Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/28/2009 8:02:10 PM EDT
I have been thinking about this for years and never said anything about it. There are many pros and cons to the idea but I'm starting to think the pros are winning. I'm talking about the idea of limiting how much text volume can be allowed in the makeup of the laws we have to endure. I have no idea what the reasonable numbers would be but say we had a constitutional amendment that said that all Federal laws, rules, regulations, etc that affect people or corporations have to fit on one 700 mb CD in ascii text with no compression. Same or less for state laws and same or less for city. county, etc laws regulations, ordinances, etc. Right now a 700 mb CD probably wouldn't hold a fraction of the tax laws so maybe we need five or ten DVDs or we use word count and limit it to say one trillion words.

Why do I think this is a good idea? Take it to the extremes. For over two hundred years we have had numerous government entities writing laws for us and law has become something that nobody can comprehend. Court cases are decided by which lawyer is the best researcher because no lawyer, prosecuter, or judge can know all the law. With every session of every government entity writing more laws and eliminating hardly any where will we be a hundred years from now? Nothing we do will be legal. California is thinking about outlawing big screen TVs and black cars to be more green. Our governments are unrestricted in how much they can regulate us and how much money they can spend. All some fool in some congress has to do is think up another restriction and convince the other fools to pass it and we have to live with it.

We are supposed to be a free country. Any law that restricts what we can do or own should be taken seriously and that is not the case today. If a restriction on the volume of law were enacted the idiots that rule us would have to give up a rule to add a rule. This is certainly not a cure all and it would surely be distorted and misused. Specific laws would become more general and vague to reduce their volume and interpretatiom would become more critical. On the other hand it would to some extent deal with the fact that under the current system everything we do will eventually become regulated by laws and regulations brought on by special interest groups and crooked polititians. I wish I could think of something much better but this is what I'm thinking about now and I would like to hear what others think about it.

I am well aware of the fact that it ain't gonna happen any time soon. Just wondering what y'all think about the concept.
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 8:09:18 PM EDT
Blogger Kim DuToit wrote an excellent article a while back offering a nice theory about the proliferation of laws intended to control conduct
that should be controlled by social pressures. His analogy was that religous teachings and beliefs combined with social and familial pressures
took care of many areas of conduct in the past allowing the legal system to be reserved for serious bad conduct.

As society has drifted away from religious faith and most people don't even understand the concept of shame these societal restrictions
no longer work and we are forced to fall back to the blind club of law and the legal system to enforce rules of conduct that should be
everyday common courtesy.
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 8:14:28 PM EDT
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

"[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." Benjamin Franklin

"The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next. Continue therefore to read it and to regulate your life by its precepts." John Jay
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 8:17:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By huaco:
Just wondering what y'all think about the concept.



Here are the laws we need:

Don't murder.
Don't commit any form of assault.
Don't steal.
Don't trespass.
Don't vandalize.
Don't actively and wantonly endanger others.
Don't commit fraud.

That's it. Every other law on the books is pretty much absolute horse shit that we could do without. Hey, looka there! Way less than one compressed CD and I gave us all the rules we need for a civil society.
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 8:18:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By huaco:
We are supposed to be a free country.



Since when?
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 8:18:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By thexrayboy:
Blogger Kim DuToit wrote an excellent article a while back offering a nice theory about the proliferation of laws intended to control conduct
that should be controlled by social pressures. His analogy was that religous teachings and beliefs combined with social and familial pressures
took care of many areas of conduct in the past allowing the legal system to be reserved for serious bad conduct.

As society has drifted away from religious faith and most people don't even understand the concept of shame these societal restrictions
no longer work and we are forced to fall back to the blind club of law and the legal system to enforce rules of conduct that should be
everyday common courtesy.


Exactly...

Law is supposed to impose a 'morality of last resort'....

However, there are enough people these days with NO other morality... That the law must take up the slack in order to maintain civilization...

The volume of law required to govern a moral & self-controlling society is MUCH smaller than the volume NEEDED to control a hedonistic mess like the modern USA...

As for the tax code, that's the result of too many deductions and credits being written in to 'help' various interest groups....
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 8:19:17 PM EDT
I think for every new law passed, one must be repealed.

Link Posted: 3/28/2009 8:19:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Poultryinspector:
Originally Posted By huaco:
We are supposed to be a free country.



Since when?


Since never...

The US is supposed to be what it is, a republic goverened by rule of law...

