Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We have too many laws. The result is that the police and government workers who enforce them:
a) don't know what they are
b) enforce them unevenly
But people are insecure and ignorant and many in government may be afraid of the ramifications of repealing certain laws. On the other hand, there are also interest groups that are loud and belligernt if you try to repeal their pet laws. This is my opinion.
Government has no jurisdiction to tell people what they can do with their own bodies.
Government has no jurisdiction to tell people what they can do with their own bodies.
You have the right to poison your body with tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, etc. until it directly effects me and my physical livelihood. You speak of one of these below.
Quote:
There is only one traffic law needed. Public endangerment. If you are speeding in the vicinity of others you are endangering them. If you run a signal or a stop sign you are endangering others. If you are driving drunk you are endangering others.
The act of you drinking isn't the problem at all. It's the fact that after drinking you entered a car with the intent of operating it. I'll admit while watching Supercross tonight I drank a Blue Moon bottle. I'm not drunk nor am I planning on driving so I would need to drive too fast, cut people off, fail to yield to lights and signs or fail to signal. FYI, in Arizona a whole bunch of drivers fail to signal.
Quote:
No you did steal something when you sold it to someone else, they were not yours to sell.
What about whistle blowing like Snowden did, is that not also technically espionage?
Quote:
Really? Bribery is practiced every day in our State Capitols and in Washington DC. Not a single politician achieves political office of any importance without selling themselves to the power brokers.
If you want to stop bribery you will need to stop corporate campaign contributions and lobbyists.
How do you propose we get rid of bribery in politics? Please tell me the answer isn't voting in Trump. That's solving the problem by helping the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kinkytoes
We have too many laws. The result is that the police and government workers who enforce them:
a) don't know what they are
b) enforce them unevenly
But people are insecure and ignorant and many in government may be afraid of the ramifications of repealing certain laws. On the other hand, there are also interest groups that are loud and belligernt if you try to repeal their pet laws. This is my opinion.
I work security at a sports venue and we try to enforce it as evenly as possible but some venues who even do the same league aren't as diligent as we are creating the whole "well X allowed it" responses to which I reply "Sir/Mam, I understand and I am sorry, but it cannot come in; you can either throw it out or return it to your car." I even had one person claim that the e-cigs he had to dump weren't listed anywhere and when I said it's on the websites, he replied "Keep reaching son, keep reaching..." Ironically, I double checked for my brother because he's going to an even next weekend and I wanted him to get the right information, sure enough the website lists e-cigs as a banned item.
...What about whistle blowing like Snowden did, is that not also technically espionage?...
Absolutely. 18 USC 793.
But think of it another way. I think Mike Hayden used the number $6 billion in damages to the US intelligence community.
Who gave that 29 year-old knucklehead permission to spend $6 billion of the taxpayers' money blowing the whistle on programs he didn't even understand?
I work security at a sports venue and we try to enforce it as evenly as possible but some venues who even do the same league aren't as diligent as we are creating the whole "well X allowed it" responses to which I reply "Sir/Mam, I understand and I am sorry, but it cannot come in; you can either throw it out or return it to your car." I even had one person claim that the e-cigs he had to dump weren't listed anywhere and when I said it's on the websites, he replied "Keep reaching son, keep reaching..." Ironically, I double checked for my brother because he's going to an even next weekend and I wanted him to get the right information, sure enough the website lists e-cigs as a banned item.
Or, "I did it last time!" We got that all the time. I think customers come in pre-programmed with that response. Wind 'em up and out it comes. Standard answer: "Two wrongs don't make a right."
-----------
As long as we have stupid people in this country that sue for their stupidity and smart people in this country constantly looking for loopholes, yes, we need laws.
Interesting little story. Many moons ago I waited on a customer who wanted to cash a check at the bank I worked at. He had made it out to the bank's name. I told him he had to make it out to Cash. Customer threw a hissy fit. You know the story, older customer, been doing it this way for eons, can't adapt to change. Anyway, a little research later, come to find out that a bunch of years earlier, another customer used to come in and make two checks out to the bank. One he put on his loan, the other he got for cash. You know where this is leading, right? About halfway through his loan, he came in and said he had his loan paid off and had the canceled checks (the old days now, remember) all made out to the bank's name, to prove it, and he wanted his title. The bank knew what he was doing, but he went to court and won, ending up so he didn't have to pay half his loan. And I believe it was a 30 year house loan. So guess why a check has to be made out to Cash in this particular bank now when you want to cash a check?
