Royal24s wrote:Interestingly you hit upon the breaking point in English Law. Since the Magna Carta it had been generally held that you couldn't legislate for someone's own good if they disagreed with what you wanted them to do.
In a free country you can only legislate if the act which you want to outlaw DIRECTLY and seriously effects others detrimentally, ( dont tell me the ambulance driver will get upset or insurance premiums will rise). In Police States, the purpose of the law is to force obedience rather than protect individuals , so there is no such consideration.
Barbara Castle drove a horse and coach through this ancient principle of jurisprudence , with the seat belt law, and in her wake have come endless similar statutes which limit freedom illegitimately .
Justice goes directly down the drain because people will respect a law which they consider to be a fair and reasonable limit to their freedom since they know they cannot expect to trespass against others. On the other hand, they will not respect laws which limit their freedom to do or not do something which only effects them, and which they can quite fairly claim to be their own choice.
Once again, you will find that idea quite foreign and I can predict that you will reject it out of hand.
Dear oh dear.
Compulsory use of seat-belts did not become law until 1981. I reckon that's something like 10 years after Barbara Castle had any ministerial post. Indeed introduced and later ratified under a Tory government.
Your "logic" is all over the place.
Yes, in "police states" the law is the means, or at least pretext, for repression. I'm jolly glad we haven't got one, aren't you?
Can you give us an example of a law which in your world, could be defied, because it only pertains to an individual and has no effect on anyone else? I'm struggling with that, but then I do lack your intellect.
Seat-belts are in fact a good example of a law, in my mind, for the greater good. The "freedom" of an individual to go through his windscreen at 80 mph has been regrettably curtailed because that action has considerable effects on the rest of us, which we do not consider to be reasonable. Try talking to a traffic officer who has retrieved a body thrown from a car across a motorway for a more personal example.
I kind of guessed you'd see the seat-belt law as an intrusion of personal liberty, to be defended at all costs, or to be ignored. Whereas I ( and I think most of us) see it as an intrusion of personal liberty, well worth it for the overall benefit to a civilised society.
You tell us so much about democracy, but don't seem to recognise it in practice. Indeed democracy only seems to exist for you when it delivers the outcomes you prefer; otherwise it's a "police state".