Too Many Laws

[koan]

I was thinking today about how many laws exist and wondering how many of them are needed?

Are we really so irritable and/or reckless that we need a collective body to write down all our No-No s? Would society crumble into chaos if we went through our library sized list of legislation and took out everything that cost more to enforce than it was worth? What about those laws that only lawyers and judges understand? How are we supposed to follow them? I came across an old article that still asks relevent questions.



America Mired in Morass of Laws and Regulations

(replace "America" with any country name and it still works)

Here's an exerpt

More disturbing than the cost of compliance, however, is the way federal officials can manipulate the confusing maze of federal laws, codes and regulations to score political points, make examples of certain people, settle scores, extort favors, or, in the case of regulation, punish disfavored corporations and industries. There are far too many federal laws ” and people who break them ” for our U.S. attorneys to enforce them with any sort of consistency. That means our federal laws are very selectively enforced, which makes the federal court system ripe for abuse.

[koan]

These are some obvious examples of the problem. They've been converted to plain language but the existence of each example begs the question

Arizona

* Hunting camels is prohibited.

*There is a possible 25 years in prison for cutting down a cactus.

*When being attacked by a criminal or burglar, you may only protect yourself with the same weapon that the other person posseses.

*You may not have more than two dildos in a house.

*It is illegal for men and women over the age of 18 to have less than one missing tooth visible when smiling.

Iowa

*Kisses may last for no more than five minutes.

*One-armed piano players must perform for free.

*A man with a mustache may never kiss a woman in public.

*It is a violation of the law to sell or distribute drugs or narcotics without having first obtained the appropriate Iowa drug tax stamp.

[911]

We have that same drug law that states you have to have a tax stamp on it.

Believe it or not, there were actually people that went to get a stamp, gave their name, adress and phone number in order to get the stamp. Cops busted 'em. See what happens when you try to be an honest citizen !! LOL :wah:

That law is mainly so they can pile on the charges when they bust someone for possession or distribution of illegal drugs,

[koan]

Where is the boundary between necessary laws and superfluous?

[koan]

I wonder what, beyond public safety, is really necessary. And how far does "public safety" go? The Bill of Rights is important but all laws get caught up in interpretation issues. I've always thought if law issues were handled on a community level with people directly elected for their ability to reason and make fair judgements then federal courts could be left to handle appeals and national issues only.

[Accountable]

koan wrote: I wonder what, beyond public safety, is really necessary. And how far does "public safety" go? The Bill of Rights is important but all laws get caught up in interpretation issues. I've always thought if law issues were handled on a community level with people directly elected for their ability to reason and make fair judgements then federal courts could be left to handle appeals and national issues only.Koan, we have never been more closely aligned as we are with this statement. You'd think Washington, London, Ottawa, etc. would have enough on their plate without worrying about the minutiae of citizens' daily lives.



For instance, When I was young, the legal drinking age in Louisiana was 18, and various ages 18-21 throughout the nation. Some federal muckety-muck started a movement to make nationalize the minimum age at 21. Louisiana was the last holdout, as I recall. Nixon, Lincoln, or whoever was president at the time actually threatened to withhold federal highway money (their responsibility) unless Louisiana complied and changed their drinking age limit (not their responsibility).

[koan]

It is an issue that has been bothering me for a long time. Treat people like children and that is how they will behave. There are lots of case study opportunities to show it. Perhaps a control group should be set up to see what happens if laws are kept to a minimum.

[Accountable]

Nobody trusts humanity that much... except possibly us.

[Accountable]

Diuretic wrote: The other day where I live the Liquor Licensing Commissioner was flying a kite for the state government, I suspect, when he suggested that there might be a prohibition on minors (in Australia the legal drinking age is 18) consuming alcohol...................at home! Yes, at home. The suggestion got a flogging and rightly so.



But going on from Accountable's comments - should there be a minimum age for consumption of alcohol in licensed premises or in public? If there should then we're only discussing the age, not the fact that we approve of a minimum age for alcohol consumption in licensed premises or in public.



