[Durus]

Aw, geez. The old harm vs. no harm argument. You'd have more credibility with that one if you could point out just one society/government in all of recorded history that used that philosophy as a guideline for their laws. It's a Libertarian utopian wet dream.

It wasn't a mistake to create a Constitutional Representative Republic when one had never existed, credibility be damned. Harm vs. No Harm is not uniquely libertarian and it certainly doesn't raise to the level of attempting to create a utopia. The Harm vs.No Harm merely gives a rational basis for law and government. If a majority of people agree with a position that doesn't inherently make the position moral or just but simply popular. Popularity is rarely a good indicator of justice or worth.

Your arguments, devoid of a rational basis, devolves to a caricature.
"It's Illegal because it's Immoral"
What makes it immoral?
"It's Immoral because it's Illegal"

[robertpaulsen]

"It wasn't a mistake to create a Constitutional Representative Republic when one had never existed, credibility be damned."

But one WAS created, unlike a Harm vs. No Harm government which has yet to see the light of day anywhere in the world in all of recorded history.

" Popularity is rarely a good indicator of justice or worth."

No, but coupled with longevity it comes closer.

"It's Illegal because it's Immoral"

Who claims that? Granted, most of our laws concern immoral behavior, but many immoral acts remain legal. It used to be that people were restrained from immoral acts by their own sense of decency and self esteem. That's been replaced by a selfish, hedonistic, individualistic "if it's legal I can do it and don't you dare criticize me" attitude. Hence, all the laws.

"It's Immoral because it's Illegal"

It immoral because it debases Man, and we're better than that.