Money quote: "Another bill was proposed to make sexual bestiality a misdemeanor after a Richland County man was accused of having sex with dogs.

But Reddy says, most of the time, there are already enough laws on the books to bring charges in such cases. For example, in the bestiality case, the man was charged with breaking existing animal cruelty laws."

But that is not nearly as sexy as tackling moral issues with laws. This is the kind of "smaller government" I can see being useful.

Let's hope this kind of thinking catches on more

While there are times that adding 'overcriminalization' type laws can be useful for closing loopholes, there should be a loophole first to begin with. If someone's already successfully charged with animal cruelty, there's no point in expanding the law.

I have pointed these problems out earlier to some people, but they thought I was making stuff up...

Not only does the existence of too many laws too badly written laws create a fuzzy legal environment in which everyone breaks the law and nobody knows any longer where the lines are anyway (perhaps you can't read the mass of text or as here it's layered and confusingly written in itself by people who didn't even know what they were dealing with exactly).

In addition it just doesn't work to model fine details of morale that you or even your overwhelming peer group has with the law. Because laws need to be just, equally applicable and a few other things. Sure, for killing people that works, for stealing etc. But in many an article someone said we needed a law against zoophilia because it is impossible to charge some of those people on animal cruelty laws. - As for that a damage or suffering of the animal needs to be proven. well, if there is no damage done, there can't be a law. Otherwise that's simply extremely advanced adult "wuaaahhh but I waaaaant it!!"

As a result, the government dispenses then justice with these laws and two further effects catch on: 1) If someone is actually jailed I wonder if the means are justified. Simply look at the expense of tax payer money. Someone pets his horse in the "wrong spot". Is that really worth 60k to 80k incarceration costs that society will have to pay? I don't think so. Even if it is a moral transgression, this seems so minor to me a 20 Dollar fine or so should rather be appropriate. I always illustrate that with the different penalties they have on the books in Germany: up to 50,000 EURs fine (!) for sex with animals, up to 250 EUR (or so) for almost killing someone else in traffic when running a red light. Jesus. Someone's tongue on a horse vulva is worth 200 people's lives? Are you sure you are making sense?

Of course, they also made the fine so high as they foresaw (if perhaps not consciously formulated this way) that it will be difficult to enforce this. People rather seldom have sex with a horse in the town square. So they guessed a high fine potential might scare people not to do it in private, too. So if you enact such a difficult to enforce law, you then are forced to either put a policeman into every cow-stable to watch. Which brings me to 2) Or you start to teach people that the government is a mockery nowadays that might vent a lot of air very noisy, but has no substance behind it whatsoever.

For us that's clear, but hardened conservatives probably still long for the times when the church could make people feel bad for touching their own dicks under their bed-sheet. At night. Alone. In their room. In their own house. That stood a mile away from the neighbor. They try to use the government instead nowadays as the church has lost that luster, but -as you can see- I am of the opinion that they are only kidding themselves.

Also I am absolutely in favor of strict animal protection laws. I report horses with curved hooves that eat the telephone poles in their field for their hunger and I give money to the charities that then come and help those. Unfortunately, that's the same charities championing laws like that - sigh.