Can there be 'good' laws? by SignyM

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Can there be 'good' laws?

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Monday, November 25, 2024 10:48
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1225
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 7:29 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Topic came up in a (completely unrelated!

) thread. Lots of folks... in fact MOST folks around here... see laws an an imposition on their freedoms. Doesn't seem to matter which laws or which freedoms: LAWS? They bad. They step on our Constitutional RIGHTS, by gum!

But then, it occurred to me: Our rights? They're granted to us by a series of LAWS. Because, after all, that's what the Constitution is: a series of laws which govern our government's behavior!

So, are there laws which INCREASE freedom? What about laws which govern organizations, not individuals? For example, what if there was a law which said that all working members of a business.... and ONLY working members of that business... have a right to determine how that business was run? What about laws which said that no organization could collect or disseminate information about an identifiable individual without that individual's consent? Laws which said that any organization could not discriminate on the basis of (the usual list)?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 8:27 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

The laws that stop you from murdering, bashing raping and stealing are all pretty good.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 9:47 PM

RIGHTEOUS9

Then only the criminals will be able to murder bash rape and steal...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 9:53 PM

CUDA77

Like woman, I am a mystery.

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
The laws that stop you from murdering, bashing raping and stealing are all pretty good.

I wouldn't say pt stops people from doing it. Moreso that it punishes people for doing it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 1:27 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
So, are there laws which INCREASE freedom?

Broadly speaking, yes and no. Laws against discrimination based on age, gender, race, or sexual orientation increase "freedom" for the people protected under them - but it could be argued that they DECREASE freedom for the people hindered by them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 2:48 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by Cuda77:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
The laws that stop you from murdering, bashing raping and stealing are all pretty good.
I wouldn't say pt stops people from doing it. Moreso that it punishes people for doing it.

Hee hee. yes, I guess that it true, semantically speaking. You'd hope that the thought of punishment would deter some....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 2:57 AM

DREAMTROVE

This isn't the issue. "Laws" are taken here as "powers given to the govt" as opposed to what we call "rules."

An orthodox jewish community has what it calls "laws" but they are only those set by the leaders of their community. If you fail to follow them, you're out.

The Govt. is a controlling elite. Giving it the power to *punish* people is a really bad idea, it creates power with either corrupts or is a magnet for the corrupt as Nietzsche suggests.

Our govt. was supposed to be a shell to prevent this kind of dictatorship, a shield against this kind of law, and punishment, but it created too much central power and not enough checks and balances, those that were created relied on the good will of humans, who were to be less and less trusted, since power is a magnet for the corrupt.

So I can't really answer the question without first addressing the issue of who has the power to make laws and enforce them. I suspect under the current system, no, nothing useful will come out of the govt.

Edit: I don't think that punishment has proven an effective means of detering crime. We have more serious crimes in our lawful communities than on our isolationist unruled communities (reservations, the amish, etc.) Though hunter gatherers in brazil have a fairly high murder rate.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 3:22 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

DT_ SO, it's not the laws per se but the method of writing and enforcing them?

Waiting for others to weigh in.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 3:56 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Laws, as you've defined them, are mandated, enforced, and changed by people-in-power in order to control the behavior of those "underneath".

So, no. There can never be any good law.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 4:01 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Wulf- the laws I brought up are laws which specifically govern the actions of THOSE IN POWER. The most famous example, and one which you keep bringing up, is the Constitution. Are you saying the Constitution is bad?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 4:04 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Well, if laws are meant to control those in power, then *maybe* there can be good laws.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 7:52 AM

OUT2THEBLACK

More in depth , later , but I recommend a book by Judge Andrew Napolitano , " The Constitution In Exile ".

Kitty Werthmann.

'...Kitty was 12 years old when Adolf Hitler took over Austria.

She is 83 with a "vivid memory" of what happened in her homeland next. She witnessed the government take over the banks and the auto industry. Sound familiar? In the last nine months, Obama and the Democrats in Congress have successfully orchestrated the government takeover of Chrysler and General Motors along with countless banks.

She witnessed the "compulsory youth" service and indoctrination. That sounds a little like Obama's call for "mandatory volunteerism" for America's youth.

The government takeover of the schools immediately replaced crucifixes with pictures of Hitler and Nazi flags. "All religious instruction was replaced with physical education," said Werthmann. No prayer was allowed. That all happened here decades ago. It is interesting, however, that Obama's speech to the captive audience in the government schools – complete with the essay assignment about how students could help him achieve his political goals – was replaced once the American people got wind of it. And speaking of government control of education, if the Senate agrees, all student loans will be government issued, according to a bill that passed the House last week.