I seriously doubt there are any laws presently in place that are not actually necessary. As I said before, every aspect of our lives is determined by laws, I can't think of any aspect of life - at least where I am - that isn't affected by the law. Anyway it would be an interesting exercise if a legislature went through all the laws on its books and asked, "should this law even be here?"The point I was making was that we were perfectly (relatively speaking) happy with the local law setting the age at 18, but some 'outsider' felt we didn't know as well as he, and used undue, unfair, and borderline illegal pressure to change it to satisfy him.

[koan]

Diuretic wrote:

I seriously doubt there are any laws presently in place that are not actually necessary. As I said before, every aspect of our lives is determined by laws, I can't think of any aspect of life - at least where I am - that isn't affected by the law. Anyway it would be an interesting exercise if a legislature went through all the laws on its books and asked, "should this law even be here?"


I think there are lots of laws that could be tossed. One has to ask, why is this law there and is it essential. This consignment to having our lives legislated is proof that we are past the reasonable point. The laws are meant to protect us not to jail us.

Your final suggestion is exactly what I had in mind. Just theoretically, at first, why not have a lawyer (did I say that?) and a philosopher go through every law and separate them, then set up a test group. Canada has tons of empty land that could be used as testing ground. Then we'll see who's right about human nature; essentially good or evil. If it took 50 yrs to test it properly it would be worth it. We keep adding more laws but nobody is getting rid of the duds.

[koan]

Found a really great site from an interesting perspective.

http://www.prisoners.com/

America has literally thousands of bad laws, unnecessary laws and passe laws. For example, all the laws against the use of drugs are bad. They are the cause of at least half of all the crime in the country. The crimes are the direct result of the drugs being illegal, covert and enormously expensive. Didn't we learn from the tragedy of prohibition?


They have a number of articles on abuse of the criminal system by establishment on this page

In this department we present material relating to the significant crimes of the system, the officials. The whole criminal justice system is a flop, from law making to its administration, to punishment for breaking it. The system is a failure and needs to be completely re-thought.

[koan]

Girl Scouts

Girl Scouts in the metro Detroit area must sell 36,000 boxes of Girl Scout cookies each year just to pay for liability insurance. -The Detroit Free Press, December 4, 1997.

Little League

The Little League has seen its insurance premiums skyrocket 1,000 percent in a recent five-year period. They spend more on insurance than on any other item in their budget. - Little League Baseball Inc. CEO Creighton Hale in The Wall Street Journal.

Life-saving medical devices

Each year, more than 7.5 million lives in this country are either saved by implantable medical devices -- like pacemakers for heart patients or shunts for hydrocephalus -- or improved through products like replacement eye lenses for cataracts and balloon angioplasty devices. Unfortunately, a recent study reveals that at least 75 percent of suppliers of biomaterials used to make medical implants have banned sales to U.S. implant manufacturers. In deciding to sell or not to sell to the implant market, risk of legal liability was a key factor for 100 percent of suppliers.

- Study by New York-based Aronoff Associates for HIMA entitled "Biomaterials Availability: a Vital Health Care Industry Hangs in the Balance."

The United States has 30 times more lawsuits per person than Japan. - America's Legal Mess, U.S. News and World Report, August 19, 1991.

source

[Accountable]

Diuretic wrote:

I seriously doubt there are any laws presently in place that are not actually necessary.
I seriously doubt there are many laws in place that are actually necessary.

[Accountable]

Diuretic wrote: Which of us has the easiest task? Me to show that many of the existing laws* are necessary or Accountable to show that many of the existing laws are unnecessary?



I know if there was a legislative inquiry that the first question (my task as it were) would be preferred because it's easier to go away and come back and say with a straight face that all the current laws are needed. It's a conundrum.