If you want a 'free' country, you have to look at a place like Somolia or Liberia, where there is NO functional government... But then you have NO effective freedom either....
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 8:25:02 PM EDT
My pet theory is to limit the total number of laws. IOW, pick a number, say, 2000. That's the maximum number of laws the government could impose upon the people.

In order to make a new law, the government would be forced to repeal an existing one. This will allow for a very streamlined system, which automatically discards old obsolete laws in favor of more modern, relevant ones.

This would ensure a measure of freedom from over regulation, and it would be a self-balancing system that would only allow for the most important, serious misbehavior to be criminalized.

Any trivial laws would quickly be scrapped in favor of regulating more serious societal breaches.
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 8:36:21 PM EDT
ALL laws should have a sunset date.

If the law is worthwhile they can pass it again. No simple "reauthorization". They have to start from scratch, write a bill, the whole nine yards.

Link Posted: 3/28/2009 8:37:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Originally Posted By thexrayboy:
Blogger Kim DuToit wrote an excellent article a while back offering a nice theory about the proliferation of laws intended to control conduct
that should be controlled by social pressures. His analogy was that religous teachings and beliefs combined with social and familial pressures
took care of many areas of conduct in the past allowing the legal system to be reserved for serious bad conduct.

As society has drifted away from religious faith and most people don't even understand the concept of shame these societal restrictions
no longer work and we are forced to fall back to the blind club of law and the legal system to enforce rules of conduct that should be
everyday common courtesy.


Exactly...

Law is supposed to impose a 'morality of last resort'....

However, there are enough people these days with NO other morality... That the law must take up the slack in order to maintain civilization...

The volume of law required to govern a moral & self-controlling society is MUCH smaller than the volume NEEDED to control a hedonistic mess like the modern USA...

As for the tax code, that's the result of too many deductions and credits being written in to 'help' various interest groups....

I disagree.

I don't think that if you repealed the NFA, for example, it would suddenly result in more murders. I also don't believe there is a significant portion of society that would suddenly commit acts of violence upon others if there were no laws against it.

For example (not that I advocate this, but) if murder was not illegal, I don't think you'd see murders happening in any greater numbers than you do currently. After all, while you might not have to deal with the justice system, you would still have to deal with the victim's family and friends. In this case, the only advantage to having a law against murder is to (hopefully) ensure a fair trial so the wrong person doesn't receive the retaliation. Even so, the system sometimes gets it wrong and sentences an innocent person.

Society has a much less stringent set of morals and values today than in the past, and some degree of regulation is necessary to keep order (always has). But our laws need to be pared down to a number that a person of average intelligence can reasonably be expected to memorize, or at the very least, a number small enough to fit in a single shirt pocket sized reference book.

How can we expect LE to perform their duty (enforcing laws) when it's impossible for them to memorize them all?

A person could spend a lifetime researching and identifying the multitude of frivolous laws that if eliminated, would not have an appreciable impact on society.
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 9:01:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Poultryinspector:
Originally Posted By huaco:
Just wondering what y'all think about the concept.



Here are the laws we need:

Don't murder.
Don't commit any form of assault.
Don't steal.
Don't trespass.
Don't vandalize.
Don't actively and wantonly endanger others.
Don't commit fraud.

That's it. Every other law on the books is pretty much absolute horse shit that we could do without. Hey, looka there! Way less than one compressed CD and I gave us all the rules we need for a civil society.


I agree with you in principal but we have to stay practical. These crimes must be well defined or we are leaving it up to judges to interpret them in all kinds of ways. Sometime in my upbringing I heard a statement that "The constitution and laws are there to get up through times of poor leadership". Well that's not working out very well lately but it's because the constitution and law are being ignored or misinterpreted and we are allowing it to happen. Laws need to be specific. I'm not advocating doing away with that, just how much subject matter the law can addess.
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 9:13:22 PM EDT
Your ideas of limiting the number of laws would put countless lawyer, judges and politicians out of work, and force them to actually do something truly productive. This would save millions, perhaps billions of dollars anually, therefor it will never happen,, given our current environment of backwards-land government.
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 9:30:18 PM EDT
automatic sunsets for all laws might be a good idea .

Mine is to have the supreme court review each new bill ( to see if it is constitutional ) ...
Before it is enacted into a law . Not years after .
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 9:35:37 PM EDT
Every law should have a sunset of...oh say 10 to 15 years. That gives the idiots that voted the shit bill into law time to get voted out or retire and the even bigger idiots that supported the "representatives" a chance to mature some.

