A comment of Ray's on another thread got me thinking. He mentioned that your best chance for getting your opinions codified into law is to vote for one of the major parties. That got me thinking - in most cases I don't want my opinions codified into law. In most cases I want there to be fewer laws. I think that we have many, many more laws than are necessary. For instance, why do we need a law stating how many gallons of water a toilet can flush? I don't want my opinion on toilet flushing made into a law - I want there to be no laws on the subject of how much water a toilet can flush.
-- Edited by arbilad at 12:45, 2007-03-19
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
How can anyone keep up with all the laws that are passed on a local, state, and federal level. How did this country survive 225+ years without all the laws we have today. I think the politicians don't have enough to do so they come up with more laws. This is why I believe in a part time legislature like in Texas.
I don't know if this has anything to do with the conversation, but I thought it was interesting...
Yesterday, the brother who taught the lesson (or should I say spoke to us because he has the habit of kind of opening up his intellect and spilling forth instead of leading discussion) in Elder's Quorum brought up one of the big differences between our nation / society and that of most others. For centuries, and often millenia, other nations have been ruled by despots, kings, and dictators who will invariably use religion to keep them in power, and hence they frown on any non-orthodox religion because it is often viewed as subversive. He went on about this for a bit, but eventually made the point that in places like this, the people all go around under the mindset of "This is your place. These are the few things you are allowed to do, and everything else you just don't do or think if you don't want to die." On the other hand, our society has the mindset of "Here are the few things you are not allowed to do, and pretty much if it isn't in that set of prohibitions, you can do or think whatever you like."
Like Russia the societal heirarchy is kind of state / religion / family / we, and for us it is me / family / religion / state. He pointed out that the word for I is not even capitalized in Russian. (don't know if what he said was accurate, arbi, but it was interesting).
As the world and our society becomes more wicked, is it any surprise then that more laws are put into place restricting what one can do or think? Cause is two-fold: People now actually have the gumption to do things that earlier people would not have done as it was common sense to not do it if you are civilized people and hence they never felt it necessary to explicity codify it as a prohibition; and as individuals and groups of individuals seek to gain and consolidate power, they enact laws that will further that goal and limit the rest of the people to a ever shrinking list of "the few things you are allowed to do."
I think it is important to make a distinction between the reasons a new law is enacted rather than just assume that it is to make government bigger and rip "freedoms" away from the populace.
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
I'm going to jump in here, even though I may we waaaay over my head.
The type of law you referred to in the opening seemed to be a law that deals with industry, the toilet manufacturers. Laws like this that promote environmental friendliness I think are good. Laws that say perhaps how many times during a day you can flush your toilet, I would not agree with so much. Laws that try to regulate how much pollution an automobile can create don't bother me, in fact I think they are good- they hopefully make an impact on industries that make an impact on the environment. But laws that tell me I can only drive X number of miles a day I don't agree with.
I don't even know if this makes sense. But I'm jumpin' in, baby!
__________________
Life is tough but it's tougher if you're stupid. -John Wayne
I just feel that many laws are put into place because people are either too stupid or too lazy to do the right thing anymore. We pass laws to protect stupid people from hurting themselves.
I don't think it makes a huge difference whether it's a law regulating industry or private citizens. In most cases, those laws are unnecessary. Joseph Smith had the right idea: teach the people correct principles and let them govern themselves. If you want low flush toilets, lobby industry asking them to produce such toilets. Or start your own company producing such toilets. Don't force the whole nation to use them just because you think it's a good idea. Congress, as a group, is not smarter than you. They have no business making such laws. Congress has also mandated that all TVs work off a digital signal by a certain date. I forget what date they've set, because they keep changing it. They're even talking about pitching in a billion dollars to help poor people buy converters. My question is, what the heck is wrong with letting the market decide? Why did we need a law? There are so many regulations on business anymore that it is very difficult for your average person to get past them and start a business. Heck, Jason's business was started generations before his birth, and he's still complaining about the oppressive restrictions. I say that Congress should get back to the business of running the country, and not trying to run your business for you.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
As infuriating as our day seems, I wouldn't want to go back to the days when mobs killed religious believers, slavery was legal, people died in mass quantities of diseases, children were abused and used as laborers and not afforded a decent education, dr pepper and cocacola contained all sorts of 'interesting' addictive substances and were considered medicine, and women didn't have the right to vote.
So we've got trial happy lawyers now... but don't blissify the olden days... we've come a long way.
--Ray
__________________
I'm not slow; I'm special. (Don't take it personally, everyone finds me offensive. Yet somehow I manage to live with myself.)
