Rules of Thumb for Making Laws (Rule #1)

By Pat Pending

           As legislatures begin their sessions in this new year, let's consider some rules of thumb for making laws.  Now, I realize that some people may object to my use of the phrase “rule of thumb”, since its origin is considered barbaric, involving the diameter of a stick with which a man could beat his wife (the stick should be no larger in diameter than the man's thumb).  However, when you consider that the function of laws is to give government officials the authority to use force against the people, the phrase seems very appropriate.   Of course, things have changed a bit since the old "rule of thumb" days.  Today, laws are enforced not by husbands with sticks but by policemen with guns.  Still, just as the old "rule of thumb" limited the amount of force a husband could use against his wife by limiting the diameter of the stick with which he could beat her, today we also need some modern rules of thumb to limit the use of government force against the people.

Rule of Thumb #1:  Don’t Punish the Victim

          Why do we praise as brave and gallant the person who risks his life climbing a sheer mountain cliff, hang gliding, or rowing solo across the Atlantic, while we send the police out to punish a person who fails to buckle his seatbelt?  Since the person who fails to buckle up is potentially only harming himself, why do we think it makes sense to punish the victim?

           Well, you might say, what's wrong with punishing the victim?  If we truly care about people, we should be willing to use force to protect them from their own bad judgment.  The answer is that there is plenty wrong with the use of force in such cases.

          1.      The people making these laws generally are no more intelligent or benevolent than the people whose free will is being curtailed by the laws.  Certainly, the majority is no more intelligent than the minority.  Why should one be able to wield such power over the other's lives?  For example, mandatory air bags may make most people safer, but they have also killed many people.  Wouldn't we all be much better off if we were free to consider our own personal situations and exercise our own judgment about our personal safety?

          2.      These laws cause money and energy to be spent punishing victims, when those resources should really be spent protecting us from the bad guys.  By taking away resources that should be used to protect us from the real bad guys, these laws make us all less safe. 

          3.      In these "crimes", there is nobody to go to the police to provide evidence and ask for help (i.e. "Stop me before I fail to buckle up again!"), so the police must become intrusive, essentially spying on people in their own cars and homes, in order to catch the "criminals".  For example, there are many recent cases of police raiding the wrong home and killing innocent people in drug busts in which the informant was lying or in which the police had the wrong address.  So, in an attempt to punish the victim (the drug user), the police ended up killing innocent bystanders who weren't even participating in the risky behavior and wouldn't ever have been victims but for the interference of the government! 

          4.      These "punish the victim" laws create a criminal underworld, where people don't go to the courts to resolve disputes but rather take matters into their own hands, resulting in drive-by shootings and other activities that further endanger innocent people. 

          5.      These laws encourage disrespect for the law and corruption of government officials.  Whenever government officials have too much power, you can be sure it will be abused.  Remember Lord Acton's "Power corrupts".

          6.      When the government makes a victim's activities illegal, it makes it more difficult for the victim to ask for or receive help through legal means.

So What's the Solution?

          Instead of punishing the victims, why not just leave these “criminals” to receive the punishment that is the natural consequence of their “crimes”?  Just as we accept the fact that a mountain climber may fall to his death, we should accept the fact that a person who fails to wear his seatbelt or who takes certain drugs or engages in other risky behavior may be injured or killed.  We may counsel them against such risky behavior, but isn't the risk of death a great enough punishment?  Do we also have to shoot the person, raid his car or home, handcuff him, and haul him off to jail?  And, if so, where does it stop?  Should we imprison all people who participate in mountain climbing, hang gliding, bungee jumping, unhealthy eating, unhealthy sexual behaviors, and failure to floss as well?  Of course not.  These types of laws have no place in a free society and should be repealed.  For heaven's sake, at least don't pass any more of them!

          (Tune in next week to check out "Rule of Thumb #2.)

 See also: It is nobody's business whether I eat eggs sunny side up, drive without wearing seat belts or pig out on hamburgers and French fries.
Protecting Us Out of Our Rights
by Walter Williams http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2002/january/ww_protect.htm