So I was thinking earlier this morning — why is jaywalking illegal?

I mean, the only person you may ever hurt while crossing in the middle of a road instead of at a crossing would be yourself, barring the occasional bicyclist who might hit you, or if you’re dumb enough to cross with your child, but a crosswalk won’t do much to save you if someone speeds through an intersection and hits you while in the crosswalk.

So why is jaywalking illegal?

Perhaps insurance companies want to deny you benefits should you be hit while in the middle of a road instead of at a walk, but they can make their own rules, right? Who needs a law to dictate it for them. Perhaps it makes society healthier for people to cross only by stoplights? Sure, it may be easier for motorists to see walkers at the light (Not “The Walking Dead” kind, mind you), but isn’t that one of those: cross-at-your-own-risk things? Maybe we just don’t want to slow down what is already too-fast traffic? Why legislate it?

Is it for our own good? I can hardly see why something as innocuous as jaywalking should even have a name, much less a serious judicial marker in a court of law.

For my part, I try to cross whenever it’s most convenient for myself. I also walk on the grass when possible. After all, it’s much kinder on the joints and it feels nice, too. I kinda figure that’s why we have grass in the first place. If we really just wanted green sections to walk around and look pretty, we could put down a rug or something and then rope it off with a nice metal sign: “In honor of Green-ness, a green section you can only look at and then walk around on the hard gray parts. Thank you.”

In other news, I propose we begin renaming parkways for driveways and driveways as parkways, to improve literary simplicity. After all, I dislike parking on the interstate or speeding toward my garage. Just sayin’.

As far as too many laws, check out this quote from Churchill.

If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law. – Winston Churchill

Why would that be true? It’s because when you begin making a rule and reg for every possible facet of human behavior, you firstly show a complete disregard for human decision-making skills. Laws are not supposed to replace our ability to reason, but to create a most basic level of protections against injuries that litigious recourse is incapable of resolving.

For example, if a business partner faults on contract you two drafted, you don’t need laws. The contract is an individual law by which you and your partner agreed to to conduct your business. Why add insult to injury by asking the country to exact extra laws? Are you and your partner incapable of intelligently drafting an agreement that benefits both and punishes undue failure on either part? The contract should be the only law the two of you need.

Should someone steal from you, sue for a recourse of property from the thief. Why send them to jail? It wastes more of your money to feed them.

Don’t let courts get crazy by allowing millions in recourse, let the recourse reside exactly to the damages caused. Spill hot coffee on yourself? Sue McDonald’s for some of your basic medical expenses (which may cost only a few thousand), but you must blame yourself for being a dumbass. Cuz that’s what you are, most likely.

Why legislate every possible right and wrong when those might shift with individuals?

Two men get into a physical altercation with each other and it’s obvious both men were prepared to do the fighting. Why is it illegal? Do you think legislating against violence is appropriate? “We don’t like fighting in our society.” Who does? But if it’s not against you, there’s little reason to create a law to punish those doing the fighting.

The exception is when someone is merely abusing another, but a mutual fight and a one-sided attack are two different things. And let’s not forget, in today’s society, victims have never been more favored by civil juries.

While a full post on the concept of professional litigation might be warranted to fully explore its finer complexities, let me say that litigation with wise, flexible judges does more for the promotion of peaceful society than the over-judiced culture in which judges must give the maximum for minor offenses.

During our expansion days, litigation was common, but awards made were appropriate for damages, not emotional stress. Life is emotionally stressful. Might as well sue God for being scared by loud noises.

Please, take some time and really think about what too many laws mean. While you might fear too little laws would create a dangerous society, remember that people stop thinking when someone else will forcibly do the thinking for them. I’d rather live in a society of thinkers, experienced at actually weighing the real consequences of their actions, rather than a world full of people who will let the law do their thinking for them and serve best as sheep for a coming slaughter.