Does the goverment have the right to make a law that will definitely kill innocent people?

Frank S

Before I answer your question, let me say that I am a libertarian. Havng said that, the government's only role is to protect individual rights. Mandated seatbelts are outcomes of a nany-state. They should be repealed.

The government passes laws by a legislature elected by the people of that state, or the united states in the case of seat belts because they are regulated by the federal government. In other words, those are the laws the people ultimately want. When laws are passed, policy decisions are made based generally on what's good for the most amount of people. Someone will always get screwed but if they can save a zillion lives with seat belts, they won't say let's not do that because Joe blow with his ridiculous fact pattern wouldn't have been born.

Spacer C

The government is merely a group of people, notably ungoverned. No group of people has any more or less right to do anything that an individual may or may not do.
If you do not have the right to kill your neighbor, except in defense, then neither does the 30-member gang from the other side of town (though they may outnumber him), nor may the larger gang of thugs in residence in whatever building they may call a "capitol".

RMR278

actually this government (USA) was established on the u.s constitution and bill of rights, so laws that are passed should all be based on those principles. if they aren't they are unlawful. it is like saying your a christian nation who follows the bible as the main constitution and final authority and then make laws or enforce laws in unbiblical manner. the israelites leaders were notorious for misapplying the mosaic law and adding laws that were unscriptural and contrary to the spirit of the law.

so making victimless laws are unconstitutional. and really is unbiblical. yes they should enform people of a danger and what the evidence shows is the best protection but ultimatly it is the person who decides whether the info is believable and in their best interest. they should not be forced to go by what someone else wants them to do under duress. fines jail time etc.

but here is the problem, there are people who get into power because they are selfish or misinformed or both, they see a need to do something to increase their domination or profitablity over others and thus they make unfair or unjust laws. they use excuses, they twist the laws and principles the gov is based on, i mean satan is a master of twisting the scriptures so we shouldn't be surprised if his ministers (in gov and religion and big business) are just as skillful in twisting things to fit what they want.

and of course comes the dreaded rationalizing of something you want to do or not, that is counter the rule of law. so you rationalize something by basically grasping at straws and appealing to emotions in others to get them to support it, this is called demogogue, one of the writters of the federalist papers used that word when describing the dangers of gov going from republic to democrate to tyranny.

it means using emotions to selfishly get people to do something that one wants you to do. example is helmet laws, seems innocent enough, but if one actually examines it you will see there is something more here, they use all kinds of statistics on how dangerous motorcycle accidents are and how it burdens society financially with medical costs and long term care etc, here again rationalizing to get around the rule of law (constitution and bill of rights the foundation of this country) to get laws passed to force helmet wearing.

now if a person wants to blow apart their heads in an accident that is up to them, it should be freedom of choice, I don't recommend it and hope they don't hurt themselves, they don't hurt me. not even finanacilly in most cases if they were truthful about it most pay their own way by insurance and other costs seldom do the taxpayers have to pay anything to them, a few do need taxpayer help but that is rare considering how hard it is to get gov help for anything when you haven't paid in anything via taxation. even if your a trustworthy taxpayer and paid for years and years, just try to get some help when you truly need it.

no they take the taxes and give it to their wealthy friends, (but don't tell anyone let it be our secret). social services and altruist motives for taxation is nothing of the kind, it is to get you and me to be less resistant to it. sure a little gets trickled down to the poor but very little compared to what they receive.

laws that harm makes me think of forced vaccinations, by a time a child is 5 they get something like 80 different vaccines, but really is it about protection or about elimination? in africa they vaccinate against diseases, but in reality many woman reported not being about to conceive afterwards they made this one woman on the tv in africa get a vaccination against her wishes and the baby aborted (she was 8 months pregenant.)

RRRRR

tx_trotter95

What are you babbling about? You don't need answers, you need therapy.

[Rest of answer to occur later.]

tnfarmgirl

Didn't they already do that with the Supreme court's decision on Roe -vs- Wade?

shermynewstart

The war in Iraq & Afganistan

saulg21

The United Syates Constitution is the foundation of our system of government. If a newly created law conflicts with the Constitution,it becomes null and void(Marbury vs. Madison 1803).

Tira A

Sorry but this question makes no sense what so ever, not even if ya try using yer imagination.
What is your point?

Vinny S

IF they do sumthing Very BAd the Goverment has a right to kill Him/Her well ... If they kill some1 by accident Then sue for millions.

allysgrandpa

The Government does do it, and we vote in the government so don't blame them- they were chosen by you..

Your question should be --do we support a law that does this and check the turn out in the next election for your answer.

A lot of Americans dislike Bush --But who put him in TWICE??

Great Answers

depends,
You cant make blanket statements like that

KIB

If you are a facist, then yes.

Pelagius

'...And for these reasons governments were set up by men'.
I doubt that governments should be granted the right to kill even guilty people, unless they are a real threat to the national liberties.

Ambivalence

Depends what the purpose of the law is. I mean, if there's something that if people did it, there was some small risk to themselves (like a 1 in 1 million chance of death), but there was a large, significant risk to other people (say, 1 in 100 chance of death) if they didn't do it, the government has a right to pass the law. But they should also realistically expect that a lot of people wouldn't obey it.

Edited to add: Oh, for heaven's sake . I thought this was going to be about something interesting or contraversial, not something as common sense as seatbelts. Sure, you can die because of a seat belt. You could also die by being hit by a car while jogging, or get e-coli from spinach, but that doesn't mean that exercising and eating your veggies isn't generally good for your life expectancy.

Violet hill

You should specify the law itself. A law has different meaning for different people. Maybe you are viewing it from a different angle from that of the government

just passing by

What? it is either my brain right now or your question does not make sense. I hope the later part does.

GUARD DOG

Well then...I will answer later, when you add another part to your question.....

Thanks for the 2 points.

F (*_*)

ahhh.. yeah. the government is you, me and everyone who lives in that country. It they decides to kill someone, they can becuase they all agree on one thing

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: