discussion What law would you pass if it were in your power?

[User_95916]

Ape shall not kill Ape

 

[Arachel]

There are still a couple of states where it is technically illegal to cohabitate, under laws from the 1800s when the US was going after the mormons out in utah territory. Most have either dropped the laws or had them ruled unconstitutional at this point, though often much later than one would expect.

There's laws where it's illegal for men to be clean shaven in the winter months. A lot of laws aren't ever removed from the books if they never come up, which sure is bad practice since they could still use them, but the likelihood they will be called up and prosecuted is slim to none. Look at the obscenity laws in places like Oklahoma, it's illegal to have any material that depicts the unnatural death of a character in them. So a copy of Lord of the Rings because Sean Bean getting riddled by arrows violates these laws. Most states it's actually illegal for minors to possess permanent markers and paint, but how often do you see those enforced?

 

[Bleed1Exile😈]

Legalizing recreational and Medicinal Weed/Cannabis with introducing hemp farm into agriculture. With proper taxation of course.

 

[MattShizzle]

A little bit yes but you just have to work… maybe better solution would be something like if you dont work and u are able to you get no help no free money or you get thrown out of the country

Still pretty dystopian. Of course if they could be deported (as citizens) to a more civilized country, that would be a good thing.

 

[Arachel]

Wrong. The top crimes when it comes to drugs are:
On the producer side: Production, keeping workers in check, removing illoyal workers, paying/corrupting/removing law enforcers - all of those will be gone if it becomes legal.
On the dealer side: Transport and sell drugs, "earning" respect/fear, defending their stock, make sure the consuments pay, keeping the small-dealer-network in check, removing illoyal/stupid/useless small dealers from the network, paying/corrupting/removing law enforcers - all of those will be gone if it becomes legal.
On the consuments side: Buying, owning and using drugs, some ways of getting the money, some (side)effects caused by using some drugs evading/removing law enforcers - the first half of those will be gone if it becomes legal, the second half could be reduced with stable product quality and prizes + all the cops currently hunting/observing producers and dealers would be free to do their job: Protecting people and hunting other criminals
Then we have the common side crimes around guns and their usage, turning illegal money into legal money, and so on - also be gone if it becomes legal.
-
Its a sensible thing to reduce costs for peaople who share their space & money. But why should this be restricted to two people? If 3 people share their space & money and only 2 get benefits from its pure discrimination. If they fear people would just marry to reduce taxes they should enable their brains because living together and sharing the money/costs would be a fucking high price for so little benefits.
-
Never heard of any case like yours, but i'm also not in amiland so maybe such a thing is possible where you life, but here kids are by law mostly considered the property of their parents, only teens can get something like jail light for minors. Everything a child does here can hit the parents (violating/ignoring parental responsibility)
-
In a growing number of countries loli gets bundled with real ** by law because those who like fictional content must also like real content...
-
Your examples dont work. There would be no dealers at schools anymore, drugs are legal, remember? Forcing anyone to anything is harm and will always be harm. And flashing/public nudity/public sex are bound by public morals, if people dont care there is no harm done and no law needed, but when people care its harm, for some low level, for some traumatic, so it needs to be prevented or punished by laws.
-
While i agree and some drivers end up with a trauma after some suicider jumped before their vehicle, it will be hard to punish the dead for choosing their reckless way of ending their life.

P.S:
Ignore grammar, spelling errors and the like, my brain is occupied by workrelated stuff, just tried and failed to make a break.

You're wrong, take Marijuana as the case study.

