Considering human beings are not naturally law breakers, this makes a lot of sense for the control matrix. Make everything subjectively a crime, including thought. Another good scam...wonder who dreams this stuff up?

Apparently people who both embrace and create with negative energy would be my guess. Only a guess though.

Ah, but Rick we are naturally law breakers. Tell a child not to touch a cookie or play with a toy. Leave the room for a few minutes and see what happens. How many people here would run a red light or exceed the speed limit if they knew they wouldn't get a ticket? Raise your hands! Without instilling fear in that child or that driver, for many it's only natural to disobey. Even in the animal world there is the "alpha" dog (or cat!) that makes the rules. You break them and you are ostracized from the pack or even killed.   

However, I do agree with the quote, because I was just saying this the other day. A sheep farmer has to have a flock or he has no livelihood. Back in college, I remember reading Freud's Civilization and Its Discontents. Although he often was talking about latent sexual desires, he theorized that Civilization was a living entity and had to control & punish the individual's primal instincts in order to survive.   

Maybe one day we'll all live in The Village. "Be seeing you" :-)

Tickets, being sources of revenue, are a big deal to municipalities. Look no further than the local paper to see how towns are getting more creative at collecting it and fin(d)ing more things to issue tickets for.
Drive? They tax your gas. Drive a car that gets more miles per gallon? Now, they want to tax you by the mile (type 'tax by the mile' into a search engine) *in addition to* by the gallon. As far as police being there to catch "bad guys", I'll refer you to Heller vs. D.C.

My mix-up, there are so many of these. It's Castle Rock v. Gonzales

Have you seen cameras at intersections where there are traffic lights? They've recently been installed in some areas of Florida. Interesting ruling by a judge here. Good for him.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/california-judge-declares-red-light-camera-program-illegal-and-void/

It sound like they're trying to catch people who run RED lights, by reducing the time you have when it turns YELLOW.

Castle Rock v. Gonzales
I just looked it up. Very sad. What an atrocity too. I mean, the ruling is saying the woman should not have any expection of protection from her local police department and, therefore, had no right to sue ???

justx said,
     "It sound like they're trying to catch people who run RED lights, by reducing the time you have when it turns YELLOW."

     It's true; that's EXACTLY what they've been doing, or trying to, all over the country. I've been a member of the National Motorists Association for the past eight years, and they've been fighting this issue (and the companies who manufacture the camera systems) as hard as they can. They've gathered stats from every state that allows red-light cameras, and they've shown in court that these cameras do NOTHING to increase safety at the intersections at which they're installed. The fact is, red-light cameras actually INCREASE the chances of collisions, due to drivers' natural tendancy to try to get through the intersection BEFORE the light turns red and activates the cameras. The NMA has shown that certain communities have actually shortened yellow light timing in order to create revenue. Their efforts have had positive results on this trend, though. By publishing the statistics they've compiled, they've caused many cities and towns to reconsider and do away with their red-light cameras, and others have rejected proposed legislation which would have allowed their use.

     The NMA is a non-profit organization who advocates fighting ANY ticket in court. They have "legal kits" available for rent or for sale to members who don't want their driving records ruined by some overzealous cop who has a quota to fill. The kits show you how to argue your case effectively without hiring an attorney, but they also have a list of attorneys available who specialize in traffic cases for more serious issues (NOT including drunk driving, which they DO NOT advocate). If you fight your ticket and lose, the NMA will pay your fines and costs (although you'll still be assessed points on your license).

     Membership is $35 per year for individuals and $45 per year for families (including your spouse and all children under age 21 living in the same household). They also publish a very interesting (and free) monthly newsletter. It's pretty cheap insurance when you consider how much you'd spend paying a bogus ticket or two every year. Anyone who's interested can find more information here:

       http://www.motorists.org/

      Jim

@jxp: We've had the red-light cameras for some years. As jim695 points out, they don't make things better - except for the revenuers.

During the eulogy of TKennedy BO said with great pride how many laws were created at the hands of TKennedy 1000+, wow. who gives a $^$%%.   There are too many laws, the congress should be prevented from creating any more laws. It seems it is the only thing congress is interested in is control, cap and trade, hr3200, fairness BS doctrine, outrageous! Think about it, if we sent congress to the moon would the country be better off? You bet! The congress is malignant tumor on the economy, the people, the freedom, and the productivity of the USA.   The congress produces nothing, it just steals and stifles the citizens of the USA and if it isn't stopped there will be a revolution.

@jarasan:

     That's what happens when we elect lawyers and accountants to represent us and to run our government. They all feel that they must justify themselves by authoring bills in order to cement their respective places in American history. Do we really need those laws? Well, certainly some of them are necessary since, after all, it's generally accepted that we are "a nation of laws." But, from what I've observed, we seem to have run out of genuine issues which require any kind of action on the parts of our lawmakers, and so they've taken it upon themselves to impose legislation on what was once called "common sense."

     For example, do we REALLY need laws that prohibit "Texting While Driving," or "Phoning While Driving?" Apparently we do, because drivers are crashing into each other because they're not smart enough to avoid those activities while operating motor vehicles at high speeds. Why not pass a law that states we can't read the latest best-selling novel while we're driving our cars? When are they going to pass laws that would make it a crime for people to shave, or to tie their shoes or to change their clothes while behind the wheel doing sixty mph down a two-lane highway? Doesn't it make sense to pass legislation which would impose heavy penalties against people who insist on running with scissors? Shouldn't there be a law that says we can't park our carts side-by-side in the middle of a supermarket aisle while carrying on a lengthy and pointless conversation with our next-door neighbor?