Werthmann saw what happened next when the government took over the health-care system. Her brother-in-law was a physician, and by the time he got to his office, 40 patients were already waiting in line. And if the medicine they needed wasn't on the "government-approved list," the cost came out of his own salary – "which dwindled down to almost nothing," Werthmann recalled. Sounds like H.R. 3200.

"All research stopped," and in the run-down medical facilities there was a "12-18 month wait for a hospital bed." That sounds like the warnings we've already gotten from Canada and elsewhere.

Are we headed for a Nazi-style totalitarian abyss? Find out in "Defeating the Totalitarian Lie: A Former Hitler Youth Warns America"

Werthman's husband saw what his brother faced and left Germany to practice medicine in the United States. Werthmann said, "He marveled at how modern our hospitals were, and how great our medical care is." That's the medical care Obama wants to replace with socialized medicine.

Kitty recalled the massive welfare system funded by 60-70 percent tax increases in an effort to "spread the wealth." Wow, there's an interesting phrase. Did I mention that "Joe the Plumber" will also be at the conference?

"The media was taken over by the government right away," Kitty recalls. "We got free radios and the radio stations were government-run. If you listened to a foreign radio station like the BBC, there was capital punishment," said Werthmann.

They had Joseph Goebbels; we have Mark Lloyd, the diversity czar, who is already poised to shut down private radio stations like his hero Hugo Chavez did – threatening licenses and waging outrageous fines on stations (up to $25 million dollars) who say things he doesn't like.

"We heard only what was on the radio," she said. "We couldn't get information from anywhere." Kind of like we'll be if the government takes over not only radio, but the Internet, as well. Senate bills 773 and 778, introduced by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., would do just that – handing over control of one of our last bastions of free speech to none other than Barack Obama.

But now, Obama is poised to "bail out the newspaper industry," ushering in an official "state-run media." Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., has already introduced S. 673, the so-called "Newspaper Revitalization Act," providing the means. While most in the media already tow the official state line, Obama doesn't like those unruly blogs. It's a lot easier when you can silence people like Rep. Joe Wilson for speaking out against you – and then outlawing accurate words like "lie" from being said on the House floor.'

http://www.wnd.com/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 8:42 AM

DREAMTROVE

Sig, essentially yes.

It's like the death penalty. I don't believe in it for religious reasons, but for many people it's a moral dilemma:

They don't believe Charles Manson should live, but they don't want to hand the power to govt. as to who should live or who should die.

I hear this sort of thing from the left, and it makes sense to me, but I'd say the same concept applies in a broader sense.

But it's not just the enforcement, but the making of the laws. A small ruling elite makes laws for everyone. Communities should make their own rules, and if you don't like them, leave. If someone breaks the rules, twitter it, and others will respond. This is probably a better system than having a govt.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 8:50 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
More in depth , later , but I recommend a book by Judge Andrew Napolitano , " The Constitution In Exile ".

Why? Does he claim that people have tried to have him "banned"?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 12:04 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Right, the rules are only so good as those writing and enforcing them - and even then mostly just keep honest people honest, legal guardrails, if you would.

I think cultural values set far stronger, and involve far more mutual consent that often arbitrary or even outright harmful laws handed down by a cabal only bent on their own power and glory.

That said, with ENOUGH consent behind them, laws can become cultural values - not beating your wife has certainly for the most part made the jump from on to the other, as an example.

Under Our Current Legal System which is a sham and a shellgame that's become a rigged scam over the past two hundred years - no, generally there's no "good" laws cause any law at all has so much OTHER shit stacked on the bill it ought not ever see the light of day...

It gets less horrific as it becomes more local, but anywhere you got politics, you got corruption, sure - from the oval office to your local PTA, it's gonna happen, especially in a system without strong checks against it, or (much of the middle east has this) a set of OTHER rules, culturally based, regarding bribery and chicanery, they got a word for it but I forget what it is cause I am badly distracted at the moment.

Laws, maybe not so much, possible but unlikely, we'll call it - cultural values and community ethics, usually more effective.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 12:18 PM

DREAMTROVE

I concur with Frem being in accordance with me, article 54, subsection J

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 1:35 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
This isn't the issue. "Laws" are taken here as "powers given to the govt" as opposed to what we call "rules."

An orthodox jewish community has what it calls "laws" but they are only those set by the leaders of their community. If you fail to follow them, you're out.

The Govt. is a controlling elite. Giving it the power to *punish* people is a really bad idea, it creates power with either corrupts or is a magnet for the corrupt as Nietzsche suggests.

