We have laws to ban poisons from food, but we don't ban junk food altogether. We have laws to cap the speed limit, but not at 30mph on a highway - etc etc. We pick a spot on the spectrum.
Surely some laws are for exactly that? Like: murder, rape, theft, etc?
I'm taking your statement a bit out of context, and I don't have much involvement in this overall issue being discussed, but that statement on its own seems pretty off to me.
It's ultimately the same issue, no?
Imagine if it wasn't an isolated event but if you knew there's someone out to get you, and who continues to be a risk to your well-being. Say, domestic abuse. SA. Something like that.
Try saying there's nowhere to draw the line between that and "mere dislike".
No one should have to suffer that. That's why there are laws against things like rape and murder.
I meant to say that the question of where to draw the line is open to discussion, in both cases.
To be honest, I don't entirely understand your example, since in the first case you're talking about an accident, and we can't exactly pass a law saying "accidents are not allowed." But in the second case, you can pass a law against SA and such. So in my mind, the difference there is in realistic enforcement options, not on the merits themselves.
If we could somehow magically pass a meaningful law against accidents, then maybe we'd consider it. Accidents are things that just about everybody dislikes, after all. Of course, we can't meaningfully make that law, but only for mere technical reasons, not because it's undesirable.
In that imagined world, I could see people saying: "no one should have to suffer accidents" and using that as rationale for supporting the law. You may not agree with them, and I may not either. But that was my point — where to draw the line is up for discussion.
I was using it as an example of trauma, that's all. Traumatizing people is bad, right? Sure, you can't really make accidents against the law, but you can stop people from causing trauma intentionally.
The founders of the US were very interested in deciding what are the responsibilities of the federal government vs what will be left up to the states to decide. They wrote entire essay series on the topic.
As far as I can see they are a good way to there, so yes? To the extent possible the powerfull is banning or attempting to ban everythjng they don’t like.
> the powerless banning everything they didn’t like
If the powerless bans everything they didn’t like then they are not powerless. That is the definition of power.