We are all guilty of this from time to time. We are frustrated with the behavior of some large fraction of our fellow citizens. They aren't behaving rationally, or aren't reacting to the incentives that seem obvious to us. We are sure we see a better way, and we exclaim "There ought to be a law...," requiring this or that or another thing.
There they are, the six most dangerous words in the English language.
The danger is that if enough people agree with us, we will get our way, and a new law will be enacted. Here is a remarkable piece expressing what we all know to be true: that we have too much law interfering with freedom of individual action.
The critical thing to remember is that law is not just guidance for good behavior. It is enforced, literally, by the use of force. The only thing that distinguishes the Federal Government from Ford Motor Company -- General Motors is a bad example -- or the state of New York from General Mills, is that governments are empowered to use deadly force to make individuals act or not act in certain ways. Please don't say that there is no death penalty for each and every law. If you resist, and persist in your resistance, deadly force is the arresting officer's only option.
Remember when you are tempted to say "There ought to be a law...," that you are saying "Someone should use a gun to make those people behave according to my desires."
We all agree that certain crimes -- like murder -- should have severe penalties. Preventing them is worth sanctioning the use of deadly force to make people behave the way we want.
But in the context of possibly strong resistance, do you really want to make smoking in bars illegal? What about selling apples on the street corner without a license? Or hiring day laborers off the street and not paying payroll taxes?
