Should there be more laws protecting citizens or should there be fewer in the U.S.? Should there be more laws protecting citizens or should there be fewer in the U.S.?
This is a difficult question. I imagine that many people will say that there are unnecessary laws on the books that limit freedoms without protecting citizens rights. And the same people will say that there are certain rights which are not protected but should be.
As we see the emergence of new technologies, we face new situations which will require new regulation or at least new ideas as to where our rights exist or do not exist.
For instance, privacy rights might become more widely discussed as the new un-manned (drone) aircraft allowance comes into effect in 2014. When drones are flying around your town and measuring traffic patterns for commercial use or gauging how much outdoor activity there is in a certain part of town so that this information can be used to sell product, we may need to have a new conversation about what rights we have to privacy.
What do you mean by "protecting people"? What are they being protected from? The U.S. Constitution and state constitutions protect people from their government in various ways. Legislation is sometimes enacted to protect people from themselves, such as the abortion restrictions in Virginia, which are now in the news. As the first poster pointed out, legislation is meant to provide a penalty of some sort when people harm one another, but it does not protect anyone. This question is a bit too general to elicit a helpful answer.
I agree with the previous post - I think there will be more laws needed in years to come as technology and communication continues to change the ways in which we live and in which society functions. Privacy rights are certainly a prime example of an area in which new guidelines may become necessary. Access to individual records of internet and other web-based media is also, in my opinion, going to come under scrutiny as more people are affected in their job searches by posts from years ago that come back to haunt them.
The purpose of government is to safeguard Rights, and to that end legistures enact laws. These should delineate where one individual's Rights begin and another's end, but of course many laws are not that rigorous. We need less of the arbitrary laws, and more of the clearly defined ones.
Unfortunately, what has occurred is that the government enacts laws to protect its own (and lobbyist) interests, unjustly restricting individual freedoms.
Post number 2 is correct only if data support it. What if laws prohibiting drunk driving reduce the number of drunk driving fatalities? I can think of no laws that will totally eradicate the kinds of behaviors they are aimed against, so the real question becomes this: Do the benefits of the law outweigh its negative effects on civil liberties?
There is no law that protect any one form any thing
laws do not protect they are use to give a reason to punish
that it. Laws do not protect or prevent a crime. So when people saw laws made to protect that a lie cause they can not
Legisaltion in and of itself does not protect people. For example, there are laws against underage drinking, but underage people drink; there are laws against speeding, but people speed; there are laws against discrimination, but people are discriminated against. A syllogism may help.
Major premise: In order to protect society, there are laws against drunk drving.
Minor premise: People still drive drunk.
Conclusion: Therefore laws aginst drunk driving do not protect society or stop people from driving drunk.
You can plug any law or situation into the syllogism. Just make sure your premise statements are correct before you go for your conclusion.