Do Away With Laws

[nightwind]

I have come to the conclusion that there are way too many laws. Many ridiculous, and many without true basis. I think we would do just as well if not better by having only two laws.

1. No murders ( of people already born of course)

2. No theft

I am sure that everyone will agree with number one. But perhaps there are some different ideas on the second.

If we started over with only these two laws, I really don't believe things would be very different from what they are, as far as harm being done. However, I realize there might be disadvantages as well as advantages.

What do you think?

 

[SFB]

...What do you think?

I think you live in California?

 

[SwissSkeptic]

I have come to the conclusion that there are way too many laws. Many ridiculous, and many without true basis. I think we would do just as well if not better by having only two laws.

1. No murders ( of people already born of course)

2. No theft

I am sure that everyone will agree with number one.

I really don't see why murder should be forbidden in a society that allows child molestation, rape, kidnapping etc.

But perhaps there are some different ideas on the second.

Do you mean theft according to penal or to civil law?
And why criminalise theft and not fraud, usury, defalcation and other proprietary crimes?

If we started over with only these two laws, I really don't believe things would be very different from what they are, as far as harm being done.

What makes you think so?

However, I realize there might be disadvantages as well as advantages.

What do you think?

What do you think are the benefits of reversing all laws except the two you mentioned?

 

[Yahweh]

I have come to the conclusion that there are way too many laws. Many ridiculous, and many without true basis. I think we would do just as well if not better by having only two laws.

1. No murders ( of people already born of course)

2. No theft

I am sure that everyone will agree with number one. But perhaps there are some different ideas on the second.

I disagree with both. How about just a single law:

Be excellent to each other, and party on, dudes!

 

[phildonnia]

1. No murders ( of people already born of course)

2. No theft

#1 is probably unnecessary. I don't think very many murders are prevented by making it illegal.

 

[CFLarsen]

I have come to the conclusion that there are way too many laws. Many ridiculous, and many without true basis. I think we would do just as well if not better by having only two laws.

1. No murders ( of people already born of course)

2. No theft

I am sure that everyone will agree with number one. But perhaps there are some different ideas on the second.

If we started over with only these two laws, I really don't believe things would be very different from what they are, as far as harm being done. However, I realize there might be disadvantages as well as advantages.

What do you think?

We can each have our own nuke, then?

 

[DavidJames]

Re: Re: Do Away With Laws

#1 is probably unnecessary. I don't think very many murders are prevented by making it illegal.

Really, are you saying that none of those in jail for murder would have ever killed again?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Re: Re: Do Away With Laws

I think you live in California?

No, murder's cool there. Just ask O.J.

 

[aggle-rithm]

...and Robert Blake. The "Daily Show" said recently that he was found innocent despite the fact that his alibi was "I went back in the restaurant to get my gun"!

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

1. No murders ( of people already born of course)

Murder is, by definition, the unlawful killing of someone. So you need to define under which circumstances a killing is unlawful. Saying "No murders" is as useful as saying "Don't break this law."

 

[drkitten]

Re: Re: Do Away With Laws

Murder is, by definition, the unlawful killing of someone. So you need to define under which circumstances a killing is unlawful. Saying "No murders" is as useful as saying "Don't break this law."

Similarly, "theft" is defined as the act of taking something from someone unlawfully.

On the other hand, we all knew what nightwind meant, and I'm not going to criticize her for not bothering to give a paragraph only a lawyer could love.

The United States gets along just fine with this as a definition of murder, and no one seems to object:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 51 > § 1111

§ 1111. Murder

Release date: 2004-08-06

(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree.
Any other murder is murder in the second degree.

So I submit that you're being needlessly, and unhelpfully, critical.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Re: Re: Re: Do Away With Laws

On the other hand, we all knew what nightwind meant, and I'm not going to criticize her for not bothering to give a paragraph only a lawyer could love.

I, for one, did not know what nightwind meant, which is why I said "you need to define under which circumstances..." It was a request for clarification I felt I needed before commenting further.