What's that you say? If every law has a sunset then eventually the legislature will only be voting on whether or not to keep old laws...........that's the point.

Some of our largest problems stem from the fact that we call those bozos in D.C. "law makers". If I to legitimately call myself self a bridge maker, then I had better begin building some damn bridges!

Since those elected clowns want to call themselves "law makers" then they go about their days making and voting in laws. Regardless of practical use of those laws.

The first candidate that calls himself/herself a security guard and not a law maker has my vote!
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 9:49:18 PM EDT
There is no finite number of laws that anyone can consider enough already. The number of laws can only be determined by how many the people are willing to endure. I spend every single day of my life dealing with one law or another. Most days its several that are in my face. Usually, its all about the city, county, state or federal government stealing money from me. Every law has a reason and that reason is to steal money from the citizens. The more law, the more the politicians can steal. the stealing must continue to perpetuate itself.
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 10:06:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Originally Posted By thexrayboy:
Blogger Kim DuToit wrote an excellent article a while back offering a nice theory about the proliferation of laws intended to control conduct
that should be controlled by social pressures. His analogy was that religous teachings and beliefs combined with social and familial pressures
took care of many areas of conduct in the past allowing the legal system to be reserved for serious bad conduct.

As society has drifted away from religious faith and most people don't even understand the concept of shame these societal restrictions
no longer work and we are forced to fall back to the blind club of law and the legal system to enforce rules of conduct that should be
everyday common courtesy.


Exactly...

Law is supposed to impose a 'morality of last resort'....

However, there are enough people these days with NO other morality... That the law must take up the slack in order to maintain civilization...

The volume of law required to govern a moral & self-controlling society is MUCH smaller than the volume NEEDED to control a hedonistic mess like the modern USA...

As for the tax code, that's the result of too many deductions and credits being written in to 'help' various interest groups....


Oh absolutely, the moral restrictions placed upon a society by an over-bearing and draconian religion are so much better at ensuring morality, we need only look at the paragons of morality that were the people of medieval Europe or the current shitstorm that is the Middle East.

People act morally, or they don't, neither you or anyone else can exert any meaningful control over that, the best you can do is to prepare yourself to act in defense of your own life, liberty, and property and let the chips fall where they may. All attempts at legislating morality have accomplished NOTHING towards promoting truly moral behavior, they have however caused a progressive downward spiral in our freedoms and liberties.
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 10:13:13 PM EDT
Here's my idea, any and all new laws must cite in their opening lines the constitutional authority to regulate whatever it is intended to affect, if it can't cite the amendment allowing it to be regulated then it dies, then and there. This should be passed as it's own amendment and be retroactively applied to all laws previously implemented. The same standard should be applied to all agencies of the federal government, if they can't cite the laws that they enforce they go away, and stay away.

It would take our federal government down to it's necessary constituent parts real fucking quick.
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 10:17:43 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Originally Posted By Poultryinspector:
Originally Posted By huaco:
We are supposed to be a free country.



Since when?


Since never...

The US is supposed to be what it is, a republic goverened by rule of law...

If you want a 'free' country, you have to look at a place like Somolia or Liberia, where there is NO functional government... But then you have NO effective freedom either....


Perhaps "free country" is a bit too simplistic of a way to state it, maybe it would be better explained as...

"The USA is supposed to be a country in which the government acts to ensure the greatest amount of freedom possible, for the greatest number of it's citizens possible"

How does that strike you?
Link Posted: 3/29/2009 12:22:27 AM EDT
Originally Posted By PanzerMK7:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Originally Posted By thexrayboy:
Blogger Kim DuToit wrote an excellent article a while back offering a nice theory about the proliferation of laws intended to control conduct
that should be controlled by social pressures. His analogy was that religous teachings and beliefs combined with social and familial pressures
took care of many areas of conduct in the past allowing the legal system to be reserved for serious bad conduct.

As society has drifted away from religious faith and most people don't even understand the concept of shame these societal restrictions
no longer work and we are forced to fall back to the blind club of law and the legal system to enforce rules of conduct that should be
everyday common courtesy.


Exactly...

Law is supposed to impose a 'morality of last resort'....

However, there are enough people these days with NO other morality... That the law must take up the slack in order to maintain civilization...

The volume of law required to govern a moral & self-controlling society is MUCH smaller than the volume NEEDED to control a hedonistic mess like the modern USA...

As for the tax code, that's the result of too many deductions and credits being written in to 'help' various interest groups....


