And? Is it your argument that laws are written to **** off the least amount of people?Any decision by a majority is going to **** off some segment of the minority
The only people who will be pissed at laws that enhance liberty are the ones that directly benefit--either by purse or by patronage--from stepping on the backs of others. Do you really want me to feel sorry for the takers who participate in legalized theft?- even if the majority leans toward liberty.
Is that what they teach you in law school? Laws are arbitrary and capricious in their intent based solely on the prevailing whims of the majority of the population at the time?The law is all about drawing lines. If the line drawing is unanimous, no problem. But that is exceedingly rare, eh?
It's private property. You might want to use a different example. Or at least include all the factors that go into the decision, like eminent domain, fair market value compensation, takings, etc. The state can't just erect a bridge on private land for public throughway because it wants to.But again, we might be arguing in circles. Pick an example where either side is reasonable - we have to bridge a river in one of two places, both cost the exact same amount, and the owners of either site don't want it on their land. Some people want it in one place, maybe closer/further from them depending on their goals. Comes down to a vote. Even if the "losing" owner doesn't like it, the majority has to decide.
Let's use a different example. Natural pharmaceuticals. Some people want them banned. Some people don't. Does the majority get to decide what should ultimately be a personal choice? Do I have any right to come into your home and tell you how to live your life? No, right? You'd tell me to get lost or some version thereof. Why in the world would you think that I could net the same result using the government as my muscle?