If You Had One Law to Implement, What Would it Be?

[LuisDantas]

How so?

Law is repressive by nature. It is a tool that paints in broad strokes and does not want or even have the means to attempt to be fair. Establishing laws is ultimately little more than lending power to those who know how to take advantage of them.

When a community projects its hopes for establishing fairness and order into its laws, it is giving up on the personal duty of people to be active and discerning.

The unavoidable result is moral corruption.

 

[Revoltingest]

There should also be a word "sarschism" for when people start to argue based on a sarchasm.

I tried to come up with one.
I failed.
It would have to be almost as clever as "sarchasm", & that is one high hurdle.

 

[ThirtyThree]

Can I ask why?

Humans are, for the most part, dishonest. If people know their

Oh, ok then, I'll explain what I meant.

Another member stated that we have a right to privacy, to which you replied:


So I asked you:


This post was intended both to make a point and to be humorous in the process.

It was a way of questioning whether you really believe we should not have privacy from the State, because it would mean...well, we have no privacy from the State.

Therefore, I assert if you trust the State to that extent, so that you believe what belongs to you would actually be safe if we were to do away with a belief in having a right to privacy, or that it doesn't matter if what you own is used by a State with no regard to your right to privacy -- you have the opportunity right now, without the need for passing a law, to exercise your own belief of you not having a right to privacy by giving to the State all information it needs to treat your property in the way it choses. The good news is you don't have to wait for a law to see this come to fruition.

Is that more clear?

I was not aware this was an option? Realistically speaking, would I not be laughed at for even making the suggestion to the appropriate official?

 

[Aquitaine]

Humans are, for the most part, dishonest. If people know their

So you want a small minority of these same dishonest creatures to have access to everyone's private information?

 

[Aquitaine]

Law is repressive by nature. It is a tool that paints in broad strokes and does not want or even have the means to attempt to be fair. Establishing laws is ultimately little more than lending power to those who know how to take advantage of them.

When a community projects its hopes for establishing fairness and order into its laws, it is giving up on the personal duty of people to be active and discerning.

The unavoidable result is moral corruption.

How else would a nation be able to establish at least some sort of order without using laws?

 

[4consideration]

I was not aware this was an option? Realistically speaking, would I not be laughed at for even making the suggestion to the appropriate official?

I don't know what would happen.

I wouldn't actually (seriously) suggest a person doing such a thing, just as I would not take a position that people should not have privacy from the State. That is far too dangerous an idea for me.

Before taking a political position about an idea/practice/philosophy, I think it a good idea to run it past the assumption that at some point that power will be in the hands of my enemy. I find it interesting to see when what one might consider ok when it is being applied to someone else, but may end up seeming, wrong, unjust, dangerous, etc. if done to me. In those cases, I consider it best not to support being done to someone else, something I would not want done to me.

I would not support governmental access to all my private matters, or anyone else's, under the assumption if one has nothing to hide one shouldn't worry. I have seen governmental officials behaving in ways that are both good and bad. I don't expect them to be any more honest than the guy/gal standing behind me in line at the store. I'll guard my private info., and I'll support your right to, as well.

 

[ThirtyThree]

So you want a small minority of these same dishonest creatures to have access to everyone's private information?

Because... dehumanizing insults regarding those you disagree with will get you everywhere?

 

[LuisDantas]

How else would a nation be able to establish at least some sort of order without using laws?

By attaining a healthy, active and thriving social conscience.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

All new laws shall be based on evidence and reason and not superstition.

goodbye global warming!

All government operations should obey the same laws (eg, zoning, building codes, employment laws) they impose upon us.

goodbye Obamacare!



Lots of great ideas from people here, so my law would be;

Let people make the laws, not politicians

 

[Nietzsche]

Let people make the laws, not politicians

I can't decide if your faith in the average person is horrifying or pathetic. I'd rather we not revert to mob-law and mob-justice, thank you.

 

[gnomon]

Law is repressive by nature. It is a tool that paints in broad strokes and does not want or even have the means to attempt to be fair. Establishing laws is ultimately little more than lending power to those who know how to take advantage of them.

When a community projects its hopes for establishing fairness and order into its laws, it is giving up on the personal duty of people to be active and discerning.

The unavoidable result is moral corruption.

Yet it took laws to grant equal protection among minorities in this nation. It took laws to provide equal gender voting rights.

Now we are enacting laws to protect transgender rights as well as new laws to allow what has been recognized as a valid medical drug to be accepted.

I agree law is repressive. But often it appears that the law is repressing ignorance.