Oh absolutely, the moral restrictions placed upon a society by an over-bearing and draconian religion are so much better at ensuring morality, we need only look at the paragons of morality that were the people of medieval Europe or the current shitstorm that is the Middle East.

People act morally, or they don't, neither you or anyone else can exert any meaningful control over that, the best you can do is to prepare yourself to act in defense of your own life, liberty, and property and let the chips fall where they may. All attempts at legislating morality have accomplished NOTHING towards promoting truly moral behavior, they have however caused a progressive downward spiral in our freedoms and liberties.


Panzer.

A society where everyone has to shoot or fight it out to ensure the existence of civilization is a society that is essentially operating under anarchy, and it is NOT a free society by any means...

The fact that you can leave for the day, come back, and not find your house stripped clean is NOT due to the 'generally moral nature' of your neighbors, but due to the various forces exerted upon them by others, which prevent them from stealing all your shit...

Removing those forces would require you (And them) to all sit home on your porch with a rifle all day (And hope no one across the street gets tired of sitting & decides to shoot at you)...

Productive society requires imposed morality - that's what (don't steal, don't kill, don't beat the crap out of someone, etc) all is...

These things aren't illegal because of some bogus enlightened 'but they infringe on the rights of others' standard - they are illegal because people want them to be, and have made them such... Simple enough...

That same standard applies to everything else that is illegal...

And to compare Christianity as it has existed in this nation to Pre-Reformation Europe OR Radical Islam is absolute bullshit...

Our dominant religion does a fine job of imposing a moral code on it's followers without causing violence or oppression of others.... And no, having someone tell you they think something you are doing is wrong, or try to convince their elected officials to make it illegal is neither 'violence' nor 'oppression'...
Link Posted: 3/29/2009 12:23:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/29/2009 12:23:44 AM EDT by Dave_A]
Originally Posted By PanzerMK7:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Originally Posted By Poultryinspector:
Originally Posted By huaco:
We are supposed to be a free country.



Since when?


Since never...

The US is supposed to be what it is, a republic goverened by rule of law...

If you want a 'free' country, you have to look at a place like Somolia or Liberia, where there is NO functional government... But then you have NO effective freedom either....


Perhaps "free country" is a bit too simplistic of a way to state it, maybe it would be better explained as...

"The USA is supposed to be a country in which the government acts to ensure the greatest amount of freedom possible, for the greatest number of it's citizens possible"

How does that strike you?


No to that as well...

We are not intended to be a libertarian nation. That was tried, it failed.

The US is supposed to be a nation governed of, by and for it's people.

Which includes passing whatever laws the people wish to see passed, so long as they do not violate the text of the Constitution.
Link Posted: 3/29/2009 12:26:52 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Poultryinspector:
Originally Posted By huaco:
Just wondering what y'all think about the concept.



Here are the laws we need:

Don't murder.
Don't commit any form of assault.
Don't steal.
Don't trespass.
Don't vandalize.
Don't actively and wantonly endanger others.
Don't commit fraud.

That's it. Every other law on the books is pretty much absolute horse shit that we could do without. Hey, looka there! Way less than one compressed CD and I gave us all the rules we need for a civil society.


Your 'civil society' would devolve into mass bloodshed and chaos faster than the government could act to enforce those laws...

By the time the government reacted, they would be gone & anarchy would be in place....
Link Posted: 3/29/2009 1:18:52 AM EDT
Maybe somebody should pass a law about this.

Link Posted: 3/29/2009 2:44:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/29/2009 2:46:23 AM EDT by Dale00]
The "volume of the law we must endure" is not the root of the problem.

The root of the problem seems to be that some key principles are being ignored:

1. The law must apply equally to all.

2. The law must not be used to redistribute wealth.

We have gotten into a real mess in this country because we have forgotten or given up on these two principles. A good place to start bringing things back to normal is to insist that our law makers come back home after a few terms and live normal lives instead of being part of a Washington D.C. elite class. Power corrupts.

Link Posted: 3/29/2009 3:01:41 AM EDT
The problem is this:

Congress has Nothing To Do except Make MORE Laws. Sure, they could repeal laws that were found to be damaging, but then the "Progressive Liberals" start screaming about taking away stuff (bans) that wasn't theirs to start with, and people agree with them.

