How laws are made

From what I understand as a layman, there are about three kinds of laws. Administrative laws, which do not target deviant social behaviors, but simply organize the activity of some institutions. The premises of the laws do not matter much here, because they are technical normative acts.

Then come the two categories that interest me. First, there are the laws made for fundamentally good people who still make mistakes from time to time. Everyone knows and invokes the much-claimed presumption of innocence. Well, this category of laws starts from the idea that man is not guilty. Or, more precisely, that guilt is an exception. And, in modern civilization, this model tended towards. However, there is a category of laws that, on the contrary, start from the presumption of guilt. The whole story of terrorist threats, for example, has transformed the paradigm so that laws that were meant to protect the honest citizen from violations of rights have become laws that check whether the citizen is honest or not. In principle, this means that everyone is suspicious until proven otherwise, so innocence must be proven and is, conceptually (unconfessed), an exception.

At airports, we are all potential criminals. We all want, probably, in our subconscious to hijack a plane with which to enter a block, because of some greedy administrator on whom we feel the need to take revenge. So the state walks us through our luggage, through documents (much more insistent than before, say the most experienced), to find out if we keep our subconscious in check or not.

It is true that he took full advantage of that European (and American) legislative goodwill that presumed innocence. Received to study in Western universities, the terrorists found a way to reward this hospitality in their own abominable way. It is clear that the level of confidence is very low.

Then the laws were invented in the image of potential criminals. Now, the state bureaucratic machinery has a sufficiently convincing pretext to institute laws that, most likely, are not even needed, because the secret services have their own rules, never made public.

However, a restriction of individual freedoms was preferred, and society, as terrible as it is after so many villains with deaths (probably more die in open wars, in "civilian" accidents than terrorists), immediately gave its consent. This is the way to get to ACTA, for example. But this is not a singular case. Also on the same fundamental reasoning, a whole number of laws are justified in Romania, which should somehow avenge the previous legislative vacuum or diminish the prerogatives of each character. Thus, the laws are no longer tailored for the benefit of many, but for the early detection of alleged violators of the rules. It is also normal for these laws to be aggressive, invasive, restrictive. For, in order to circumscribe a new perimeter of the permitted things, the entire contaminated territory or with a major risk of criminal contamination must be cut out. Which means that freedoms need to be redefined and reinterpreted. For example, in order to comply with copyright law, the entire internet traffic is monitored, since the entire internet is liable to facilitate fraud

Another example, from politics. Because of Băsescu and his authoritarian behaviors, a weakening of the presidential institution is being tried. Or, of all politicians, the most legitimate (how he was elected) is still the president, no matter how unfriendly we are, because he is the only one elected by direct quantifiable vote.

Unfortunately, there is no mechanism to make Parliament more accountable to society. So, if a pack of extremely corrupt political outlaws decides to seize the presidency, it will be able to make it much easier in the future. And if he wants to do something else, it doesn't matter what, he will do it, because maybe!

Personally, I do not agree with the idea of building laws starting from a catastrophic anthropology. But reality is stubborn to remind us that ordinary morality, the common sense of the past, no longer works and must be legislated. Even for well-meaning legislators it would be difficult to find a balance. Let's face it when we have in politics what we see we have And Justice has become a mere pawn in the games of interest groups. But he is an extremely strong pawn, because he saves the appearances of legitimacy. Just think of all the "rights" legislated in contempt for democracy by the US Supreme Court