*when it comes to drugs I still think we need laws but laws which regulate rather than prohibit.
Before we do that, we would have to agree what the purpose of government is, because I'm pretty sure we're not on the same page there, either. :p



A few laws we can do without:



Seatbelts, helmets, etc.

minimum wage

rereational drug prohibition

*there's more, but I'm pressed for time*

[koan]

Accountable wrote: Before we do that, we would have to agree what the purpose of government is, because I'm pretty sure we're not on the same page there, either. :p



A few laws we can do without:



Seatbelts, helmets, etc.

minimum wage

rereational drug prohibition

*there's more, but I'm pressed for time*


that's a good start, Acc

I'd like to add suicide to the list, and any other law that exists to protect us from ourselves.

[Bryn Mawr]

Diuretic wrote: Here we go..............

The problem is - (in another context) - "no man is an island, entire of itself..."

If we lived in individual or perhaps familial isolation from each other there would be no need for any laws, but we don't. So we have lots of laws. Those laws govern our interractions with each other and of course with the state. If a law is redundant then remove it by all means. But I doubt if anyone can show a law that is redundant aside from those that have already fallen into disuetude.


The trouble with laws that have fallen into disuse is that they get abused.

If they're still on the statute, even if they've not been used for a hundred years, the fuzz can still dust them off if they don't like you - and it happens.

If a law does nothing to protect people from abuse then it should not be. There are far too many nanny laws to protect us from ourselves.

Justify, if you will, the example given the other day - it is illegal for a man with a mustache to kiss a lady in public.

Justify, if you will, the law requiring a responsible adult to wear a crash helmet.

[Accountable]

koan wrote: that's a good start, Acc



I'd like to add suicide to the list, and any other law that exists to protect us from ourselves.
Bigomy, polygamy ... heck, marriage in general.



Diuretic, you honestly believe that any law that isn't redundant is necessary?



Is there any aspect of your life that you don't think the government should hold sway over?

[Bryn Mawr]

Diuretic wrote: Disuetude deals with ancient laws trundled out for convenience. I recall the kerfuffle over the use of "affray" quite some years ago now in England. It was tested for disuetude and found to be good law. The same with breach of the peace which was revisited in an English case in 1981 and which was found to be good law and is now widely used.

The moustache kissing law would fall to disuetude. It would be seen as pleasantly anachronistic but no longer valid (there was probably a single incident which provoked the creation of that law).

Crash helmet laws. There's no real need for moral outrage on this one. If you fall off a motorcycle you are more likely to suffer less serious head injury if you wear a crash helmet. So that the number of serious head injuries and deaths from motorcycle crashes can be minimised helmet wearing is made mandatory. It's a simple utilitarian approach to law-making.


Apart from the cases where this does not happen. There was a case not long back where a law not applied since the 1890s was trotted out because they could not find anything better to charge a guy with.

As for the helmet law :-

1) If I, as an adult of sound mind, am knowingly prepared to take the risk, who is the government to tell me I cannot.

2) A helmet, especially a full face helmet, seriously reduces your ability to hear and to see what is around you. Wearing a helmet can make you more likely to have an accident in the first place.

3) As with the wearing of leathers, wearing a helmet contributes to a false feeling of safety. Without your helmet you better appreciate your vunerability and ride more defensively (I can assure you that this is a genuine effect) - again, wearing a helmet can make you more likely to have an accident in the first place.

4) If you have an accident whilst wearing a full face helmet your chances of suffering a broken neck and becoming a paraplegic are greatly enhanced. On the other hand, having an accident whilst wareing an open helmet increases the likelyhood of severe facial injury. (the studies showing the extent of this were prblished in Australia about 10 years ago). It is a judgement call as to the type of injury you are willing to risk.

5) I would rather ride without a helmet than without gloves - the risk of injury is far less.

Whilst I chose to wear a helmet 95% of the time - even before the helmet law was introduced, I deny that the government has the right to force me to do so given that by not doing so I harm no-one other than myself.

[Accountable]

Wearing a helmet is smart, no doubt about it.



So is keeping your foreskin clean.



The government has no business legislating either.

[koan]

That is the question, IMO, is it necessary for the good of society or are they making laws based on what should be written up in a "things you should know" pamphlet. If insurance companies want to refuse payment for accidents where people fail to do this or that then that is reasonable and just as deterring as a law is or is not. The government entwines its fingers into our personal affairs when it overlegislates and becomes a prison guard instead of leader of the free world.

