Sorry Joe. Your definition of "free society" looks completely uncivilized. Besides, the authority that has the power to punish wrongdoing can become abusive of that power, even under the conditions you espouse.
There is a tendency among many folks to view all things in "either/or" absolutes. This is not a healthy thing. Most things are better with moderation. This very subject is a perfect example.
All of this is why we have a government that can modify law. We are constantly learning and adapting (or we *should* be). Simultaniously maintaining liberty and civility requires constant attention. But many wish that we could simply have absolutes (absolute freedom, in your case) and be done with it. The real world ain't that easy, and never will be. Even the creators of our constitution expected it to be added to over time.
Oh yeah - that constitution is the one that was created for a "rightious people". It was admitted even at that time that freedom would deteriorate as soon as the populace strayed from rightiousness.
I would agree with you that we should not have to have laws restricting things like driving speed and drug abuse - but the catch is that we should not NEED these laws, because a rightious people would rarely act in ways that put others needlessly at risk.
You cannot cure society's ills by decriminalizing every "minor" thing. Your problem is you don't see the proper relationship of cause and effect. At least up to this point, a democratic government generally needs to justify proposed new laws in order for them to be passed (I know, there are exceptions). No government could ever justify such encroachments on freedom (extensive police powers), without it's people giving it reason. Many of these "onerous" laws have been thrust upon us because we give them an excuse. No, it doesn't always make it right - but that's how it gets started.
Freedom can and must be moderated. Even at the very beginning of US history we were moderating freedom. Our very constitution is a product of moderated freedom. If you don't understand that, it's time for you to go back and study the history of it. The Founders recognized that the States under the Articles of Federation would not survive long. They would fall prey to each other and other nations. A certain amount of freedom was exchanged for security - regardless what was said about that. If it were not so, there would have been no need for a federal Constitution at all.
There are things that can be judged by absolutes, but this is not one of them (in *this* world, anyway). It is not a matter of "yes" or "no" - it is a matter of degree. There is no "slippery slope" - only a willingness to maintain liberty, or a lack of willingness to maintain liberty.
Why do we have these problems which bother you so much? Because - right here, right now - the people, as a whole, lack the will to maintain liberty. THAT is THE problem.
No amount of cop bashing or restricting of police powers can get around that. Even if you could turn back the clock TODAY, and severely limit police powers - the state of society, as it is, would allow a hasty return to the status-quo. The ONLY way to effectively fix the police (or eliminate the need or desire for them), is to fix society.
You show me a society that is so responsible and rightious that neighbors generally settle their conflicts amicably amongst themselves, and serious misdeeds are rare - and I'll show you a society that needs no policing. It is a rare and fleeting thing, indeed. The "American Experiment" is proof of that.
-FreeMe