As infuriating as our day seems, I wouldn't want to go back to the days when mobs killed religious believers, slavery was legal, people died in mass quantities of diseases, children were abused and used as laborers and not afforded a decent education, dr pepper and cocacola contained all sorts of 'interesting' addictive substances and were considered medicine, and women didn't have the right to vote.
So we've got trial happy lawyers now... but don't blissify the olden days... we've come a long way.
--Ray
Well, Ray, in our country at least it has always been illegal for mobs to kill religious believers. Slavery was legal because, well, there were laws legalizing it, so I fail to see how that's a result of there not being enough laws. Laws, by and large, are not responsible for people living longer and not dieing of plagues. Improved medicine and sanitation are responsible for that. Women didn't have the right to vote, again, because the law stated so, not because we needed more laws and simply didn't have them. Giving the vote to women was a matter of changing the law (in this case, the ultimate law of the land).
So Ray, I fail to see how more laws would have improved most of the situations you talk about. Granted, I'll give you the child labor thing. But I didn't say I'm against all new laws. Just most of them.
We've come a long way, but I'm not necessarily sure that it's in the right direction. Food safety laws, for instance, were implemented to make food safer to eat. They've made it very hard to open up a restaurant, though. And I'm not sure that they've made anything safer. From people I've talked to, and my own experiences, there are flagrant violations of those laws all the time. I have had food poisoning a few times from going to restaurants. So, we're not really much safer, and it's hard for an average Joe to even open up a hot dog stand.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
Coco, think about it the other way: what sway do laws hold over those without principles? Does the person planning a mugging care that it is against the law? He only cares insofar as he plans ahead to avoid being caught. So, to compare the two methods briefly, when you have self government, the righteous will behave righteously but are not put upon by a gigantic bureaucracy. Those who are not righteous will behave badly. When you have government regulating everything to protect people from themselves, the righteous will behave righteously, but groan under the burden of regulation. Those who are not righteous behave themselves badly.
-- Edited by arbilad at 15:10, 2007-03-19
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
I see that point. Lawbreakers will break the law... thinking...
But at least if there's laws in place, the bad guys can be prosecuted.
Some laws help out the whole of us though don't they? Like, immunizations for public school kids? Don't you think that law has helped us as tax-payers - not paying the medical for all these diseases that are "controllable" now? Or supporting the people who are out of work or disabled because of diseases? Some laws for the masses are about trying to spend the money more wisely, aren't they? I know this is a touchy subject. I couldn't think of another example right now...
What "types" of laws would you like to see done away with? And what do you see the result being?
__________________
Life is tough but it's tougher if you're stupid. -John Wayne
The proper role of government is to create, uphold, and enforce laws that protect individual freedom. The proper role of government is not to create, uphold, and enforce laws that seek to establish social justice or economic equality. Such laws necessarily curtail individual freedom and are, in my opinion, unconstitutional.
I believe some of the best administrations in US history were the ones where relatively little happened, because it meant there was little new legislation taking away more of our individual freedoms.
Cocobeem wrote: I see that point. Lawbreakers will break the law... thinking...
But at least if there's laws in place, the bad guys can be prosecuted.
Some laws help out the whole of us though don't they? Like, immunizations for public school kids? Don't you think that law has helped us as tax-payers - not paying the medical for all these diseases that are "controllable" now? Or supporting the people who are out of work or disabled because of diseases? Some laws for the masses are about trying to spend the money more wisely, aren't they? I know this is a touchy subject. I couldn't think of another example right now...
What "types" of laws would you like to see done away with? And what do you see the result being?
Well, yes, we do need laws to punish the bad guys. But we typically don't need as many laws for that as people think we do. For instance, it is already illegal to kill someone. But they've come up with "hate crimes" to make it more illegal to kill certain classes of people. Why? Is a killer really going to be dissuaded from killing someone just because some extra time would be tacked on to their sentence? They're already prepared to risk lifelong imprisonment or even death in order to kill someone.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
Cocobeem wrote: I see that point. Lawbreakers will break the law... thinking...
But at least if there's laws in place, the bad guys can be prosecuted.
Some laws help out the whole of us though don't they? Like, immunizations for public school kids? Don't you think that law has helped us as tax-payers - not paying the medical for all these diseases that are "controllable" now? Or supporting the people who are out of work or disabled because of diseases? Some laws for the masses are about trying to spend the money more wisely, aren't they? I know this is a touchy subject. I couldn't think of another example right now...
What "types" of laws would you like to see done away with? And what do you see the result being?