[spot]

"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." -- Tacitus, Roman senator and historian (A.D. c.56-c.115)

Great man, Tacitus. I used to go out with his mother before my knee started playing up.

[Accountable]

Diuretic wrote: Sorry Accountable, you must have posted right after me and I logged off, I wasn't being ignorant and not responding I know you better than to think that.



Diuretic wrote: Do I honestly believe that any law that isn't redundant is necessary? A good way of putting it. I'd have to honestly say, no, I have no doubt that there are some laws that could be repealed without society falling apart, but that they would be of such small number that searching for them is a waste of time and resources. However it would be useful to have an ad hoc body that could meet from time to time to review reported useless laws and see if they could be taken off the books. Legislators repealing useless laws. Wait a minute, did I just hear the wings of a little piggy flying past the window?:wah:

[Accountable]

Diuretic wrote: The government has the right to do what's lawful and if it's lawful to requre a rider to wear a helmet then the government can go right ahead and do it.
When I read this part of your post, I hear the standard parental reply "Because I said so, that's why!"



Gov't creates the laws. Gov't decides what's lawful. Just because it's lawful doesn't make it right.

[Accountable]

The gov't isn't a parent, and I resent any attempt at parental legislation.



Like I said, I think we disagree on the proper role of gov't.

[Accountable]

Diuretic wrote: I've never seen "parental" legislation.



The proper role of government - now there's a potential for another thread.Done!



Parental legislation is legislation that Koan points out tries to protect individuals from themselves.



I have an inalienable right to be stupid. IMO, any right I claim should come with the corresponding responsibility, thus my current signature. Since I have an inalienable right to be stupid, meaning no one can force me to act with maturity and forethought, I also claim the responsibility of my actions - meaning that if I ride without a helmet, I have no right to expect the gov't to help me put the pieces back together, should I crack my egg on the pavement.



The gov't is acting as my parent, my disciplinarian, by requiring I wear a helmet.

[Accountable]

First, I disagree.



Second, the US has no federal hospitals, save the military ones. That's private enterprise at work. I could go on with the slippery slope argument, but I'll save bandwidth.

[koan]

I've always found that if you treat people like children they act that way. Empowerment is proven to be far more effective.

[Bryn Mawr]

Diuretic wrote: But the government is obliged to help you if you crack your head open. I mean there you are bleeding all over the tarmac.....if you're still alive someone has to call an ambulance and you're taken to hospital. They can't leave you there bleeding to death. Then in the hospital they will fix you up. You might pay for it but they still have no choice but to repair you.

If you get killed when you fall of the motorcycle then someone has to pick up your body, transport you to the mortuary, you have to identified, the police have to do a fatal accident report and so on.

You see the imposition on society you make because you want to ride a motorcycle without a crash helmet? That imposition is sufficient to give the govt the authority to tell you to wear a helmet.


If your argument is the extra cost to the country of deraling with the increased injury the levy a charge - do not take away my freedom.

As has been said, parental legislation is legislation to protcet the individual from himself. That is not the place of government. Carried to its logical conclusion it would be illegal for anyone to leave their home (or to go into the kitchen - as everyone knows, most accidents happen in the kitchen).

We are responsible adults, not children. The goernments place is to deal with other governments and to protect its citizens from others - not to be our nanny.

This also applies to litigation. We are responsible adults - if we act in an irrisponsible way (driving with an open cup of boiling coffee between our legs for example) then we have no call to be suing anyone else for our stupidity.

[Bryn Mawr]

Diuretic wrote: There's no freedom taken away though, not in this instance. Just think of the restrictions that already exist, for good reason I might add. You have to be a competent rider and you have to demonstrate that by taking a test. If you pass the test you have to pay for a licence then you can ride a motorcycle on a public road. The idea is that you are less of a danger to yourself and to other road users. Requiring you to wear a helmet isn't a huge imposition.


