Public = all landowners and hunters. Therefore there *is* a legit public interest here, especially to stop what many consider unethical hunting practices, and also to prevent conflict between the citizenry over such practices. Another valid public interest is the preservation and promotion of woodsmanship skills.
Of course this would not be consistent with libertarian anarchy.:)
The public certainly does include all landowners and hunters.
That means hunters whose morals and ethics allow them to hunt over bait are unjustly restricted by their government due to the ethics and morals of those who do not hunt over bait.
There is no compelling public interest that justifies the restriction.
As for your libertarian anarchy remark:
My beliefs are in support of our constitutional republican form of government. Our state's constitution defines the legitimate purpose of government in Article I, Declaration of Rights Section 35:
Quote:
... the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression.
My beliefs fit that defintion of the legitimate role of government. I do not believe in hunting over bait, but I do believe our government should protect freedom and liberty.
Your support for a law that attempts to force the beliefs of some on others at the expense of freedom and liberty certainly does not fit our constitutional defintion of the legitimate purpose of government.
