This piece begged a bunch of questions. Now, there are a lot of politics to this but I wanted to cover the psychology behind modern law.
John Stossel details a lot of examples of laws that may be questionable on a moral level. Obviously there is rhyme and reason to most laws that are put in place. Even shutting down a lemonade stand can be argued that the kids running them may not know about the health concerns with the process of making it(even though the majority of the time it's just kids using store bought mix).
At the end of the day, you can argue both ways. It seems terrible to shut down kids' lemonade stand because of health regulations. But at the same time, those health regulations were made with the idea of protecting people.
But where does the law enter a moral gray area? Is law based on morality? Like they detail in the video, we all know it's not moral to steal, murder, or destroy others' property. Things like building codes, health regulations and buying/selling common products aren't things we think about as being a moral issue.
My goal with this is to beg the question: Are the laws that are placed every day really designed to protect us? Even with the best of intentions, are ALL of the ramifications of these laws thought through before they are enacted?
The psychology behind law nowadays is that Laws are entirely moral. That being a law abiding citizen is synonomous with being a good person. Is this really the case? Should we not strive for our morality to restrict our actions, and think of consequences, instead of law? I can't tell you how to feel about this. But hopefully this picks your brain, and inspires you to think about it.
Be scientific! Question Everything!