so much law, even those who enforce and adjudicate it are unable to know it all. As a result citizens are in a constant state of legal peril because no one knows if they are violating some minor law or other in their everyday activities.
The rules need to be simplified so that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is no longer merely wishful thinking. The first step would be to eliminate all laws based solely upon religious moralism. The OP is correct, any reading of the sections where instruction in life are given by Christ, the admonition is for each person to live their own lives by the guidance He provides, and by so doing set an example that will naturally attract others. No where does He demand or command others to enforce such rules, in fact He strictly prohibits it.
As Goshen indicates, law should be limited to addressing willful and deliberate (and I add TANGIBLE) harms. All other laws should be carefully weighed and considered as to their long-term effects on individual liberties in comparison to the positive effect they have on society as a whole.