There was a time when morals and common decency ruled the land. It was a much better time. The original laws were written to reinforce these values, but the same cannot be said for the laws of today. There have been no laws in the last decade, of my knowledge, which have held a strong and obvious moral foundation. The reason for this is apparent; modern laws and rules exist to control the public: not to represent it.
For instance, some states have enacted legislation governing the control of citizens during a swine flu epidemic.
"Department of Homeland Security officials are declaring that any disease outbreak is a matter of homeland security. Department of Defense officials are defining public demonstrations as ‘low level terrorism.’ In some states, like Massachusetts, public health doctors have persuaded legislators to quickly pass pandemic influenza legislation that will allow state officials to enter homes and businesses without the approval of occupants; to investigate and quarantine individuals without their consent; to require licensed health care providers to give citizens vaccines and to ban the free assembly of citizens in the state."
-- Barbara Loe Fisher, President of the National Vaccine Information Center, 6/18/09
Would the majority of the citizens support this notion: suspension of the constitution because of a flu? How about the intrusion into the homes of citizens, and the armed kidnapping of them? In some states, these powers include the demolition of property which may have contained "contaminated people". It's all done in the name of security. It sounds like the plot of a dystopian horror movie, but it is the sort of legislation that is being pushed forth by people in positions of power - completely neglecting their duty as public servants and representatives.
Equally, would the majority of Americans support a 1000+ page health care bill, the contents of which were hidden, but was known to provide free health care mainly to illegal immigrants?
Even entire agencies that were created by executive order, or by congress, rarely represent the wishes of the public. For an example, the great majority of Americans support the labeling of genetically modified foods, but the F.D.A. repeatedly works against the public by attempting hide GM produce, for the benefit of large industry, and an increasingly genocidal agenda. Likewise, most Americans support the decriminalization of marijuana, but the D.E.A. continues to raid homes in the dead of the night, because regular citizens dare to grow this plant.
All this madness is about one thing: population control. There was never a war on drugs, for they love to push the drugs that they control at every opportunity; but instead, the war is on the Bill of Rights. You did know that the original copies of the Constitution and Bill of Rights were both written on hemp paper, right? Yes, practically all the Founding Fathers grew marijuana.
Western 'civilized' countries now have laws for just about every action imaginable. You cannot construct property, protest against it, engage in controversial speech, purchase fireworks, start a business, and even smoke in some areas without first considering the legalities. When we consider such laws, we must also consider which people would have supported them. If there were a true democracy, and each person was to vote on each issue, how many of those laws would have been passed? Without doubt, they were all passed under the guise of protecting people. Perhaps the real question is: If people are so incapable of protecting themselves, then how can we expect a small group of elitist men in government to protect everyone?