     Of course we need laws which enable us to punish violent criminals or those who present a danger to a generally peaceful society, but I don't think our congress is entirely to blame for ALL of this superfluous legislation which seems to fly through the halls of both houses. Much of it is OUR fault because, while we pound our fists and throw tantrums when our rights are violated or simply taken away, we fail to consider the responsibilities which are inherent to those rights. We once had a right to Free Speech, but many of us interpreted that for its most literal meaning, and ignored the responsibility that was attached to it. We can say what we want, but common sense dictates that we don't yell, "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre because we think it's funny to watch people panic and trample each other while trying to get out of the building. We should be smart enough to know what could happen when we walk into a bank with one hand in a pocket while wearing a mask, intending to play a joke on our favorite teller, but some of us don't think that far ahead. We should know better than to yell "Hi, Jack!" after having a few drinks on an aircraft that's 35,000 feet in the air but, here again, some of us just don't possess that good judgment anymore.

     In my opinion, we must accept much of the blame for the erosion of our American rights and entitlements which has taken place in recent years. The men and women who secured those rights for us have long since faded into history, and we've lost sight of the fact that they spilled their own blood and sacrificed their lives defending those rights during the American Revolution, the Civil War and other conflicts fought on American soil. That was the responsibility they bestowed upon us but, over time, we became as spoiled children who have had everything handed to them with no effort to earn those benefits. We eventually came to believe those rights are absolutely inviolate and ours to exercise in any way we choose, without regard for how our own actions and behavior might affect or infringe on the rights of others.

     How many times has each of us heard someone say, "Why doesn't the Government DO something about this?" Sixty years ago, in the 1950's, people were more likely to ask, "Why don't we do something about this?" They accepted the responsibility for what happened to them. Everyone took an active part in creating their own futures, and they didn't expect the Government to solve every little problem, as most of us do today.

     A good example would be the seemingly complex and maze-like Public Health Care issue, which has become a quagmire of indecision, rumors and frightening proposals. Our Government believes that it must control public health care but, given the performance record of those lawyers and accountants which comprise our ruling class, I'm sure we can ALL agree that would be a HUGE mistake. Allowing them to run such a program would actually cause more problems than it would solve but, thankfully, there IS a very simple solution which our lawmakers seem to have no interest in exploring. They want GOVERNMENT-funded public health care because that would allow them to loot the "cookie jar" at every turn, as they've done with Social Security, for example. A more viable alternative would be TAXPAYER-funded public health care.

     Here's what I mean: On every tax form we've ever filed, the following appears: "Presidential Election Campaign > Check here if you, or your spouse if filing jointly, want $3 to go to this fund (see page 17). Checking a box below WILL NOT CHANGE YOUR TAX OR REDUCE YOUR REFUND (caps used for emphasis)." This means we have a choice, we actually have a say in how three dollars of our tax money is allocated. Why not do the same thing to fund public health care? Why not include a similar box on our tax forms which asks, "Do you want $100 of your tax money to help fund public health care? Checking a box will not increase your tax or reduce your refund." Realistically, how many people would check, "No?" I really can't believe the number would be very high, but this would GUARANTEE that everyone who can't afford health insurance would receive adequate medical care, and what makes this solution so appealing is that CONGRESS WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO TOUCH ONE THIN DIME of that money for their rampant pork projects.

     I agree with jarasan; the actions of our congress have become a significant drain on our economy, and we are continually victimized by the decisions they make under the guise of representing the American people. As for Ted Kennedy, his performance as a senator is grossly overshadowed (in my opinion) by his own criminal activity, such as drunk driving and his negligent homicide of the Kopechne woman. The roots of the Kennedy fortune and their political dynasty are firmly embedded in the practices of corruption and law-breaking, beginning with Joseph Kennedy, Sr.'s significant role in smuggling and distributing bootleg liquor during prohibition and his participation in organized crime. These are the types we elect to govern us; these are the people we admire in life and canonize upon their deaths. So why is it such a surprise to all of us when we realize, finally, that this double standard, which we've created, fails us so miserably in real-life America?

     Maybe my thoughts here are a little off-topic from time*treat's original subject, but maybe not. The fact is, we have allowed our government to grow far too large and much too powerful, to the point where we no can longer claim that America is "the greatest Democracy in the world." As jarasan indirectly points out, congress is legislating us into complete oblivion, and it's becoming harder and harder NOT to break SOME law SOMEWHERE. When it becomes a crime to make a simple mistake, when we allow our congressmen and senators to legislate and control nearly every aspect of our daily lives, we have only ourselves to blame. It was OUR responsibility to prevent our representatives from becoming so powerful that we can no longer control their actions, but we have failed in that effort, and now it's too late to take back the reigns. Whether that was due to simple apathy on our part

Sorry - Here's the rest of it:     

     Whether that was due to simple apathy on our part or whether it was due to clever engineering on their part no longer matters; we now find ourselves completely at the mercy of the whims of our elected officials.

     Unfortunately, those who favor a revolution are scattered far and wide across the nation and, since we are not organized and united as a single lobby, we will be picked off and nullified, one by one. We will be vilified in the media and presented, not as revolutionaries who favor fundamental American morals, ideals and mores, but as domestic terrorists, extremists and violent criminals who deserve nothing more noble than Life in Prison. Certainly a fitting end for those of us who want nothing more than to take our country, and our freedom, back from the lawyers and accountants who have stolen and used it to further consolidate their own corrupt power and their uncontrollable greed.

     Jim