You must be registered to see links

"As it shows, recreational marijuana legalization in OR has led to significant increases in the rates of not only property crime overall (p = .021), but also subtypes of crimes such as burglary (p = .020) and motor vehicle theft (p = .000) in the state, relative to the non-legalized states following legalization in OR."
Legalizing it allows you to regulate a substance and tax it which can help the governments when dealing with it, but it increases crime.
-
It's not pure discrimination. When I said it was about taxes it's specifically about joint filing with your spouse which doesn't really give you a tax break in and of itself. When a couple files separately if they have joint deductions only one of them can file that deduction so it's typically easier to file joint taxes for ease of use. At some point it becomes an issue of complexity and certain deductions would reduce joint taxes which is the misconception that it's inherently beneficial to file jointly when in and of itself it actually isn't. It also creates a messy situation should the household have a falling out. It's not discrimination it's merely clerical as to the reason, but that's up to debate whether it should matter or not when you could just opt to live with multiple "spouses" in all but name anyway. Heck adultery isn't illegal so if you want to sleep with the entire local football team each night nothing is stopping you from doing so.
-
Children are largely treated as pets for lack of better terminology in America, you're responsible for them, you can't abuse them, but you as a person aren't inherently responsible for everything they do which is why the parents aren't inherently responsible if their child starts selling illegal content online or simply gives material to somebody they met online and instead could be charged with distribution themselves even if it's themselves they're distributing. *Also as an aside the old Romeo and Juliet the actress playing Juliet was 16 at the time which is underage in the US and she was banned from attending the premiere of the movie because of nudity in the film when it was her as the only source of nudity. Note that under aged nudity is actually a nuanced issue in the states so something like the Scorpions' Virgin Killer album isn't illegal here even though it was changed to avoid the controversy around it.*
-
In some countries it's illegal to eat beef, what other countries are doing is moot to the topic at hand since it wasn't really assuming you magically became emperor of the world rather could just pass a law. Laws have jurisdictional boundaries ergo even in the hypothetical it doesn't matter what some other country is doing.
-
Oh yeah because there totally aren't still drug dealers selling marijuana in the states it's legal right? Spoiler alert there are. Flashing is bound by public indecency laws also corruption of minors if minors are involved it's not simply morality thing and if one person decides to expose themselves to somebody who doesn't consent to it that's why there are laws for it.
-
I just threw in suicide because your initial post seemed to gloss over it. Obviously if somebody is successful it's hard to punish them though certain insurance policies and the like won't give benefits on a suicide so that's a de facto posthumous punishment for the person who committed. It's mostly the law punishing the people that attempt suicide and fail that doesn't make much sense. If somebody is driven to attempt suicide then the notion that locking them up is totally going to make them want to live more is kind of an oxymoron, though in that regard if they fail and take resources then they should be liable for the resources they take in their failed attempt and if they do it in a manner that causes problems to others they should definitely be held accountable. The bigger underlying issue would be places like Canada which is pushing medically assisted suicide as an option for certain patients that qualify, this could be seen as a level of coercion for vulnerable groups where they might not do so otherwise especially when they bring up potential benefits for their loved ones since medically assisted suicide there will still pay out benefits and it saves the cost drain on health care depending on what they have since whilst it is socialized medicine there, there can still be certain charges. The policy is increasing in prevalence because it saves the government money instead of keeping them alive on the governments dime so they have a vested interest to get people to off themselves in this manner. It's similarly to how the US government pushes meat alternatives because crops are government subsidized and even though something like Impossible includes a number of things not suited for human consumption they don't have to meet the same standards because there is a financial incentive for the government to push the meat alternative compared actual beef and that's why they can skirt the regulations real meat would have to meet and still find itself on the shelf. The irony in this case is it costs them far less to produce than real meat, but they sell it at a premium price because they rely on the "guilt" of the people they're marketing it to to be able to price gouge as they do.

 

[Lapisuli]

Uhh probably piracy just so that people can stop saying that it's inherently illegal. I would probably make a free-use society if I really had the power to lol

 

[MattShizzle]

Am I the only one who thinks the "puritan work ethic" is sort of a mental illness?

 

[NoName2]

Least I removed all kind games cencorship. Also japan porn cencorship

 

[Landskrona84]

If it would be enforced right away.
In my country - if you are making something illegal then you get jail or the boot out (if you arent a citizen of the country)

 

[HTYYHRK]

You're wrong, take Marijuana as the case study.