The first instances are to protect other road users and therefore necessary (but I have to say, if it was not for the riders thenselves, the CBT would not exist). Yes, it is a huge imposition



Diuretic wrote: No, that isn't carrying it to a logical conclusion at all, that's extrapolating to the point of ridicule. A responsible government is right to enact responsible legislation. If some regard legislation as being overbearing then let them present the argument against that specific legislation.


Its called reducto ad absurdium and is an accepted way of detecting a false agrument. Your argument resembles the "it doesn't matter how much it costs, if it saves one life it's worth it". In both cases, it you take the argument to its logical conclusion it is absurd.

Diuretic wrote: In some instances I'll agree with that and in others I won't. I try to avoid blanket generalisations. For example, I think recreational drugs shouldn't be prohibited but regulated, which puts me firmly in the anti-nanny state camp on that point but on other issues I can be solidly in the camp that says governments must act so as to provide protection. It depends on the issue. That makes it hard work at times but I prefer to think through the isses rather than fix myself behind a slogan.


I am normally very much against making blanket generalisations but in this case I'll make an exception, I cannot think of a single instance where it is right for a law to be made purely to protect an individual from the consequence of his own actions.

Diuretic wrote: The law - as I understand it at least - agrees with you. No court I know will award damages to someone else for your own stupidity, the case wouldn't even make the list, it would be tossed out at first glance. There has to some an action or omission by another party which harms you in some way before an action will be grounded.


The example I gave has, I believe, just led to a large compensation payout.

[Accountable]

Diuretic wrote: Originally Posted by Diuretic

There's no freedom taken away though, not in this instance. Just think of the restrictions that already exist, for good reason I might add. You have to be a competent rider and you have to demonstrate that by taking a test. If you pass the test you have to pay for a licence then you can ride a motorcycle on a public road. The idea is that you are less of a danger to yourself and to other road users. Requiring you to wear a helmet isn't a huge imposition.



The first instances are to protect other road users and therefore necessary (but I have to say, if it was not for the riders thenselves, the CBT would not exist). Yes, it is a huge imposition



Cheer up the limitation is reasonably restricted.
Not the point. If I want the wind in my hair and bugs in my teeth, the gov't should not intervene - should not even be able to intervene.





Diuretic wrote: Originally Posted by Diuretic

No, that isn't carrying it to a logical conclusion at all, that's extrapolating to the point of ridicule. A responsible government is right to enact responsible legislation. If some regard legislation as being overbearing then let them present the argument against that specific legislation.



Its called reducto ad absurdium and is an accepted way of detecting a false agrument. Your argument resembles the "it doesn't matter how much it costs, if it saves one life it's worth it". In both cases, it you take the argument to its logical conclusion it is absurd.



Well no. I cited a specific example and supported it. You – with all due respect of course – brought in the extrapolation and didn’t address my argument. In effect they were two parallel points. I hold that government has authority to legislate for the greater good (there you are you can attack my naïve utilitarianism). I certainly don’t hold that the government should legislate to keep you in your home so that you don’t harm yourself.

That was the slippery slope I was referring to. I will accept your admission to naive utilitarianism.



Diuretic wrote: Originally Posted by Diuretic

In some instances I'll agree with that and in others I won't. I try to avoid blanket generalisations. For example, I think recreational drugs shouldn't be prohibited but regulated, which puts me firmly in the anti-nanny state camp on that point but on other issues I can be solidly in the camp that says governments must act so as to provide protection. It depends on the issue. That makes it hard work at times but I prefer to think through the isses rather than fix myself behind a slogan.



I am normally very much against making blanket generalisations but in this case I'll make an exception, I cannot think of a single instance where it is right for a law to be made purely to protect an individual from the consequence of his own actions.



Whether it’s right or not is just a matter of opinion. In my opinion I think a government can do exactly that, albeit in limited situations.

I'm with Bryn on this one.

[Accountable]

I guess by your words that my libertarian view is a pre-existing ideology. ... :yh_think ... I can live with that.



Freedom first, for me. Everything else takes a back seat without the strongest of justification.