Well, yes, we do need laws to punish the bad guys. But we typically don't need as many laws for that as people think we do. For instance, it is already illegal to kill someone. But they've come up with "hate crimes" to make it more illegal to kill certain classes of people. Why? Is a killer really going to be dissuaded from killing someone just because some extra time would be tacked on to their sentence? They're already prepared to risk lifelong imprisonment or even death in order to kill someone.
Another law I really like is the one we have in California prohibiting a loaded firearm in a vehicle. It was specifically put into place because of gangs doing drive by shootings. Of course if you are willing to go out and spray bullets to kill people then really you don't care if your gun is loaded while in your vehicle. Consider the following small skit.
Two vatos in south central Los Angeles, Mondo and Juan, decide to go on a drive by on the rival gang leaders of Los Chimichangos. They take their handguns that they stole and start to get into the car. "Hey Mondo," says Juan. "You had better unload that stolen gun of yours before you get in the car"
"Por Que Vato?"
"Because it is a against the law man"
"Oh, thanks for reminding me."
The pair unload and proceed to drive to house of the neighboring gang leaders.
"Hey Juan, can we load our guns now?"
"Not in the car Mondo, we'll have to stop first and get out."
"But Juan, won't that make it difficult to do the drive by if we have to get out of our car to load."
"Si Mondo, but we don't want to break the law."
"I guess you're right Juan. I guess we'll have to park the car, get out, load the guns, shoot the leaders of Los Chimichangos, unload the guns, get back in the car, and drive away at a safe rate of speed."
"Si Mondo, because it is illegal to carry a loaded gun in the car."
"Yea, right Juan. We would be crazy loco to break that law!!"
Meanwhile several hundred miles away a couple of guys are just finishing up deer hunting. They walk back to their car and lean their rifles up against the back bumper while they put the rest of the gear in the truck. A sheriff's deputy pulls up.
"Excuse me boys, do you'all have permission to hunt here?"
"Yes sir we do, it's here in writing from the land owner."
"What about your license and tags, can I see those?" asks the officer as he spits tobacco onto the ground.
"No problem officer, here they are. And we also stopped hunting earlier than sunset which is fully in compliance with the law."
"Alright," Says the officer. "Now, I'll need you boys to open the bolts on your rifles."
The men comply but one ejects a live round.
"I'm sorry son but you have a loaded weapon in a vehicle and that's against the law. I could take you in but I'm just going to write you a ticket to appear in court for the hearing."
"What?!!" says the hunter. "It was just leaning against the back of the pickup while we unloaded our stuff. Are you telling me if I had leaned it against that tree or that road sign I wouldn't have gotten in trouble?"
"That's correct son. By the way, I hope you don't get judge Fredricks. He hates hunters and guns. You'll probably end up spending some time in jail," said the smug officer.
"This is crazy! I can't believe this is happening!!!"
"Tell it to the judge son. I'm just enforcing the law."
Seem a bit far fetched? Something similar to the story with the hunters happened to a friend of mine. Of course Mondo and Juan didn't really do the drive by because they were afraid of getting caught with a loaded gun in their car, right!?!?!
Too many laws. Laws that protect stupid people from themselves, help politicians get re-elected because they "care", and laws that make people feel good about themselves or safer when in reality it doesn't make one bit of difference because the gang bangers go on shooting eachother.
Okay, I see the point. Basically, the baddies are gonna' break the law no matter what you try to do ... Well, unless there's stiffer punishments or something...?
And I don't agree that killing this person is more serious than killing that person. Unless maybe it's a child. Then the murderer should just be fed to the sharks at the local zoo so all the other potential murderers can change their minds.
__________________
Life is tough but it's tougher if you're stupid. -John Wayne
Yeah, what is needed is tough enforcement of the existing law.
That is what will persuade those with criminal desires to not do criminal things more than just making something "more illegal".
The Book of Mormon even states that this is what was effective in Nephite society. People knew that they would be punished according to the law if they commited a crime. It wasn't until they started wresting the law to mitigate punishment that things went downhill for them.
So, that is a pretty good reason to be in support of such things as death penalty laws for murder.
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
I was reading this topic and was reminded about an article I read a while back. The article specifically addressed the 2nd amendment but also talked a lot about the origins of our rights. Do our rights come from the government and constitution or do governments only take a way rights that we already have? It is an interesting article. You can read it at http://www.californiavarmintcallers.com/second.htm
I also addresses some of the modern thinking about changes in times and definitions of terms that seem to require new laws.
Yeah, what is needed is tough enforcement of the existing law.