And shall we look at the law in regards to the rise of ISIS?

And compare that to the laws enacted among a broad spectrum of cultures to alleviate repression?

I think there is a far more serious question to be asked. Which would involve your latter response in regards to a thriving social conscience......which would be enacted.......into law.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yet it took laws to grant equal protection among minorities in this nation. It took laws to provide equal gender voting rights.

Did it? Law does not seem to make people avoid liquor or weed.

It seems to me that at its best the law can give form to the nobler goals and purposes of people and perhaps present a claim of self-justification.

Now we are enacting laws to protect transgender rights as well as new laws to allow what has been recognized as a valid medical drug to be accepted.

I agree law is repressive. But often it appears that the law is repressing ignorance.

Is that even a good thing? Ignorance can't be healed by repression. At most the law can shield people from the worst of its effects and consequences. Ultimately ignorance must be fought by education and learning of wisdom, not by law.

And shall we look at the law in regards to the rise of ISIS?

I don't think the law makes much of a difference either way when it comes to ISIS. Do you feel differently?

And compare that to the laws enacted among a broad spectrum of cultures to alleviate repression?

Such as?

I think there is a far more serious question to be asked. Which would involve your latter response in regards to a thriving social conscience......which would be enacted.......into law.

What would the point of such a law be? At first glance it feels like an affectation with no real purpose beyond a cerimonial, symbolic statement.

 

[gnomon]

Did it? Law does not seem to make people avoid liquor or weed.

It seems to me that at its best the law can give form to the nobler goals and purposes of people and perhaps present a claim of self-justification.




Is that even a good thing? Ignorance can't be healed by repression. At most the law can shield people from the worst of its effects and consequences. Ultimately ignorance must be fought by education and learning of wisdom, not by law.



I don't think the law makes much of a difference either way when it comes to ISIS. Do you feel differently?


Such as?


What would the point of such a law be? At first glance it feels like an affectation with no real purpose beyond a cerimonial, symbolic statement.

You honestly think that a law redacting the slave trade was nothing more than a ceremonial and symbolic statement?

 

[ShivaFan]

Hmmm... tough call.

I would say, all illegal aliens should be deported, including Jesus himself if he didn't follow legal immigration process which includes a health check and whether you have any pathogens and things like that ...

"Laws" have no meaning without borders because laws by their very nature if human-made laws are just an abstract form of borders and they live within boundaries. Now there is "natural law" as well, that has, as far as I know a border too - the planet earth entotal. But on Mars they might not apply.

So a good first law is immigration and borders. Wait. We already have that as law. But some idiots won't enforce these laws. That doesn't mean the end result will eventually be a borderless world where there is only natural law. It only ensures one place will be open to be invaded and then will fall and all existing laws will be replaced with those "other guys" law(s) - and these might be backward, stupid laws.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

If you could implement just one law, what would it be? Why?

This is not a question that can ever be fully answered because for society to run effectively, there needs to be a range of laws.

 

[LuisDantas]

You honestly think that a law redacting the slave trade was nothing more than a ceremonial and symbolic statement?

Yes, I do. It would never have had any traction before the community developed some measure of acceptance of the afrodescendants' rights.

And because it was enforced before that acceptance became more widespread, there was hell to pay in the form of internal conflicts.

 

[Nietzsche]

Hmmm... tough call.

I would say, all illegal aliens should be deported

You really like burning money don't you?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Something I'd probably call the "Star Trek bill."
-Poverty is eliminated
-Material wants are eliminated
-Money is eliminated
-Society becomes egalitarian
-Everyone who causes "no real harm" to others has their rights and liberties recognized and enforced by law
-For extra measures, there shall never be legislation passed on religious dogma or a "hunch," and every law passed must have evidence to support its claims

 

[Kapalika]

That's what government wants you to think.
But consider.....
- Everyone violates some law now & then. (There are so dang many.)
- Government can spin something innocent into something nefarious as a pretex for persecution.
- Government makes mistakes.
- We have a right to privacy.
- Prosecutors can conduct vendettas.

I've been in court a lot.
I've seen abuse, incompetence, danger, evil.....& even justice (occasionally).
I know.

I rather like using cash. Using digital has it's disadvantages.

Poor people very often use cash. Making everything digital would actually hurt the economy a lot.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I rather like using cash. Using digital has it's disadvantages.

Poor people very often use cash. Making everything digital would actually hurt the economy a lot.

Yup. The black market and less regulated markets especially help many poor people. If we do away with physical currency, there are going to be a lot of pot dealers and under-the-table workers in dire need of new sources of income.