If somehow a 10 year sunset on all laws was passed, they'd be busy trying to see which ones worked. Also, it would slow the steady slide towards socialism due to the lack of repealing laws.
Link Posted: 3/29/2009 3:14:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/29/2009 3:15:28 AM EDT by Lancair]
Excessive regulation is a problem, but putting a word limit on it is simplistic and won't solve the problem. Putting a limit on legislation will simply mean legislation will be more general, which means less detail, which means a shitload more court cases and case law. You'd take lots of decision making out of the hands of Congressmen and hand it to judges. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, but the courts will have a lot of work to do, at least for a couple of decades while they whip out a common law framework to replace the "unnecessary" legislation you've got rid of. And then we are in the same place we started, except that cases are hell of a lot harder to read than legislation.

On the plus side, the economy will be stimulated by the hundreds of thousands of more litigation lawyers that will be need to fight all these expensive court battles!
Link Posted: 3/29/2009 3:18:39 AM EDT
Originally Posted By justsayin:
I think for every new law passed, one must be repealed.



I'm all for this.
Link Posted: 3/29/2009 3:30:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/29/2009 3:36:35 AM EDT by Dr_Dickie]
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Originally Posted By thexrayboy:
Blogger Kim DuToit wrote an excellent article a while back offering a nice theory about the proliferation of laws intended to control conduct
that should be controlled by social pressures. His analogy was that religous teachings and beliefs combined with social and familial pressures
took care of many areas of conduct in the past allowing the legal system to be reserved for serious bad conduct.

As society has drifted away from religious faith and most people don't even understand the concept of shame these societal restrictions
no longer work and we are forced to fall back to the blind club of law and the legal system to enforce rules of conduct that should be
everyday common courtesy.


Exactly...

Law is supposed to impose a 'morality of last resort'....

However, there are enough people these days with NO other morality... That the law must take up the slack in order to maintain civilization...

The volume of law required to govern a moral & self-controlling society is MUCH smaller than the volume NEEDED to control a hedonistic mess like the modern USA...

As for the tax code, that's the result of too many deductions and credits being written in to 'help' various interest groups....



To certain extent that is true; however, it is true only because that same government fosters and caters to the losers and hedonistic. If we removed the system that promotes bad behavior and started rewarding good behavior and allowed anti-social and retarded behavior to have the consequences it actually HAS in a normal functional society, we would not need all the laws to control behavior, it would be self correcting.
As usual, government is the source of much of the problem, not the solution. The government job is to protect the rights of the individual, not take care of the pathetic.

To the OP. My solution was that the Federal government should have to review and re-pass every law every xx number of years.
What we need are GOOD laws, not bad laws to fix bad laws to fix bad laws, to fix bad laws, to fix a problem the government created by trying to control something they had no business controlling in the first place. If forced to re-view and re-pass every law every xx number of years; they could decide on whether they wanted a limited number of good laws, or spin your wheels trying to get through the mess.
Link Posted: 3/29/2009 3:48:59 AM EDT
Bad idea; society is complex, and that requires complex laws. You can't dumb down the laws without causing harm to society.
Link Posted: 3/29/2009 3:53:32 AM EDT
Most laws are selectively enforced if enforced at all.
Having worked as a public servant and as a gov't contractor, I believe the worst violators of federal law are gov't agencies.
There is no respect for the law and a growing lack of integrity in our society.
Link Posted: 3/29/2009 4:01:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/29/2009 4:03:28 AM EDT by Dr_Dickie]
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Bad idea; society is complex, and that requires complex laws. You can't dumb down the laws without causing harm to society.


There is nothing wrong with complex laws, but proper and necessary laws do not need to be corrected and modified to the point that there are 398 pages covering how to write a number into a blank space. Most of the laws we have today are to correct problems created by previously passed laws that should never have been passed. If they government stuck to what it was designed to do "protect the rights of the individual," we would not have 90% of the laws we have today. And unlike what Dave_A would say, that would not be anarchy, it would be a proper Federal government––where the states and locals could take up any NEEDED slack (where there is greater control, and the ability of people to CHOOSE what works and doesn't work––you do not get that at the Federal level).
The Federal government does one thing well, it ignores the solution, and passes laws to correct the outcome––that never works long term and rarely works short term.
Look at healthcare costs, a perfect example. Healthcare costs are out of control because of government regulations an torte laws. What is the solution? The government needs complete control
What we need are proper laws, not just more, more, more.
Link Posted: 3/29/2009 4:02:14 AM EDT
interesting
Link Posted: 3/29/2009 4:04:33 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Originally Posted By thexrayboy:
Blogger Kim DuToit wrote an excellent article a while back offering a nice theory about the proliferation of laws intended to control conduct
that should be controlled by social pressures. His analogy was that religous teachings and beliefs combined with social and familial pressures
took care of many areas of conduct in the past allowing the legal system to be reserved for serious bad conduct.