So the next time before you get all worked up over some totally idiotic and asinine law or requirement, remember it's probably because someone already screwed over someone else and made it hard for the rest of you because now a law exists where people just had to use integrity and common sense before.
"What's yours is yours, what's mine is mine, do not trespass upon the person, liberty or property of another."
Absent limited liability (exercised by corporations and licensed entities), whoever trespasses / injures another is held liable. If accidental, civil penalties and restitution. If deliberate, criminal penalties are imposed.
So far, no cases have arisen that are outside of this simple rule... with regard to an injured party, whose person, liberty or property were involved.
As to rules and regs imposed on those who "consented to be governed," that's a whole 'nuther kettle of fish.
Remember, absent consent, all government is delegated power to do is SECURE RIGHTS (prosecute trespass; adjudicate disputes; defend against enemies, foreign or domestic).
To eradicate the necessity for government dictated rules and permissions (licenses), the remedy is abolition of all limited liability.
No licenses to "legally" harm or kill, etc, etc.
No permissions to "legally" poison (pollute), etc, etc.
No limited liability - period.
If a person, business, or artificial person injures another, all responsible parties are held liable.
If a patient wishes to waive tort and hold a physician innocent for the harm done in treatment, let the patient sign a consent form to that effect. Get government out of the way.
SUGGESTED REMEDY:
For accidental injury, accused pays just compensation, unless forgiven by the injured party.
For deliberate injury, first offense, the convicted pays all costs, fines, and restitution / compensation to the injured party or survivors, and if unable to pay, is put into involuntary servitude to pay his 'debt to society.'
Second offense, repeat, but with greater fines.
Third offense, outlawry / execution (three times is evidence of an unrepentant predator)
Any failure of the convict to comply outlaws him from the protections of government, and anyone who harms of kills him is thus immune. Tolerance of evil is unmerciful to the next victim.
So far, no cases have arisen that are outside of this simple rule... with regard to an injured party, whose person, liberty or property were involved.
As to rules and regs imposed on those who "consented to be governed," that's a whole 'nuther kettle of fish.
Remember, absent consent, all government is delegated power to do is SECURE RIGHTS (prosecute trespass; adjudicate disputes; defend against enemies, foreign or domestic).
To eradicate the necessity for government dictated rules and permissions (licenses), the remedy is abolition of all limited liability.
No licenses to "legally" harm or kill, etc, etc.
No permissions to "legally" poison (pollute), etc, etc.
No limited liability - period.
If a person, business, or artificial person injures another, all responsible parties are held liable.
If a patient wishes to waive tort and hold a physician innocent for the harm done in treatment, let the patient sign a consent form to that effect. Get government out of the way.
SUGGESTED REMEDY:
For accidental injury, accused pays just compensation, unless forgiven by the injured party.
For deliberate injury, first offense, the convicted pays all costs, fines, and restitution / compensation to the injured party or survivors, and if unable to pay, is put into involuntary servitude to pay his 'debt to society.'
Second offense, repeat, but with greater fines.
Third offense, outlawry / execution (three times is evidence of an unrepentant predator)
Any failure of the convict to comply outlaws him from the protections of government, and anyone who harms of kills him is thus immune. Tolerance of evil is unmerciful to the next victim.
First off these remedies are archaic and the third is straight out of the books of Draco. I also don't think fines work. Look at DWIs. Slapping them on the wrist don't curb repeat offenders.
Second off, I refer to these two posts as to why we truly need these laws though I believe I expressed similar sentiments earlier on in the thread...
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser
Or, "I did it last time!" We got that all the time. I think customers come in pre-programmed with that response. Wind 'em up and out it comes. Standard answer: "Two wrongs don't make a right."
-----------
As long as we have stupid people in this country that sue for their stupidity and smart people in this country constantly looking for loopholes, yes, we need laws.