In several Persian Gulf countries, if you steal something, you get your right hand cut off. In the public square. With everyone watching. You know, you only gotta see that happen a few times before you make a lifetime decision to not steal. (Guess what gets removed for rape?) Many violent crimes carry the death penalty.
Of course, we'd never stand for that in the US. Many Americans like the argument that tougher sentences don't deter criminals. It seems to me, though, that thousands of years of evidence shouldn't be dismissed so casually. Or maybe US criminals are somehow different. But I doubt it.
-- Edited by Roper at 19:49, 2007-03-20
__________________
The ability to qualify for, receive, and act on personal revelation is the single most important skill that can be acquired in this life. - Julie Beck
Along the line of tough enforcement, my husband works with a guy from China. He said when illegal immigrants try to sneak into China, they line them up and shoot them. And just so nobody misses it, it's televised nationally.
__________________
Life is tough but it's tougher if you're stupid. -John Wayne
Ray, for the record, I don't recommend the Chinese solution to illegal immigration. Unless they were carrying in terrorist devices.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
Our Father has provided a plan for the well-being of His children. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is that plan. In addition to our spiritual and physical well-being, I believe the principles of the Gospel provide for our
- social well-being as articulated in "The Family, a Proclamation to the World" - economic well-being as articulated in the Law of Consecration - political well-being as articulated in the Constitution of the United States.
When our legislature passes laws attempting to govern the social and economic well-being of God's children, government usurps the role of God's Church, violating it's own standard of "seperation of church and state."
The role of government is to ensure individual freedom, so that Zion can stand as a light to all nations, so that individuals can recognize God's social and economic plans exemplified in Zion, and flock to Zion to embrace them. There is no gray area here--God's plan or Satan's attacks against it. Every law we pass to govern aspects of social or economic life mounts another attack against the Kingdom of God.
That's why I only understand political issues from a religious perspective. I have made covenants defining my commitment to the Kingdom of God, not to the political machinations of men. And there are a whole lot of laws and politicians involved in direct attacks against God's Kingdom.
__________________
The ability to qualify for, receive, and act on personal revelation is the single most important skill that can be acquired in this life. - Julie Beck
Euphrasie wrote: What is the one most important thing our society needs?
That would be... harsher punishment for parole violators, Stan.
And, Whirled Peas!
We were watching some old star trek episodes recently, and my wife commented that William Shatner was actually good looking in his youth, as opposed to films such as Miss Congeniality.
But, to address the point, I don't think that harsher punishment for parole violations is the entire answer. As has been pointed out, frequently harsher punishments dissuade crime from happening in the first place, and not just for someone who is on parole. Also, I think fewer people should be paroled.
I also don't like releasing people with just an ankle bracelet to track where they are. It doesn't seem to phase some people or bother their normal mode of life. Where's the punishment? The guy I carpool with was telling me that he saw a lady wearing one of those tracking bracelets on their ankle. She was also wearing capri pants. It didn't bother her in the slightest that people would notice the ankle bracelet.
That does remind me of another idea I had for punishing white collar crime - put them in the stocks. Embarrasment can work quite well for dissuading white color crime.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
Honestly, I think the chain gangs should make a comeback. Don't need our Happy Meal toys made in China ANYMORE! Don't need our tools and trinkets and doo-dads made in China, just have them made by all these prison rats sitting around learning about The Secret on Oprah, working out and getting their Assiciate's degrees in criminology. They could be fixing up the highways, cleaning up around parks and government buildings, making our Wal-Mart Christmas presents...
__________________
Life is tough but it's tougher if you're stupid. -John Wayne
We were watching some old star trek episodes recently, and my wife commented that William Shatner was actually good looking in his youth That's why when I was little and would play Star Trek with other kids in my 2nd grade class, I wanted to be Captain Kirk... He was handsome and got the babes... Unfortunately, I usually ended up being Chekhov or Scotty or a red shirt...
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
So if more severe punishments are the answer maybe some of you who live in the Zion belt can answer me this question. Why have Utah and Idaho resisted the passage of Meagan's Law that would put huge mandatory minimums on child molestors? I've always seen Utah and Idaho as pretty conservative, law and order type states where there are harsh punishments for crimes. I always looked to those two as being ready and willing to use the death penalty for murder so that's why I'm a bit confused. Can anyone who lives in either place tell me why there seems to be no support for Meagan's Law?
Excuse my mistake. I meant to say Jessica's Law not Meagan's Law. My bad. Here's the info on Jessica's law showing which states have adopted it and which are going nowhere.
