I’m sure that the early humans followed rules because it enhanced their chances of survival: “Don’t go out after dark by your-self”. Later humans followed rules because it enhanced their chances for success: “Buy low sell high”. Today it’s a lot different, we’re all following rules because someone else tells us we have to, and the list of rules is so long and complicated that no one can possibly know what’s right or wrong anymore.
Take stop signs for instance: I’ve always been amazed that people stop at stop signs. I agree that stopping is one of those rules that enhance survival: “Look both ways”. Nevertheless, it’s kind of a conditioned response to an arbitrary rule; we’ve been told it’s for our own good and we agree it makes sense so we do it. Still, do all those people who ignore the Don't Walk sign actually stop at an empty intersection? Or do they just approach the intersection cautiously, and if its clear, pass on through?
I'm sure you've noticed people ignoring stop signs. Stand near an intersection that has a stop sign and watch the traffic. Whether it's a light or a stop sign it’s obvious that most people are doing a rolling pause rather than actually stopping. I live on a corner with a stop sign, and what wakes me up at night isn’t the noise of a car that stops and then goes on, it’s the car that blasts through the intersection at speed.
On the other hand, there are a lot of rules that don’t make sense, which is why the California State Constitution, born during the Gold Rush, is 400 pages long with over 75,000 pages. Since 1897, as a response to widespread public disgust with the powerful railroads which controlled California's politics and economy, our constitution has been aggressively amended by initiative in order to remedy perceived evils.
The result is the third longest in the world (behind the constitutions of Alabama and India), and it has been described as "the perfect example of what a constitution ought not to be". Did you know that sunshine is guaranteed to the masses; or that animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship; or that bathhouses are against the law; or that women may not drive in a house coat; or that vehicles without a driver may not exceed 60 miles per hour?
In San Diego it is illegal to shoot jackrabbits from the back of a streetcar. In San Francisco elephants are prohibited from strolling down Market Street unless they are on a leash. In Blyth you are not permitted to wear cowboy boots unless you already own at least two cows. In Chico bowling on the sidewalk is illegal.
In comparison with the California Constitution, the Federal Constitution of the United States was ratified in 1787. Its seven articles, followed by the first ten amendments (known as the Bill of Rights) has about 1,500 words. The Founding Fathers tried to protect their text from being amended too easily, although it’s still been amended 27 times. Even the Bill of Rights is under attack today.
One example: The Obama Care Rule has been marked by a slew of competing court rulings on the constitutionality of the individual mandate, which is the cornerstone of Obama Care. The law requires U.S. citizens to obtain health insurance or face financial penalties imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Never before has the federal government attempted to force all Americans to purchase a product or service. To allow this regulatory overreach to stand would undermine fundamental constitutional constraints on government powers and curtail individual liberties to an unprecedented degree.
Another example: As of March 15 2014 the Equine Equality Rule requires hotels, restaurants, airlines, and the like to modify “policies, practices, or procedures” to accommodate miniature horses as service animals. According to the Department of Justice, which administers the rule, miniature horses are a “viable alternative” to dogs for individuals with allergies or for those whose religious beliefs preclude canine accompaniment.
I understand that lots of people would say “These laws make sense to me, and they must be needed”. I agree that each of them was (probably) introduced to fix a problem, but I don’t think these kinds of rules are a good idea. Especially because most of the time they are introduced and passed without our knowledge, and when we are aware of them we accept them without considering the side-affects.
Not pushing back at government intervention into our lives is a big mistake, because without push back our government will continue to move ahead with more laws that limit our freedom. Another problem is that although it sounds like a good idea today, eventually it’ll be “re-interpreted” to mean something slightly different. The law that makes sense one day becomes a law that interferes with our freedom the next day. It’s a vicious cycle.