Interesting little story. Many moons ago I waited on a customer who wanted to cash a check at the bank I worked at. He had made it out to the bank's name. I told him he had to make it out to Cash. Customer threw a hissy fit. You know the story, older customer, been doing it this way for eons, can't adapt to change. Anyway, a little research later, come to find out that a bunch of years earlier, another customer used to come in and make two checks out to the bank. One he put on his loan, the other he got for cash. You know where this is leading, right? About halfway through his loan, he came in and said he had his loan paid off and had the canceled checks (the old days now, remember) all made out to the bank's name, to prove it, and he wanted his title. The bank knew what he was doing, but he went to court and won, ending up so he didn't have to pay half his loan. And I believe it was a 30 year house loan. So guess why a check has to be made out to Cash in this particular bank now when you want to cash a check?
So the next time before you get all worked up over some totally idiotic and asinine law or requirement, remember it's probably because someone already screwed over someone else and made it hard for the rest of you because now a law exists where people just had to use integrity and common sense before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenstratpick
Laws exist because stupid people exist. Since we have more stupid people than ever, we have more laws then ever
The issue is a society is only as a good as the lowest common denominator part is. There are people who defraud or take advantage of laws and cause externalities that hurt the society. That person who only paid half of his 30 year mortgage cheated the banks out of 15 years worth of principle and interest. That person who drank and drive, he cheated you out of your life. That smoker you work with who disregards smoking signs and requests to put out the cigar/cigarette, he quite possibly cut your life short with second-hand smoke related cancer. See the issue here OP? Court cases get very drawn out and can prove "intentional" was really "accidental" depending on evidence.
[1] First off these remedies are archaic and the third is straight out of the books of Draco. I also don't think fines work. Look at DWIs. Slapping them on the wrist don't curb repeat offenders.
[2] Second off, I refer to these two posts as to why we truly need these laws though I believe I expressed similar sentiments earlier on in the thread...
[3] The issue is a society is only as a good as the lowest common denominator part is.
[4] There are people who defraud or take advantage of laws and cause externalities that hurt the society. That person who only paid half of his 30 year mortgage cheated the banks out of 15 years worth of principle and interest.
[5] That person who drank and drive, he cheated you out of your life. That smoker you work with who disregards smoking signs and requests to put out the cigar/cigarette, he quite possibly cut your life short with second-hand smoke related cancer. See the issue here OP? Court cases get very drawn out and can prove "intentional" was really "accidental" depending on evidence.
[1] Is justice archaic? Fines are only for the first and second offense. Outlawry is not a slap on the wrist. It means law no longer will protect the outlaw. Anyone can rob, beat or kill the outlaw without penalty. Is that more unjust than what already exists, funded at taxpayer expense?
[2] Which laws? Malum in se or malum prohibitum?
[3] No. Individuals determine how good a society is. Evil flourishes when good men do nothing. Tolerance of predators is unmerciful to the next victim.
[4] BTW - usury (interest) is an abomination, condemned for "only" 3500 years. But that's a whole other issue.
[5] Injury to the person or property of another is subject to adjudication. If accidental, civil penalties are in order. If deliberate, punishment is the rule. The question of intoxication / impairment is moot. If intoxication is self inflicted, subsequent injuries are criminal. If not self inflicted, the subsequent injuries are accidental.
The problem with so many laws is the lack of uniformity. I feel that every state, at their Welcome Center, should hand out a copy of the various laws of that state, which may vary with the state you traveled from, to prevent yourself from being innocently, ignorantly arrested.
With so many laws, you may not become familiar with them until you're ticketed.
How's this for ignorance? I talked to someone who got a $150 fine for spitting on the sidewalk in downtown Las Vegas.
I asked all of my co-workers, some 30 of them, if they knew about this law, and 29 out of 30 were ignorant of it, and totally shocked!
Spooked about getting a DUI, I started riding my bike to the local bar, 3 blocks away, and I ran into someone who got a DUI on his bicycle! News to me!
So, no more riding my bike to the bar!
The thing is, if enough people break a law, that's a good way of having it overturned! Hasn't legalized marijuana and alcohol taught us that?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's solving the problem by helping the problem.
No, we do not.