As society has drifted away from religious faith and most people don't even understand the concept of shame these societal restrictions
no longer work and we are forced to fall back to the blind club of law and the legal system to enforce rules of conduct that should be
everyday common courtesy.


Exactly...

Law is supposed to impose a 'morality of last resort'....

However, there are enough people these days with NO other morality... That the law must take up the slack in order to maintain civilization...

The volume of law required to govern a moral & self-controlling society is MUCH smaller than the volume NEEDED to control a hedonistic mess like the modern USA...

As for the tax code, that's the result of too many deductions and credits being written in to 'help' various interest groups....



This, morality has left the building.
Link Posted: 3/29/2009 4:11:42 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Dr_Dickie:
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Bad idea; society is complex, and that requires complex laws. You can't dumb down the laws without causing harm to society.


There is nothing wrong with complex laws, but proper and necessary laws do not need to be corrected and modified to the point that there are 398 pages covering how to write a number into a blank space. Most of the laws we have today are to correct problems created by previously passed laws that should never have been passed. If they government stuck to what it was designed to do "protect the rights of the individual," we would not have 90% of the laws we have today. And unlike what Dave_A would say, that would not be anarchy, it would be a proper Federal government––where the states and locals could take up any NEEDED slack (where there is greater control, and the ability of people to CHOOSE what works and doesn't work––you do not get that at the Federal level).
.


I disagree with your comment on several points.
You have laws that get specific because people will take advantage of vagueness and loopholes.
Whether a law should have been passed is a matter of personal opinion. Obviously enough people felt that it was needed that it was passed.
I disagree with your belief thatw e could somehow do without 90% of the laws..what would you do away with...consumer protections? workplace safety? Drug safety laws? Food safety laws? Maybe you want to do away with child labor laws...the list goes on and on.
There are things locals should deal with, but there are many many areas where we need a single way of dealing with a problem, not 50 different ways, or a complete absence of ways to address serious problems.
Link Posted: 3/29/2009 4:37:08 AM EDT

I disagree with your belief thatw e could somehow do without 90% of the laws..what would you do away with...consumer protections? workplace safety? Drug safety laws? Food safety laws? Maybe you want to do away with child labor laws...the list goes on and on.


The need to amend the constitution if they want to regulate that at the federal level. Instead they've been perverting the interstate commerce clause to cover every imaginable activity.
Link Posted: 3/29/2009 4:42:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/29/2009 4:57:35 AM EDT by Dr_Dickie]
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Originally Posted By Dr_Dickie:
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Bad idea; society is complex, and that requires complex laws. You can't dumb down the laws without causing harm to society.


There is nothing wrong with complex laws, but proper and necessary laws do not need to be corrected and modified to the point that there are 398 pages covering how to write a number into a blank space. Most of the laws we have today are to correct problems created by previously passed laws that should never have been passed. If they government stuck to what it was designed to do "protect the rights of the individual," we would not have 90% of the laws we have today. And unlike what Dave_A would say, that would not be anarchy, it would be a proper Federal government––where the states and locals could take up any NEEDED slack (where there is greater control, and the ability of people to CHOOSE what works and doesn't work––you do not get that at the Federal level).
.


I disagree with your comment on several points.
You have laws that get specific because people will take advantage of vagueness and loopholes.
Whether a law should have been passed is a matter of personal opinion. Obviously enough people felt that it was needed that it was passed.
I disagree with your belief thatw e could somehow do without 90% of the laws..what would you do away with...consumer protections? workplace safety? Drug safety laws? Food safety laws? Maybe you want to do away with child labor laws...the list goes on and on.
There are things locals should deal with, but there are many many areas where we need a single way of dealing with a problem, not 50 different ways, or a complete absence of ways to address serious problems.


First and foremost, and I do a lousy job at keeping this clear, I am speaking primarily about Federal government (Sate and local operate under different guidelines).

