So, it's clear that many of the regular posters in D&D have the general political view that the government should regulate a lot of things. Libertarians get, deservedly, destroyed when they post here. All fair enough.
However, a whole bunch of recent threads have me thinking - where would you lot believe we should stop. There seems to be a lot of D&D posters who believe that all we need is enough laws and then society will be sorted.
It's easy to posit a world with too few rules - anarchy, or just libertarian corporate dystopias.
It's easy to posit a world with too many rules - BNW, 1984, communism (in it's real-world and ideal varieties)
There are some classic ways that threads round here devolve, but there are some less obvious ones too. Many just become a litany of how we should make rules that everyone has to do X, without really exploring the pros and cons of having that particular rule.
So, how do we decide what's legislatable and what's not?
Factors that I reckon are interesting:
The financial costs of enforcement and it's general feasibility (e.g. you make a 55-mph speed limit to save fuel, and then waste fuel by sending police officers out to enforce the new law)
The rights of people (not just those in the American constitution e.g. free speech, which is held to be a right by many, regardless of their home nation or the legal wording of the US constitution)
The dangers of totalitarian governments (e.g. by forcing everyone to carry ID in your country, you perhaps make people more vulnerable to oppression - the innocent having plenty
The intangible benefits of freedom (learning from mistakes, moral growth, experimentation, discovery e.g. if unhealthy food additives are allowed we have to learn about health to decide what to eat)
Anyhow - what do you think?