We have become a very, very well regulated society. Many of us would argue a little too regulated but that’s a discussion for another day. But most of us agree some regulation makes sense – there are some things that we want government to be able to stop or to change. But what kinds of things – what’s the purpose of all these codes?

Short answer – to protect the public safety, by regulating unsafe conditions or actions where they create a real potential danger to others. We don’t want crazies driving 100mph in a school zone. We don’t want buildings dropping stonework on passersby. It’d be nice if buildings were structurally sound enough to not fall on anyone’s head when they open a door. And there are better solutions to addictions than sleeping on the sidewalk.

So, yes, there are legitimate reasons for regulating certain behaviors and things. But there are also legitimate reasons not to over regulate – to regulate conditions and actions that don’t impact other people. Okay, so the neighbor painted his house in a garish Tartan and decided to landscape with goldenrod. It’s probably a good time to call the realtor – but it’s not government’s job to enforce good taste or not landscaping with the state flower. Sure, the argument can be made that it has an impact on the neighbors – and probably any passersby – but it does them no harm.

And the guys that’s allergic to goldenrod is better served seeing his doctor – it’s literally the most common state flower and one of the most common plants in the US. It’s not cost effective to eradicate a whole plant species because someone is allergic and it’s also not cost effective from a polity standpoint to impinge on the freedoms of others for something that isn’t intended to harm – or reasonable to regulate.

The rub is that there is a middle ground that we have to negotiate. Many people believe the property of others should be regulated in order to preserve or enhance the economic values around it. Do we allow government to require lawns to be kept short? Do we allow government to require certain colors to be painted on houses? Should government decide what plants go in your flowerbed?

Some would answer no to all of those. Others would answer yes to them all. And most of us recognize that we have to strike a balance if we are going to live together without damaging each other – either by decreasing economic value or by decreasing freedom. It’s a thorny problem once we allow that government can regulate personal for economic reasons.

But what happens when a government gets fine happy? There are towns that get more than 25% of their operating budgets from fines – bear in mind that most towns get no where near that high. When a government acts excessively, it rarely does so by picking on people who can fight back. Partially by design but also because picayune regulations are least likely to be violated by those who can afford to pay to have their lawns done or have home repairs done quickly. Even if they do get a citation, they are more likely to just pay the ticket quickly because it’s cheaper than fighting it.

But what about those whose means are limited? Single mom working two jobs can’t afford daycare and lawncare – and toddlers aren’t good at running lawnmowers. Grandmother who can’t start the lawnmower herself and who’s Medicare payment just wiped out part of her income. New tenant who doesn’t have money to buy a lawnmower saved up yet. Are any of these the people we want to penalize?

What happens when we do? Let’s assume Bob is just a jerk about this mowing the lawn thing. Fine – Bob gets his ticket but Bob legitimately can’t pay it. Now things begin to escalate – with Bob owing more and more money, facing jail time and liens – because he was a jerk?

So Bob digs his way out of that mess – is he now going to be a model citizen, or even more of a jerk because he recognizes the injustice of the response to the lawncare issue? Did this help or hurt?

What about Mary who spends time in jail and loses custody of her kids because she can’t pay for having her lawn mowed. What is she going to teach those kids when she does get them back about the fairness of the system? Is this doing any good at all?

But we can’t just let people disobey legitimate regulations. Agreed – but is fining them into bankruptcy and jailing them for contempt of a court system that deserves their contempt the best we can come up with? Not hardly.

There’s no purpose in allowing government over reach – it’s dangerous to those it hurts and to society at large. And we have a lot more tools in our shed than just fines, fees and cantankerous judges. We can do a LOT better than this!