> > Creating baloney laws to take my money and give it to other people is not serving citizens. It is unwarranted theft, and I find it repulsive. If taking my money is part of a fine to correct behavior that is dangerous, okay, then. If it is just to get money for the city, absolutely not.
>
> That's my point. The law isn't to take money away; the fine is just a means of hitting the person who made the mistake in the place it hurts most. So the amount of the fine should be calculated based on the severity of the crime - ie going 29mph in a 25mph area when there's nobody around shouldn't attract the same fine as going 80mph in a 70mph area with other cars nearby.



Stephen is deploring the fact that cities only enforce it for the money, which is shown in the fact that many cities do NOT enforce these sorts of things until the coffers begin to run dry. Regardless of the what the law is supposed to do, or why it was supposedly written, it is being abused by governmental authorities. And many of such laws may not even be necessary for "safety" in the first place.



> > > Personally, I think all fines and deterrant taxes should be sent to precise targets. A tax on cigarettes should fund anti-smoking organizations. Fines for traffic infringements should go to new traffic lights (improved safety), campaigns like "Wipe Off 5" (encouraging reduced-speed travel), perhaps road construction, that sort of thing.
> >
> > Personally, I think the idea of taxes as social controls to be horrible. If people want to smoke, let them. I agree that if smokers are going to cost the state money in terms of inreased health care, then let them pay for that expense in tobacco taxes (and likewise gasoline/car registration taxes should be used toward transportation). I hate the current mindset of "Smokers are dirty people that are addicted! Let's exploit the addiction to get them to fund our pet projects!"
>
> Precisely what I'm saying. Smoking taxes should not fund "pet projects" - only anti-smoking campaigns and, as you so rightly remind me, hospitals that care for those with smoking-related diseases.



I think Stephen only wants cigarette taxes used to reimburse the state for increased healthcare costs, insteaad of drawing that from the general funds. I'm pretty sure Stephen does not want the government in the business of telling people not to smoke, and spending taxpayer money on it.



> > Why not? If you'd like to get into a lengthy discussion about fundamental political philosophy, I'd be happy to do so. :P But basically, if *every* person in a population is oppossed to a law (as would be assumed if *nobody* obeys it), why should the government have the right to make it?
>
> If *nobody* obeys it (which probably won't be true), that may be an excuse for not making it in the first place; but to repeal a law you'd have to have a really good reason.
>
> > You misunderstand. I didn't mean that the people vote on every law, but rather the power of the government is derived directly from the people. This is the most fundamental concept of American government (read the Declaration of Independence or Amendments IX and X of our Constitution) and to most democratic systems. It's an old idea, dating back at least as far as John Locke and probably further.
>
> I'm Australian, not American, and some of what I'm saying is from England, but the principles probably apply. The population has almost no say in the lawmaking; how different, really, are the candidates you are offered? And how much power does your representative have? In England most power is actually wielded by the Civil Service - the Department of This, the Department of That. The British political system has been described as "the engine of a lawnmower, and the brakes of a Rolls Royce" - the politicians and the Civil Service, respectively.


The population isn't *supposed* to have a whole lot of direct say in legislating. That's the whole *point* of a representative republic and the "consent of the governed." Societies have this funny habit where the majority tends to oppress a minority. If the population had direct say in the lawmaking process, you'd have 51% of the population telling the other 49% what to do all the time. The idea behind representative government is, in part, to prevent this tyranny of the majority. Populations should not be directly affecting legislation.

Now as far as the actual amount of say the average citizen actually does have? Representatives listen to their constituents. If they don't, they do not win re-election. Therefore, if you get enough angry people to phone up your Congressman or write a letter, they will take note of that.


> > The idea (often called the social contract theory) is that government exists only at the behest of the people, since it is the people who institute governments in the first place. This is essentially why you elect representatives: it is your way of exercising control over the government which exists only to serve you. This principle is applicable to monarchies as well as democracies (Locke's seminal work on the subject was written in response to the English Glorious Revolution).
>
> Very little control though.


Funny how you write that sentence right after Stephen uses the word "Revolution". If the citizens feel they don't have enough control, they will revolt, peacefully or no, and set up a new government. Or at least want to. I don't see a whole lot of that sentiment around me.


> > To explain what this has to do with our current conversation: this basically all means that the government shouldn't be in the business of foisting laws upon the citizenry. Rather, the population is supposed to direct the government.
>
> Yes, but the logistics would be something incredible.


The population directs the government via who it chooses to elect. When that person is elected, the people are "directing", so to speak, the government in a certain direction. It's really not all that incredible. The whole idea behind the "consent of the governed" is that the populous chooses a government that says it will run things a certain way and do certain things, and then the populace says "Go do your thing." In America, we choose a representative republic, and "change" that government every November when we elect a new batch of officials and with the instructions of "Go do what you said so we can just live our lives."


>
> Chris"foot no doubt firmly in mouth"A


The Other Matthew