ETA: If my tone came across as overly critical, I apologise to nightwind for that. It was not intended.

 

[SFB]

Re: Re: Re: Do Away With Laws

No, murder's cool there. Just ask O.J.

I should have been more clear. I was referring to,

I have come to the conclusion that there are way too many laws.

 

[Trifikas]

Don't our laws usualy get created when a need for it arises? Granted that some of them are out of date, but I'd guess most laws are on the books because there was a need for a ruling on them.

A quick law-audit to see what needs to be gotten rid of wouldn't hurt, however.

Trif

 

[Bikewer]

There always remain numbers of laws that are outmoded, unneccesary, or simply stupid. Mostly because it's harder to repeal legislation than it is to pass it.

Everyone is familiar with lists (or books!) on silly, outmoded laws such as The Trenton Pickle Ordinance.

Though many of these archaisms remain on the books, they are seldom if ever enforced, and remain virtually unknown to the public.
Missouri until only a few years ago still mandated spitoons in all public buildings...

All states periodically revise their statutes, often radically changing the wording of criminal statutes, and adding necessary new ones. Police are frequently hard pressed to keep up with the new legislation. Over the last 10 years, our state has added large numbers of new laws regarding computer-related crimes, for instance.

I have seen suggestions that each state should conduct an audit of it's statutes on a 50-year basis or so, cleaning out the outmoded stuff.
But politicians sometimes find the old stuff useful...

 

[Freakshow]

Don't our laws usualy get created when a need for it arises? Granted that some of them are out of date, but I'd guess most laws are on the books because there was a need for a ruling on them.

A quick law-audit to see what needs to be gotten rid of wouldn't hurt, however.

Trif

Actually, our laws often get created for no reason other than politicians' self interests.

Example: The #1 cause of distracted-driving auto accidents is eating while driving. It is not cell phone use. But are any politicians trying to outlaw eating while driving? Nope. But plenty have or are trying to outlaw using the cell phone while driving. It is political grandstanding, nothing more. Has nothing to do with any "need". The lawmakers don't care about any needs. If they were really interested in the need behind the law (making the roads safer), then they should go right for the #1 item on the list (eating while driving), shouldn't they?

 

[Freakshow]

I have come to the conclusion that there are way too many laws. Many ridiculous, and many without true basis. I think we would do just as well if not better by having only two laws.

1. No murders ( of people already born of course)

2. No theft

I am sure that everyone will agree with number one. But perhaps there are some different ideas on the second.

If we started over with only these two laws, I really don't believe things would be very different from what they are, as far as harm being done. However, I realize there might be disadvantages as well as advantages.

What do you think?

Yes, there are too many laws. But I think you are being a BIT extreme in reducing the number of laws to just two.

I would like to see just about all laws regulating consensual behavior removed. I remember watching a documentary showing undercover detectives going into strip clubs as customers, to enforce the laws regarding how far the dancers must be from the customers. Um....they couldn't find a BETTER use of tax dollars for fighting crime?!?!? There are murderers, kidnappers, rapists, muggers, thieves, and child-molesters walking around free. And they are worried about how far strippers are from their customers? Unbelievable...

 

[Trifikas]

Actually, our laws often get created for no reason other than politicians' self interests.

Example: The #1 cause of distracted-driving auto accidents is eating while driving. It is not cell phone use. But are any politicians trying to outlaw eating while driving? Nope. But plenty have or are trying to outlaw using the cell phone while driving. It is political grandstanding, nothing more. Has nothing to do with any "need". The lawmakers don't care about any needs. If they were really interested in the need behind the law (making the roads safer), then they should go right for the #1 item on the list (eating while driving), shouldn't they?

Where is the self interest in going after either of those groups as the cause of the accidents?

 

[pupdog]

I think we should do away with the second law of thermodynamics because it so effectively prevents evolution.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Example: The #1 cause of distracted-driving auto accidents is eating while driving. It is not cell phone use.

Possibly this is because using your cellphone whilst driving is illegal.