Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="John Roberts" data-source="post: 40515" data-attributes="member: 126">Re: More on the Gibson storyAh, the unintended consequences of legislative over reach. We are getting to the point where it is too easy to innocently break some law, written with good intentions but like Charlie said without objective review.&nbsp; I have cited the example of a small businessman trying to develop a new battery technology, who had to shutter his workshop when he ran out of money, planning to return to his experiments later. He got convicted of improper handling of toxic waste. He won&#039;t be inventing that new battery any time soon. Maybe he should have applied for a loan from the energy department instead (while it seems they favor building new factories in the middle of an economic downturn)?&nbsp; When we have so many laws on the books it can become a matter of selective prosecution for some disgruntled regulator to go after somebody they don&#039;t like who pissed him off for whatever reason. All they need to do is find one or more infractions of some obscure law to pin on him. We will have turned the protection of our freedom with rule of law, into a form of legal oppression where mid level government regulators can wield disproportionate power selectively. In a totalitarian state the dictator just makes the rules as he goes, this legal form of oppression just uses the legislative excess, to accomplish the same goal.&nbsp;&nbsp; I don&#039;t mean to sound like chicken-little, and I am not saying Gibson is one such case of selective prosecution (while some probably do). I just think that this is something we need to carefully ponder before it reaches that degree of excess. Legislators think they are doing us a service by passing a lot of laws.. in many cases not really. Any law that creates a winner, also turns everybody else into losers.&nbsp; JR</blockquote>

[QUOTE="John Roberts, post: 40515, member: 126"] Re: More on the Gibson story Ah, the unintended consequences of legislative over reach. We are getting to the point where it is too easy to innocently break some law, written with good intentions but like Charlie said without objective review. I have cited the example of a small businessman trying to develop a new battery technology, who had to shutter his workshop when he ran out of money, planning to return to his experiments later. He got convicted of improper handling of toxic waste. He won't be inventing that new battery any time soon. Maybe he should have applied for a loan from the energy department instead (while it seems they favor building new factories in the middle of an economic downturn)? When we have so many laws on the books it can become a matter of selective prosecution for some disgruntled regulator to go after somebody they don't like who pissed him off for whatever reason. All they need to do is find one or more infractions of some obscure law to pin on him. We will have turned the protection of our freedom with rule of law, into a form of legal oppression where mid level government regulators can wield disproportionate power selectively. In a totalitarian state the dictator just makes the rules as he goes, this legal form of oppression just uses the legislative excess, to accomplish the same goal. I don't mean to sound like chicken-little, and I am not saying Gibson is one such case of selective prosecution (while some probably do). I just think that this is something we need to carefully ponder before it reaches that degree of excess. Legislators think they are doing us a service by passing a lot of laws.. in many cases not really. Any law that creates a winner, also turns everybody else into losers. JR [/QUOTE]

Verification