Exactly my point. At least you are honest, most are not.
Health care costs are what they are because of drug safety laws etc. You believe they are needed, I do not disagree that SOME are needed, but the level to which we have them is absurd. The FDA came about due to the drug Sulfanilamide–– a tragedy which could have been avoided if simple standard scientific practices had been followed. The person that made the liquid form did not do so maliciously, simply incompetently.
That start today has the FDA severing as the countrys mommy, to make sure that you can pop any danm thing you want in you mouth and expect it to be safe because you don't want to be responsible for your own health and well being. You can't buy most drugs, you are too stupid, irresponsible, or crazy to have that power. YOU are willing to surrender your personal control of your health so that you do not want to have to take the time to talk to your doctor and then YOU decide what is right and correct for you to take. I do not need such hand holding. Why can't I buy any drug (I am talking about prescription medicine here, not recreational drugs) that I want? It is my body, my decision, as long as I am not infringing on your rights you have no right to tell me that I cannot. I trust me more than some bureaucrat (oh and I am not anti-doctors, both my parents are physicians and so is one brother, and I am not anti FDA, my mother was deputy director of of Metabolism and Endocrinology at FDA). I would have to be an idiot to take medicine I did not need and would do more harm than good. So OF COURSE I would discuss in it with my physican before I self-medicated, I am not an IDIOT. And I do not need the government telling me I cannot!
Food safety laws? Sure we need minimum requirements for safety (and this has to be Federal because else interstate commerce would be destroyed––that is appropriate Fed), but when they tell you that you cannot have fatty food because it is unhealthy, what business is it of theirs! And that is coming. At what point is un-safe TOO un-safe to chance it? I think that is MY decision, not some asshat in Washington.
What starts as innocent safety, then is used to add in personal concerns and "FOR the CHILDREN," parts. Again, much of the laws are not from inventive ways to subvert the law and do something dangerous, but are there because bureaucrats like to micromanage and because the initial justification for the laws was to correct something the government had not business trying to correct. Okay, the 90% was a bit of hyperbole, but the point is that government becomes a 'thing," and bureaucracies take a life of their own. They become something like a living organism, that reacts when attacked, and defends themselves, all the while growing and consuming. There is a seed of necessity in each agency, but it is so covered with fat and waste that even the original purpose is often neglected. Having industries set-up self regulation is almost always more efficient and safer. Unless you believe that the drug companies would get together and disregard killing off their customer base for the almighty dollar.
Small government regulations and oversight of the public regulations is a much better way to do things.
Child labor laws, yeah I was just trilled that the government told me how many hours I could work when I was in HS, thank you Uncle Sam, as I was certainly too stupid to take care of myself. Working that extra hour or so of overtime would have allowed me to make money! GASP, the very thought.
Link Posted: 3/29/2009 4:52:18 AM EDT
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

"[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." Benjamin Franklin

"The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next. Continue therefore to read it and to regulate your life by its precepts." John Jay




THIS


This is why we, as a Republic, are FUBAR.

I'm generally an optimistic sort but the three quotes above tell the fate of our once great, God fearing
Republic.
Link Posted: 3/29/2009 5:11:33 AM EDT
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

"[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." Benjamin Franklin

"The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next. Continue therefore to read it and to regulate your life by its precepts." John Jay



THIS


This is why we, as a Republic, are FUBAR

I'm generally an optimistic sort but the three quotes above tell the fate of our once great, God fearing
Republic.


Agreed. We have the immorality of ghetto culture permeating upwards into the middle class and a corrupt upper class and Washington elite above us. We must pray for forgiveness and a return to God. We can't do it on our own, but with God all things are possible.
Link Posted: 3/29/2009 5:19:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By BuckeyeDoc:
Your ideas of limiting the number of laws would put countless lawyer, judges and politicians out of work, and force them to actually do something truly productive. This would save millions, perhaps billions of dollars anually, therefor it will never happen,, given our current environment of backwards-land government.


Wrong! Reduce the number of laws and lawyers and judges get MORE work, because the common law has to expand the hole that the legislature has left.
Link Posted: 3/29/2009 6:13:52 AM EDT
i
Originally Posted By Dale00:

Agreed. We have the immorality of ghetto culture permeating upwards into the middle class and a corrupt upper class and Washington elite above us. We must pray for forgiveness and a return to God. We can't do it on our own, but with God all things are possible.


Sounds like a personal choice; if you feel that you need a Supreme Being to make you behave, thats your call. Society as a whole doesn't need to be lectured to and told they need a God to behave, and even when it was more popular to toe a particular religious mold, society was no better off for it.
Link Posted: 3/29/2009 6:25:31 AM EDT
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
i
Originally Posted By Dale00:

Agreed. We have the immorality of ghetto culture permeating upwards into the middle class and a corrupt upper class and Washington elite above us. We must pray for forgiveness and a return to God. We can't do it on our own, but with God all things are possible.


