Governmental bans

Usually when something is banned, or outlawed, it just goes underground–and sometimes has the potential to be even more nefarious as a result. How do you feel about the government banning things, in general? Is it something that need to be scaled back, or do you endorse it?

It likely needs to be scaled back a bit but you can't allow some stuff to be legal just because it'll go underground.

Depends on what it is.

Chris wrote:Usually when something is banned, or outlawed, it just goes underground–and sometimes has the potential to be even more nefarious as a result.

I'm not sure whether or not this is a true statement. I think this is a common "assumption" made by people who generally apply this logic to a few specific examples. But I also think the opposite is true in many other cases that people conveniently forget about. So I don't know if I agree with this statement.

Chris wrote:How do you feel about the government banning things, in general? Is it something that need to be scaled back, or do you endorse it?

I think that government bans are 100% appropriate in some cases, and rather unjustifiable in any logical sense in other cases. Here is an example...

In 1996, the federal government banned any form of female circumcision which became defined as "female genital mutilation". Last year, the definition of FGM was expanded to include a "pin prick" or nick on the genitals to symbolize a cultural tradition. This law basically says that regardless of culture or tradition, a female child will NOT be subjected to any form of genital alteration (regardless of severity or potential for harm). A parents right to chose is ignored in this case in favor of the protection of the girls personal right to bodily integrity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/health/policy/07cuts.html
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/21655/weve-officially-lost-us-pediatrician-assoc-approves-pin-prick-female-genital-mutilation/

Here is the hypocrasy...

Presently, there is a proposed bill to ban male neonatal circumcision in hospitals where there is no medical necessity. It is being heavily criticized by American "traditionalists" and Jewish and Muslim groups who cite that it represents a violation of religious freedom and a parents right of choice. Here is a ridiculous blog post from one of them (that I could tear apart for days).
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/religion_theseeker/2011/06/circumcision-ban-violates-religious-freedom.html

In any case, the current law states that male circumcision (which many now viewed as a form of genital mutilation) is legal (regardless of severity or potential for harm). It also says that it is legally justified in the name of cultural traditions and religion and that a parents right to chose outweighs the boys right to bodily integrity.

So one the one hand you have the government imposing a ban on something where most people in the US happen to agree with the ban, and on the other hand you have a proposed ban on something (for EXACTLY the same reasons) that everyone is getting up and arms about because they historically see nothing wrong with it for it to be banned. One ban (on something that was never popular in the US) will pass but a different ban on something very similar, for exactly the same reasons will fail because its been popular in the US.

I think that the government should ban things that violate individual human rights when its appropriate. It shouldn't do it "sometimes" and refuse to do it other times because a human rights issue shouldn't be decided by "popularity". However, when the government just starts banning things on its own initiative, with no input from the people and with no justifications, THEN it needs to be scaled back. But I see little evidence of that happening.