[braythwayt]

“The State has no right to _____.”

These arguments are rife in US political discourse, but as an outsider with no emotional investment in the idea of guarding against the dreaded tyranny of kings... I note that such arguments always avoid addressing the underlying problem.

In your case, there is a fence in your kitchen, and there you are tearing it down without pausing even for a moment to ask why it is there. Was there a fire while you were out, and the floor on the other side of the fence is no longer sound? Is there some kind of toxic chemical spill going on? Is this a crime scene that must be preserved while evidence is gathered?

The argument of whether the state has a right is certainly interesting, and we ought to have it, but we still ought to understand why they thought the fence should be put there, regardless of our interpretation of whether they had that right or not.

[Rumford]

Point taken, and I'm glad you see the merit in the discussion about what things the state has any right to do. After all, sometimes trespassing is the right thing to do. I certainly hope the fire department doesn't wait to be invited if they notice my house is burning down!

I guess I'm just extremely certain that after studying the lineage of a ban like this, one would discover that no, it really isn't necessary. Maybe I'll go test that hypothesis later.

[mikeash]

I think you're right that these laws aren't necessary. But I still think it's important to understand them before declaring them to be such. I have a hard time understanding how you can declare yourself to be "extremely certain" of something before you've gone out and obtained the information. It's supposed to be the other way around!

[Rumford]

Past experience makes me pretty confident of what I'll find this time.