Sounds like a personal choice; if you feel that you need a Supreme Being to make you behave, thats your call. Society as a whole doesn't need to be lectured to and told they need a God to behave, and even when it was more popular to toe a particular religious mold, society was no better off for it.



There's these ten little rules that Cristians try to live by. Believe in God or not, if people would follow them we wouldn't need very many other laws.

Link Posted: 3/29/2009 6:32:18 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/29/2009 6:32:27 AM EDT
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
i
Originally Posted By Dale00:

Agreed. We have the immorality of ghetto culture permeating upwards into the middle class and a corrupt upper class and Washington elite above us. We must pray for forgiveness and a return to God. We can't do it on our own, but with God all things are possible.


Sounds like a personal choice; if you feel that you need a Supreme Being to make you behave, thats your call. Society as a whole doesn't need to be lectured to and told they need a God to behave, and even when it was more popular to toe a particular religious mold, society was no better off for it.


But you do seem to think that we need to be lectured to and have a government to tell us how to behave.....
Link Posted: 3/29/2009 6:32:36 AM EDT
Maybe we should start by requiring our legislators to actually read and understand exactly what the proposed law is before they are qualified to vote for or against it.
Link Posted: 3/29/2009 6:38:04 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Elvis-Ar15:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Originally Posted By thexrayboy:
Blogger Kim DuToit wrote an excellent article a while back offering a nice theory about the proliferation of laws intended to control conduct
that should be controlled by social pressures. His analogy was that religous teachings and beliefs combined with social and familial pressures
took care of many areas of conduct in the past allowing the legal system to be reserved for serious bad conduct.

As society has drifted away from religious faith and most people don't even understand the concept of shame these societal restrictions
no longer work and we are forced to fall back to the blind club of law and the legal system to enforce rules of conduct that should be
everyday common courtesy.


Exactly...

Law is supposed to impose a 'morality of last resort'....

However, there are enough people these days with NO other morality... That the law must take up the slack in order to maintain civilization...

The volume of law required to govern a moral & self-controlling society is MUCH smaller than the volume NEEDED to control a hedonistic mess like the modern USA...

As for the tax code, that's the result of too many deductions and credits being written in to 'help' various interest groups....



This, morality has left the building.


Wonder who was behind making this occur to further its own ends...
Link Posted: 3/29/2009 6:43:14 AM EDT
Now y'all are talking like a bunch of Libertarians! Nice...
Link Posted: 3/29/2009 6:43:39 AM EDT
Originally Posted By PanzerMK7:
Here's my idea, any and all new laws must cite in their opening lines the constitutional authority to regulate whatever it is intended to affect, if it can't cite the amendment allowing it to be regulated then it dies, then and there. This should be passed as it's own amendment and be retroactively applied to all laws previously implemented. The same standard should be applied to all agencies of the federal government, if they can't cite the laws that they enforce they go away, and stay away.

It would take our federal government down to it's necessary constituent parts real fucking quick.


i like this
Link Posted: 3/29/2009 6:45:48 AM EDT
Don't worry. This climax culture is about to reboot. 6 years and counting...
Link Posted: 3/29/2009 6:46:43 AM EDT
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:

But you do seem to think that we need to be lectured to and have a government to tell us how to behave.....


You DO realize that its not some mysterious entity, right? that government you are complaining about is comprised of your countrymen. Your countrymen who want certain laws passed. if you don't want those laws passed, then gain enough support to overturn them. Its that simple.
Link Posted: 3/29/2009 6:47:45 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Elvis-Ar15:


There's these ten little rules that Cristians try to live by. Believe in God or not, if people would follow them we wouldn't need very many other laws.
]


You DO realize that Christianity doesn't hold the copyright on those, right?
Link Posted: 3/29/2009 6:52:16 AM EDT
I'm all for it. Start with the traffic code first.

Less I've got to memorize. First thing I request is:

One fucking distance for everything. This parking distances 15 ft from a fire hydrant, 20 from a crosswalk, 30 from an intersection, 50 from a rail road crossing. Fifteen to fifty standing distance from a railroad crossing, 200 feet passing distance, 100 feet within intersection, rr crossing, bridge. Fuck that. Make it all once distance please. Don't even get me started on distances for required equipment visibility shit.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top