More laws or fewer laws?
- Thread starter Gmart
- Start date
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Supporting examples please.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I think we're supposed to view the poll from the perspective of it being "these choices and no other".
Which is why I didn't vote, and why my answer was along the lines of "if we have to have them, then fewer and better".
I don't believe in voting to cut my own throat, oddly enough!
Gmart
Well-Known Member
One wonders what you have to be scared of...
gosub
~#
Increasing numbers of laws and regulations can only increase contempt for law, regulation and those whom enforce them (which they cannot do without the acquiescence of those whom would be governed by them) .
Anarchy, or rather the stereotypical view of anarchy found in places other than this site, is more likely to grow out of an over regulated society. Unless everyone just gets K'd up and excepts totalitarianism.
Anarchy, or rather the stereotypical view of anarchy found in places other than this site, is more likely to grow out of an over regulated society. Unless everyone just gets K'd up and excepts totalitarianism.
Gmart
Well-Known Member
Excepts or accepts?
I agree that the large number of laws just make it more contemptible. Also the laws need to reflect what people think, NOT what the government wishes them to think. A subtle difference. Governments quite often moralise at their population telling them to say no to certain drugs for example when the population see it as their choice, not the government's.
Everytime someone lights up a spliff then they are making an ass out of the law.
If we had a set of laws which were based on fact, then the people would be far more likely to listen to it.
So if all recreational drugs were legal with appropriate warnings, and the ones which truly are dangerous such as crack and heroin were only available to registered addicts through their doctors, then this would send out a message that the government recognises that many drugs are not 'instant death', but have a variety of effects depending on the drug.
Also overdoses would disappear over night as the addicts would know what they were taking and would not take an overdose unless that was how they wished to commit suicide.
As ever, bringing an industry from the black to the white economy would improve our control and the control of the consumers and workers.
Anarchy - the complete abolishment of laws, is unlikely to appear over night because the paedophiles would still commit crimes and even in a society with a proper education system and equality of opportunity for all would wish to put these people in prison in the short to medium term. In the long run it might feasibly be possible in a world of plenty, yet I am uncertain it is a useful ideal...
Excepts or accepts?
I agree that the large number of laws just make it more contemptible. Also the laws need to reflect what people think, NOT what the government wishes them to think. A subtle difference. Governments quite often moralise at their population telling them to say no to certain drugs for example when the population see it as their choice, not the government's.
Everytime someone lights up a spliff then they are making an ass out of the law.
If we had a set of laws which were based on fact, then the people would be far more likely to listen to it.
So if all recreational drugs were legal with appropriate warnings, and the ones which truly are dangerous such as crack and heroin were only available to registered addicts through their doctors, then this would send out a message that the government recognises that many drugs are not 'instant death', but have a variety of effects depending on the drug.
Also overdoses would disappear over night as the addicts would know what they were taking and would not take an overdose unless that was how they wished to commit suicide.
As ever, bringing an industry from the black to the white economy would improve our control and the control of the consumers and workers.
Anarchy - the complete abolishment of laws, is unlikely to appear over night because the paedophiles would still commit crimes and even in a society with a proper education system and equality of opportunity for all would wish to put these people in prison in the short to medium term. In the long run it might feasibly be possible in a world of plenty, yet I am uncertain it is a useful ideal...
I don't follow the paedophile ticket. Despite (currently) being the most scape-goated people around and having buckets-full of laws and regulations and drastic punishments paedophiles still persist in commiting crimes. I have no doubt they would still commit crimes in a free society and free men and free women would have to deal with them.
Methinks you are looking at Anarchism as some sort of free-for-all when in truth, it would be non-trivial if immensely complicated society. As for drugs who am I to say what people should choose to put into their bodies? Drug laws are so stringent because the Mafiosi control the supply
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Your wondering shows that you're not in possession of even the faintest vestige of imagination.
Gmart
Well-Known Member
And boy are they happy that the prohibition continues!!
Point taken on the paedophile issue, I was merely clarifying the absolute need for a set of laws in the short to medium term.
What irritates me is that it seems that many new laws are unnecessary:
in that there is already a more general law that covers the behaviour "outlawed" by the new law.
The new law is therefore wholly unnecessary, and is usually only brought in because politicians want to be seen to be "doing something" about an actual or perceived problem, and passing a new law is easier and cheaper than enforcing the existing laws.
The thing is, half the time these new laws end up not being enforced once the hoo-ha that led to their introduction has passed.
Mobile phones and driving is a case in point.
And this isn't a good thing because having a situation where everyone knows that they are routinely breaking some silly or intrusive law but shrugs and says "everyone else is doing it" can lead to a more generalised lack of respect for laws.
Giles..
in that there is already a more general law that covers the behaviour "outlawed" by the new law.
The new law is therefore wholly unnecessary, and is usually only brought in because politicians want to be seen to be "doing something" about an actual or perceived problem, and passing a new law is easier and cheaper than enforcing the existing laws.
The thing is, half the time these new laws end up not being enforced once the hoo-ha that led to their introduction has passed.
Mobile phones and driving is a case in point.
And this isn't a good thing because having a situation where everyone knows that they are routinely breaking some silly or intrusive law but shrugs and says "everyone else is doing it" can lead to a more generalised lack of respect for laws.
Giles..
Gmart
Well-Known Member
They want to be seen doing something when they should be turning around and saying that we have adequate laws already.
This sort of short termism is why we need a check on the powers of government. Politicians are too keen on headlines, and frequently just mess up our law books because of this.
Steve Booth
Bourgeois apologist
The more laws the greater the tyranny
Suppose we abolished the lawyers and ran justice on a local basis. Laws would have to be simplified to the basic core of what is necessary. Those accused of crimes would have to answer for themselves. The case would be brought on the same day or the next day. Those making the accusation would have to conduct the prosecution case themselves. A jury of local people, chosen by ballot (ie lottery) would judge the case, on the basis of justice, and have the power to throw out meaningless or obviously unjust charges. As this system is under local control, unnecessary laws dictated by Westminster or Brussels would be disregarded. Prevarication would carry severe penalties. The verdict would be given promptly. The cost for running this would be vastly reduced, and I think it would carry public support.
The Redeemer
New Member
As a social libertarian/socialist I voted for fewer laws.
Andy the Don
Wise men say only fools..
In a state where corruption abounds, laws must be very numerous - Tacitus
Not more or less laws but better laws, less knee jerk legislation.
Not more or less laws but better laws, less knee jerk legislation.
Similar threads
