The thing is, civilization needs laws. No laws mean anarchy, Lord of the Flies. The Fed Gov’s powers are quite limited according to the Constitution. Most laws that affect peoples’ lives are supposed to be up to the individual States - closer to home, with more accountability to the people who are directly affected, and with more say-so by the people.
It is not like that now nor has it been for a few generations. Hopefully it will happen as the disgustingly bloated and corrupt Fedgov runs out of money and is increasingly seen as the enemy of the people that is has become.
Your statements that laws can’t make bad people good, so we don’t need laws, is not logical. Laws are needed not to make bad people good, but to stop bad people from harming everyone else. If they decide to become good, fine and dandy. If not, at least they’re punished enough so maybe they decide out of pure self-interest not to be bad anymore. (As an aside, I am opposed to all this prison time, and am sure that public canings and many more executions will quickly change the social atmosphere to one where far fewer people choose a life of crime. Much cheaper, more effective, and more humane.)
Certainly if most people are living saints, few to no laws are needed. But that is not the case.
Each State should be free from FedGov interference to make the laws its citizens and representatives see fit to enact. If someone doesn’t like their State’s laws, they can try to change them, or move to another State they like better.
I agree. And to comment on just this point:
“Your statements that laws can’t make bad people good, so we don’t need laws, is not logical.”
I don’t think we don’t need any laws, I do conclude, that we need very, very few laws to protect people. Take reckless endangerment (driving). That applies to all forms, yet prosecutors get reckless endangerment, no texting, drunk driving, and on and on there are dozens, if not hundreds of laws to compund this. This isn’t the best example, but more and more there are laws being added to laws in order to give prosecutors more options to try and fill judicial coffers, than actually do the general public any good (I am against texting while driving/drunk driving, etc., I’m just saying the one law is sufficient: distracted driving). If it results in a death, well there’s a law for that too, we don’t need dozens of classifications to pick and choose and plead through.
But going back, I don’t think that there is no need of laws. I do think there should be far fewer laws if someone is not directly harming another person, but that would take a whole other thread to expound on. Like I said, I do agree, perhaps I didn’t articulate well, here’s the kicker: if we had representative government, just as you said, “Each State should be free from FedGov interference to make the laws its citizens and representatives see fit to enact. If someone doesn’t like their State’s laws, they can try to change them, or move to another State they like better.” In that scenario, the people could split up into their modern day equivalents of Zion and Sodom and deal with the consequences of the laws of their representative population’s choosing, complete with laws they choose to put on their books. Then everyone wouldn’t have to be subject to the whim of a few Federal (or State, even, as they could move) officials.