You must be registered to see links

"As it shows, recreational marijuana legalization in OR has led to significant increases in the rates of not only property crime overall (p = .021), but also subtypes of crimes such as burglary (p = .020) and motor vehicle theft (p = .000) in the state, relative to the non-legalized states following legalization in OR."
Legalizing it allows you to regulate a substance and tax it which can help the governments when dealing with it, but it increases crime.
-
It's not pure discrimination. When I said it was about taxes it's specifically about joint filing with your spouse which doesn't really give you a tax break in and of itself. When a couple files separately if they have joint deductions only one of them can file that deduction so it's typically easier to file joint taxes for ease of use. At some point it becomes an issue of complexity and certain deductions would reduce joint taxes which is the misconception that it's inherently beneficial to file jointly when in and of itself it actually isn't. It also creates a messy situation should the household have a falling out. It's not discrimination it's merely clerical as to the reason, but that's up to debate whether it should matter or not when you could just opt to live with multiple "spouses" in all but name anyway. Heck adultery isn't illegal so if you want to sleep with the entire local football team each night nothing is stopping you from doing so.
-

States that legalized marijuana have had an influx of people from other states who want to be able to smoke it, which is likely a group of people with higher than average criminality (since it was illegal to use), an effect which would be mitigated by national legalization. I'd also suggest that some kind of conclusive statistic would need to show that crimes tied to marijuana increased, not just crimes in general.

Marriage has benefits other than economic, for example a spouse may be presumed to be a person's next of kin for healthcare and inheritance purposes. The father on a birth certificate for children born to a married women may be presumed to be her husband. Legal peculiarities like this can be figured out though. I'd just suggest the government stops doing marriages entirely and removes itself from relationships.

 

[Jogur]

I am from Spain and honestly they are not crazy, but they are necessary, so that you can defend yourself with a greater degree of force without the aggressor or thief being able to report you back and being able to throw the squatters off your property without having to pay taxes, electricity and water until the judgment comes out.

 

[AstralCorruption]

I'd close a few tax loopholes and maybe create/increase an inheritance tax.

 

[Arachel]

States that legalized marijuana have had an influx of people from other states who want to be able to smoke it, which is likely a group of people with higher than average criminality (since it was illegal to use), an effect which would be mitigated by national legalization. I'd also suggest that some kind of conclusive statistic would need to show that crimes tied to marijuana increased, not just crimes in general.

Marriage has benefits other than economic, for example a spouse may be presumed to be a person's next of kin for healthcare and inheritance purposes. The father on a birth certificate for children born to a married women may be presumed to be her husband. Legal peculiarities like this can be figured out though. I'd just suggest the government stops doing marriages entirely and removes itself from relationships.

Those who are willing to break the law will simply break the law regardless and the states where there's legal recreational use tend to be blue states that are soft on crime to begin with. (and also descending into anarchy prompting even some deep blue areas to start voting for more conservative candidates if not republicans outright like in Oregon) You're always going to have some ambiguity, but there's the evidence that shows more gun availability reduces gun violence and people still want to say guns are the problem in spite of that evidence. The people who smoke weed are more prone to be criminals because they likely started smoking before it was legal which would firmly put them in the criminal category as such you can assume they're more prone to turn to other crimes to fund their habit because they already have a criminal mentality.
-
I never said marriage didn't have other benefits I said marriage is primarily regulated for tax purposes which I would include forced insurance as a tax even if it isn't directly a tax because it is also government subsidized which the insurance companies collect these payments and then charges the consumers an additional premium. You have a chicken and the egg scenario if the government removes itself from relationships then so to would you remove the benefits the government provides because of the relationships. Why would the government offer tax benefits for married individuals if they have no regulation over them? As for healthcare, that goes to power of attorney which you can set to be anybody really so only if you don't bother to set it up does it just default to next of kin and in an issue with multiple next of kin you typically still have to set it up specifically as to which individual you want to have the authority id est if you aren't married, but have 2 children, you have to pick which person has legal authority in matters such as pulling the plug. It'd be the same way if you had multiple spouses which does happen in the US as is I'd remind you and that's precisely how it works in those cases. The US won't recognize polygamy, but there aren't really any laws against polyamory anyway so you the only real reason to get married is for the governmental benefits it provides, no government involvement no governmental benefits either.

 

[S0medude4444]

Get rid of public indecency. Let people do whatever wherever.

 

[macadam]

Games are not real life, you should not be punished for playing with pixels..
Just don't hurt or molest people in the real world.

 

[chrisridley]

The right to get rid of stupid people lol.

 

[MattShizzle]

Get rid of a lot of warning labels. The shit like "do not sick in eye" on a screwdriver, "do not drink" on Drano or "do not attempt to repair while running" on a lawnmower sort of thing. Pretty much any sane person capable of reading would already know that, and shouldn't be able to sue because they did. A way to get rid of morons.
Make those signs some businesses have about "not responsible for damage, injury, etc" if the person doesn't do anything that would be expected to result in such the legal equivalent of walking into a bank wearing a t shirt that says "not responsible for any banks I rob."
Ban that mandatory arbitration shit - and any contract stipulating such would be not only invalid, but would be considered evidence for the person suing and double any award the jury/judge awards them.
Illegal to operate power mowers, leaf blowers, etc before 10am or after 8pm - under penalty of death. Also, abn any loud vehicle engines without mufflers (maximum decibels) and barking dogs that can be heard outside your property more than 10 minutes is a $1000 fine for every minute past
Bring back the national speed limit, but 45 rather than 55.
Every additional mph over is a $500 fine
10mph+ is 30 day license suspension for 10 + 30 more each additional mph
15mph+ is 30 days in jail for 15 and 30 more for each additional mph
Emergencies are exempt
so 20 mph over would be a $10,000 fine, 330 day license suspension and 180 days in jail.
License suspension not counted until out of jail, if sent.

 

[Xia Liu Bei]

I wouldn't pass any laws, as we're already over-regulated as it is. I'd rather just repeal a bunch laws to make citizens freer from rampant government overreach. For example, in China I'd give citizens freedom of speech. In the Western world I'd expand the scope of free speech and get rid of so-called hate speech laws, giving citizens the right to question their government, question big tech, question big corp, and question big pharma without the fear of being censored, imprisoned, or labeled as "conspiracy theorists" or istaphobes.

The only new laws I'd pass are laws to restrict the reach and scope of government.

 

[Xia Liu Bei]

The people who make the laws have to live at the lowest lv in society for the rest of there life . If you want to run the gov you need to be doing it to make life better for everyone not just you and yours

Better yet, just make all government officials live by the laws and rules they set for others. It's easy to talk about not building border walls and banning guns when you live in Martha's Vineyard in an $8,000,000 home surrounded by a 10-foot wall protected by armed security guards 24 hours a day. It's quite a different thing to have to live by those rules in a Texas border town or be a single mother in a bad neighborhood filled with drug addicts and gang bangers.

If you want to limit those people's rights, then you ought to go live as they live, and see how long you stick to your dearly-held principles.

 

[ACWBOY]

Better yet, just make all government officials live by the laws and rules they set for others. It's easy to talk about not building border walls and banning guns when you live in Martha's Vineyard in an $8,000,000 home surrounded by a 10-foot wall protected by armed security guards 24 hours a day. It's quite a different thing to have to live by those rules in a Texas border town or be a single mother in a bad neighborhood filled with drug addicts and gang bangers.

If you want to limit those people's rights, then you ought to go live as they live, and see how long you stick to your dearly-held principles.

Sorry but I'm confused. Are you for or against holding government officials accountable. Most of your statement reads like you're agreeing with me. But I don't understand that last part.