Our govt. was supposed to be a shell to prevent this kind of dictatorship, a shield against this kind of law, and punishment, but it created too much central power and not enough checks and balances, those that were created relied on the good will of humans, who were to be less and less trusted, since power is a magnet for the corrupt.

So I can't really answer the question without first addressing the issue of who has the power to make laws and enforce them. I suspect under the current system, no, nothing useful will come out of the govt.

Edit: I don't think that punishment has proven an effective means of detering crime. We have more serious crimes in our lawful communities than on our isolationist unruled communities (reservations, the amish, etc.) Though hunter gatherers in brazil have a fairly high murder rate.

Well I disagree completely and utterly. Firstly, there is significant evidence to indicate that laws impact on behaviour - a couple which come to mind are the impact that changes in divorce laws had on the number of people who got divorced (not that I'm advocating a return to the days of fault divorce) and secondly is the impact of drink driving laws on road deaths (here in Australia where we have random breath testing).

People need rules and consequences for breaking the rules, and they also need protection from people who might take advantage for them and they also need some system of justice when they've been wronged. These standards are pretty fundamental to society and exist everywhere.

I guess its just who does the rule making and punishing. You can have it community based, and there is some argument for putting a lot of stuff in the hands of the community to sort out for themselves, but ultimately you need some sort of cohesive and equitable system. I don't want to live somewhere where in the next suburb some extremist group controls law making and you get stoned for driving through when you are a woman.

either that, or you have mob rule, which I'm not too fond of either. One of the strengths of the justice system is it's dispassion, not distributing punishment based on some emotional zeal of the crowd.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 2:00 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
More in depth , later , but I recommend a book by Judge Andrew Napolitano , " The Constitution In Exile ".

Kitty Werthmann.

'...Kitty was 12 years old when Adolf Hitler took over Austria.

She is 83 with a "vivid memory" of what happened in her homeland next. She witnessed the government take over the banks and the auto industry. Sound familiar? In the last nine months, Obama and the Democrats in Congress have successfully orchestrated the government takeover of Chrysler and General Motors along with countless banks.

[snip]

dear oh dear. I wonder if it has ever occured to you that world and the history of the world consists of more than the US (yay) Nazi Germany (boo) Russian Communism (boo)

The fact is, Obama has been called everything from communist, fascist and (gasp) Muslim because he is proposing health care reforms - reforms which are frankly pitiful in nature - that would bring the US in line with ALL other western nations who have some form of public health care, and who don't all then send their citizens to the gulag and ban elections.

It will be even more of a shock to you that some places have a mix of nationalised and private industry, that the government might fund a tv station or other media outlets, they might even have some form of national service and still (gasp) the citizens are not being hoarded into cattle trucks.

And the reason is - they have laws - yes actual laws which ensure things like free speech, right to political association, limits to government powers, free elections, the right to legal representation and so on. All of which would not exist in the anarchists paradise, where survival of the fittest and nastiest would result - much like the conditions in pre war Germany, actually.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 2:02 PM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
But then, it occurred to me: Our rights? They're granted to us by a series of LAWS. Because, after all, that's what the Constitution is: a series of laws which govern our government's behavior!

Actually, the use of the word inalienable in description of rights is not accurate. Rights are in this sense aren't intended to diminish the power of the government, but rather granted to individuals and recognized BY the government.

As an example, piss off a cop and see how quickly those rights get waived.

I disagree with Magonsdaughter, but I'll have to address that later.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 3:46 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I am in favor of laws that attempt to secure the maximum amount of personal freedom at the minimum cost to personal freedom.

Laws like "Don't murder people" or "Don't rape someone" are pretty straight forward exchanges. You lose your right to murder and rape people, but in exchange you are protected to a small degree from being murdered or raped yourself. This one can be tough if you live in a society of people who prize the right to rape and murder folks. In most societies, however, the overwhelming majority of citizens are not in pursuit of this personal freedom, and so the loss is small.

Laws like "No littering in public spaces" are similar. You lose your right to discard trash and garbage in non-approved receptacles, but gain the expectation of strolling through public spaces unmolested by rotting garbage and the resultant swarming flies.

Laws like, "You must wear clothes" seem excessive to me. I already have the freedom not to stare at naked people. But by incorporating this law into society, I lose the freedom to be naked myself. The exchange is inequitable. I lose something (clothing freedom) much more important than what I am gaining (Nothing. I can already avert my eyes from things that displease me.)

Each law has to be carefully studied on a case by case basis. Can we live without this law? Is there a way to change this law to hinder the least number of citizens? Can we implement a regular review process where we re-examine tha law and see if it can be minimized in some way?

