RE: Do people think about the rules they impose? Do they consider how they would react to such rules?
One problem is the concept of the moral majority. Rules are determined and exist based on general opinion or dictatorial rule. Someone must be disenfranchised by the simple existence of rules and guidelines. The only reason for rules to exist is to stop a certain behavior or practice from happening at the threat of personal welfare or freedom.
For every opinion and school of thought there is a contradiction and someone must be the target of the rule. A country saying you must be 18+ years old to have sex with a person 18+ is to protect children and stop abuse. Other countries may say 16 is adulthood, while others say you can sell your daughter into marriage at 13. The issue is that each thinks they are right and morals are perspective based. A rule does not have exceptions, human interpretation gives them exceptions.
Yes, I am aware of this though perhaps others hadn't thought of it this way so I thank you for a good response.
I'm one of those crazy anarchists. I don't believe people should be able to impose RULES on other people. You can make all of the rules for yourself that you like. :) The exception of course is if HARM is being done to another. There can be a long debate over what is HARM.
This was not so much about LAWS, but showing how easy they can be interpreted to anything they want. Often they are done NOT for reasons like having SEX, but just to keep the person that would SEE it from having to deal with their own mental issues. If I am an easily aroused male and I have power then if I can pass a law making sure every woman wears a Burqa then I'm in good shape. That is far easier than me dealing with my own mind issues that are actually WHERE the arousal occurs. It is easier to force others to change, than to both changing myself or perhaps even admitting I need to change.
I have considered the sex issue and many others. A difficult thing for people is to be told YOU CANNOT DO THIS BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT OLD ENOUGH. That works in some cases. Yet often it is taught as a "just because" reason. I believe educating and being open about good reasons they should not want to do that yet might be a better approach. It still may not work.
It is really difficult to convince someone they should not be able to do something if it is something they know that you do.
My response isn't so much about my opinion or even your stance in the post. My response is about the fact that no matter what, when you introduce ANY rule, someone is losing or on the "controlled" end of the rule. It will be broken at some point by someone and at the end of the day right and wrong, good and evil, and even truth and deception can all be completely objectively oriented based on one person's own experience and beliefs. Religions are usually the most controversial in radical beliefs, because people defend their religions and politics above most anything else. My only goal in life is to better myself and hopefully have a positive impact on those around me. Who is to say if my definition of better or positive is the correct definition? Ultimately we are all our own keeper and all subject to mob mentality. The fundamental concept of "rules" are flawed as we don't all have the same understanding of the basis of the rules.