It makes sense to not forget that every government action IS backed up by threat of violence.
If the "no arial photography" law passes, flying a quadcopter around gathering imagery becomes illegal. When police show up to fine or arrest you for doing so, they do it in a manner & reputation implying physical violence will follow if you don't comply and persist in violating the law.
Ergo the question for legislators & citizens is: why is arial photography deemed harmful enough that doing so warrants threat, even invocation, of physical violence based on simple engaging in that activity outside of any other warranted factor? (To compare: why does NYC go so far as threaten, even carry out, physical violence against a restaurant owner for selling a 20oz soda?)
Viewed this way, one is reminded of the vital imperative of freedom & liberty. It makes sense to ask why a government is willing to resort to physical violence for enforcement, rather than "no harm done, let it go".
Sidenote: I don't think it is a good idea to wonder why and how government should use violence. First, people around you may be asked why they think anyone can use any amount of violence and when. Before you get a satisfactory answer to that question, it's meaningless to discuss what the government can or cannot do. Government is just a bunch of specific people, particular case of a general rule "person A can kill person B when XYZ".
Government is a specific case of that general rule if and only if group decision making is isomorphic to individual decision making.
The idea behind government is that 1) it is occasionally necessary to impose some course of action on individuals or groups, 2) force or threat of force is a necessary component of said imposition, and 3) making the decision to use force is safer (under the assumption that there is in fact some 'correct' course of action) if you first discuss that decision with as many people as possible than if you decide by yourself.
Whether or not that all holds would appear to be up for debate.
Do you agree that "the idea behind government" exists entirely in heads of people? E.g. my idea of govt is different from yours. Does the fact that many people share the same idea make it right? If so, does god exist? Is Earth flat when most people think it is?
I'll agree that it's difficult to think about ideas with a rock :)
As for the rest, people believing something certainly does provide evidence for that thing the strength of which scales with the number of people believing, if not nearly linearly. It depends on which people too ;) Fortunately we have plenty of other sources of evidence to base our opinions on (and remember that sources of evidence aren't necessarily independent; one can screen off another). Whether or not those other sources are leveraged in group decision making is one of the things that would appear to be up for debate.
If the "no arial photography" law passes, flying a quadcopter around gathering imagery becomes illegal. When police show up to fine or arrest you for doing so, they do it in a manner & reputation implying physical violence will follow if you don't comply and persist in violating the law.
Ergo the question for legislators & citizens is: why is arial photography deemed harmful enough that doing so warrants threat, even invocation, of physical violence based on simple engaging in that activity outside of any other warranted factor? (To compare: why does NYC go so far as threaten, even carry out, physical violence against a restaurant owner for selling a 20oz soda?)
Viewed this way, one is reminded of the vital imperative of freedom & liberty. It makes sense to ask why a government is willing to resort to physical violence for enforcement, rather than "no harm done, let it go".