The effort should be ever towards smaller law books with fewer laws in them. Every few years, the laws should be examined to determine which ones may qualify for elimination.

In my ideal society, a decent portion of the government coffer would be spent performing analyses of ways to reduce government and eliminate unnecessary laws. Congress would be hard at work for most of the year, getting very little time off. They would be constantly consumed, not by the implementation of new laws, but by the re-examination and elimination of existing laws.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 3:52 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Only laws that tell the gibmit to stop fukkin US in the a$$.

Gubmit should be required to read AND UNDERSTAND all laws before passing them.

All politicians and police should be required to obey all traffic laws at all times. Oh, there's already a law for that.

Note the Nazi fasci on either side of the podium:

Note the gold-fringed flag...

Quote:
USC TITLE 4 > CHAPTER 1
CHAPTER 1 - THE FLAG

Sec. 1. - Flag; stripes and stars on

The flag of the United States shall be thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate red and white; and the union of the flag shall be forty-eight stars, white in a blue field.

Flag - Martial law. “The placing of a fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag and the arrangement of the stars in the union are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but are within the discretion of the President as Commander In Chief of the Army and Navy.”
-34 Ops. Atty. Gen. 483.

Display of Military Flag

Flag - Martial Law “2-3. Sizes and Occasions for Display.
b. National flags listed below are for indoor display and for use in ceremonies and parades. For these purposes the United States flag will be rayon banner cloth, trimmed on three sides with golden yellow fringe, 2 1/2 inches wide. It will be the same size as the flags displayed or carried with it.
c. Authorization for indoor display
4. Each military courtroom. [The municipal Courts of the State Republic???] “1-6. Restrictions. The following limitations and prohibitions are applicable to flags, guidons, streamers, and components.
e. Unauthorized use of official flags, guidons, and streamers. Display or use of flags, guidons, and streamers or replicas thereof, including those presently or formerly carried by U.S. Army units, by other than the office, individual, or organization for which authorized, is prohibited except as indicated in (3) below.
(3) Recognized United States Army division associations...” United States Army Regulation AR 840-10, October 1, 1979.

Flag - Martial Law Pursuant to 4 U.S.C. chapter 1, §§ 1, 2, & 3; Executive Order 10834, August 21, 1959, 24 F.R. 6865, a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a YELLOW FRINGE border on three sides. The President of the United States designates this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief.

www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/4/ch1.html
www.goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=7050

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 4:19 PM

DREAMTROVE

Magonsdaughter,

I think this was not the debate that we were having: Two issues had been brought up if I understand correctly

1. Sig's proposal that laws could *increase* freedom.

2. Frem's idea that laws were not the best way of securing good behavior.

On the drinking and driving thing, 1. it doesn't increase freedom, and 2. the law isn't the best way. We have a very serious drunk driving problem here and pretty harsh laws against it. There are cops on all the major roads looking for them all the time.

And then we have bars that you can only get to by driving to them. We have a social order where the hook-up scene is at the bar (Okay, maybe drinking helps people be relaxed, but a bar doesn't as an institution) and then we have no alcohol sensors in cars, and definitely no moral value structures in place about drunk driving.

The traffic cops themselves seem to be doing nothing to decrease the death toll, which only rises, and they seem to be a menace on the road, because to escape the punishment, the drunk driver will sometimes try to outrun the cop, which almost always ends up in people getting killed, because no way can you control a car at 100mph while drunk.

Sorry, this is a very serious issue here, and this legal solution has to be put down in my book as "extremely not working." It's about as effective as the war on drugs.

That said, I see where you're coming from, I agree on the problem, not the solution. If it works in Australia, and you have any insights as to why that is so where you are, please share, cause it ain't working here (A lot of things don't work here... Oh, and if you read through the posts, you'll find not a lot of USA Yay! I think you'll find a lot of accusations of the US govt. as being a force for genocide, there was a thread on this very issue two days ago, it was probably about #1409 on the subject.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 25, 2024 10:48 AM

JAYNEZTOWN

'The View' changes its opinions with more threats of Lawsuits or Chinese-Whisperers that went out of control?

a team of Lawyers now watch her acts, dismissed now as a pretender a crazy woman, a kranky cookie brain, charlatan, quack, swindler race baiter, racketeer or just one of those plain wacko leftwing marxist nutty types

The View host Sunny Hostin fumes as she is forced to read a legal note just minutes after presenting the Matt Gaetz allegations as a “fact.”

https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1859055717602238895

somebody or some team is worried about defame legal term, some person at ABC legal is now watching her (very) closely.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE