|
Well, I guess when I hear non-interference I tend to think it it a bit more literal and complete than what you implied. Sorry about that.
As for the statement about moral reprehensibility. Take a good look at the law books some time, near everything in them is about morals. Even the idea that you should not be allowed to kill or harm someone else is a moral issue and not 100% supported by simple biology. In fact, we often act more on that biologic basis than on the moral one, finding it acceptable to hurt or even kill someone sufficiently different than us than treat them as equal. Though, more often it is to hurt them, call them names or discredit them in the eyes of other people we already know agree with us. Most of the changes in our society has been a result of the simple statement that this is pointless, stupid and we have no innate greater value than someone else. However, the fact is we are still territorial, even if we now define that territory more in terms of our beliefs and reality we personally think we are living in. For some that reality is one in which a magic book tells them right and wrong and naturalists are immoral monsters, ready to suddenly grow fangs and pounce on the innocent at a moments notice. Heck, half the people running for office in this election babbled that kind of idiocy as one of the main points why we should trust Republicans more than those horrible liberals and all the naturalist lurking among them. lol
Frankly, I don't actually think that if we both sat down and went over all the BS companies have to deal with that we would totally disagree. I do think regulation is only really necessary in some cases where the result of waiting for someone to do something wrong, before punishing them, is meaningless if you don't have some method to know when they have or are planning to do so "before" people get hurt Who cares if the company that builds a five story building is punished so bad it goes banrupt when it falls down if there was no requirement in place to inspect it and make sure it didn't collapse and kill 500 people in the first place.
Should we have more say in what get mandated, yes (and not the kind of say that apparently mandates the current president to push the very ideas you mention above). Should we wait around for obvious things we can predict to go wrong, then fix it? No way. Should the courts make that judgement.... The don't usually, a jury does, but I find it disturbing that you can be found in contempt if you try to make sure the jury knows it has the right to decide if the law itself is even just or appropriately applied, instead of just returning a result based on the evidence. It is a bloody complicated mess, more so since Congress and our other 'elected' officials often act on their own interests and ignore the public. This of course causes the public to not pay as much attention and after a while they ignore us all together, since 90% of their mail comes from the nuts on the fringe. And so you have an even bigger mess. Businesses and how much autonomy they do or should have is only the often most noticable part of the morass of conflicting goals that make the system what it is.
|