Staredit Network

Because they made separate ones for different people. They made the ones for blacks impossibly hard, and the land owners got tests that any child could do.

So should there really be 12704 laws in my city? Another 10000 in my state and another 10000 federal laws that I have to follow? What makes each place different from any other? I hardly foresee 12704 major differences from my place to yours that require so many laws. The best option would be to have all laws apply to the entire nation, no need for Oklahoma to have a law against eating someone else's hamburger because somebody in X year got into a discussion about it and was shot.

The solution is simple, start cleaning off unnecessary laws, then have an elected committee choose the new set of laws. These laws would be revised every 5 years or so. The reason the populace won't directly vote on laws is simple, almost everyone speeds and has gotten a speeding ticket, we would kill ourselves going 120mph on the streets. There are many more laws like these which would have a similar effect.

---

This voting license does sound like a promising idea. The requirements would be fairly simple, for example, a High School diploma to start off with. You aren't technically educated without one of these, so theoretically, you can't make the analysis to make a decision to vote, since you haven't been educated. Other requirements could be for the committee which I mentioned in my first post, in order to vote for something like a road construction, you'd need people of several fields, like civil engineering, industrial engineering, economists and such.

This way, voting gets to be a bit more serious and you make sure the people who vote know what the full background of what is happening.

You could always make politicians take tests made by the public to vote if there politically retarded, and you would have to worry less about incompetent politicians.

Well, true, it does seem that they could do with some consolidation of laws. Like, how exactly do they reconcile something being legal in one place and not in another? Aren't laws supposed to reflect morality? Then how does morality change from place to place? So you're right, and hopefully untangling the bureaucracy can consolidate some laws so we don't have to have quite so many.

I'm very much opposed to this concept.
When you say that everyplace should have the same laws, you say that every place holds the same values. It's the very reason the southern states began to secede in the civil war. There were other influences, yes, but the factor that pushed the idea of secession was the tariffs that helped the north, but hurt the south, economically.

The main reason I dislike the idea of having large areas being covered by the same laws, is that in my state, roughly 70% of the population wants to drill for oil in several places. (Including ANWR.) Yet the descision to drill is not up to us, it is up to the nation as a whole. Where people in california (Sorry to pick on you guys but you seem to be the biggest supporters of not drilling.) are trying to prevent this from happening based upon what drilling does to the wildlife. It seems wrong to me that people can have a say over something that they will never be affected by. Just as much as our invasion in Iraq is wrong, because we are deciding for their country what is the best path of action.

Let people make their own decisions, and they will be happier for it.

Uh, no, I say that every place is subject to the same morality, whether they think so or not.

So you mean that because the south held different values, it was okay for them to make slavery legal?

While I see your point, I still don't understand why two states should have conflicting laws. Why don't you just have it so that it's legal to set up oil drills in southern California, everywhere in the United States? So that Virginia or Idaho or whatever could set up drills in southern California, only southern California isn't in Virginia or Idaho. This way you don't have a conflict between laws and everyone still gets what they want.

More than one places having the same laws makes no sense. If they have a law banning nude bathing in texas I don't think they will have a problem with it in Alaska. That is a poor example though, but it shows that other sub cultures may hold diffrent values and need diffrent laws. If you don't like it go move to another country or another state.

Federal government must enforce laws regarding the constitution. That's an easy given.

In terms of national defense and intelligence, the national government has full executive power. That's also another easy given. Only time they can cross the line with that, is when they interfere with the supreme law of the land. AKA, the constitution.

As of 1946, the executive branch of the government has had the responsibility to monitor the enconomy, and make sure it doesn't go into hyper inflation, or another severe depression. Since then, they have had the legal ability to increase/decrease government spending and or increase/decrease taxes a lot faster if need be. Which makes perfect sense.

The only laws the feds do that may be out side of these boundaries, are of course from the legislative branch. The only federal laws I can think off that actually piss states off, are things like wildlife conservation. There might be a few more, but there isn't enough to remotely start a civil war over.

But one thing everyone needs to understand is that the house and senate don't really look at much of the laws they pass. And governors of states don't really care much, so long as they get federal funding to keep them happy, and provide enough legal freedom to keep their voters happy.

The government also indirectly by trying to stop inflation, and recession also lessens our economic booms.

Why? Just because people wouldn't do it anyway? Considering that it would be illegal in Texas, and that laws are supposed to reflect morality, that means that it ought to be illegal in Alaska. So you'd have to specifically make it not illegal in Alaska. Which means you think that if people wouldn't do something in a certain place, you should specifically make said thing not illegal in that place. I don't see how this makes sense.

Green Mekler the point I was trying to make is that laws SHOULD be diffrent from place to place. We should be seperated into countrys and states considering the people who live there will be diffrent and want diffrent things. If theres a country that is Jewish they might want to ban public grilling of pigs or whatnot some laws may limit freedom to some, but alot of times it protects those who would be offended. I agree if a small town is nearly dominated with Jewish people and a store owner who doesnt like jews purposly has lard and pork up near the front of the store people would be offended.

Though our surpreme court already had a thing about a case similiar to my example. I forget the people in it, but a bunch of neo nazis wanted to march in a jewish suburb near Chicago and the populace tried to stop it and the surpreme court denied them from stopping it or making them pay unfair amounts of money.

This still doesn't make sense. Like I say, the whole purpose of laws is to keep immoral things from being done. And immoral things are just as wrong no matter where you do them, even if lots of other people happen to agree with you.

The job of laws is to keep immoral things from happening, but its also there to keep order among people. If a law disrupts the order you should change it, and if the law is moral then restrain yourself from doing the immoral thing.

Well, it depends in what way the law is disrupting order. If a fascist dictatorship ruling over hordes of brainwashed slaves is orderly, then disrupting order might do a lot of good. Keeping things neat and tidy isn't necessarily good if said things are neat and tidy in a bad way.

Morality by who's standards?
Is abortion a crime? I know people who would say yes and others who would say no..
Just because someone passed a law on the subject doesn't make it right. Especially if the law covers more and more people, which effectively silences more and more minorities.

Morality is usually by the citizen of the governments standards. Abortion is immoral to me though, and if you allow abortion and charge a person with the murder of an unborn child it just doesnt make sense.

It makes sense to me. In the case of the abortion, it is the choice of the person who created the fetus to terminate it. In the case of the killing of the unborn child by a third party, it is not giving the woman the choice. In essence, it is taking the woman's right to choose away from her. If we didn't have the above law, then it would be perfectly legal to force a woman to get an abortion, which should not be allowed.

So the woman has a right to murder the baby? But noone else can?

I'm a moral universalist.

While that is correct, Oo.Zero.oO has a point in that the charge should be something other than murder, considering the standard definition of murder.

I'm confused as to what this means, could you please elaborate as to what you are trying to say?

Morality is usually what the average citizen of a government thinks. If 9/10 people believe abortion is immoral then it should be stopped. The 1/10 that believes it is right should be allowed to be heard, but should be overruled by the 9/10, and if it is that major of an issue maybe the should choose the course India and Pakistan chose and split into two seperate countrys so they can have their own rules.

Yes, the woman has the right to abort the fetus (it isn't a baby yet). No, no one else should, as that would constitute a very obvious violation of the rights of the woman.



I disagree with this. If, for say, you went back into the history of the United States, more than 90% of the people would say that slavery was moral right, even a service to African-Americans. Is this moral? No. Should we be shutting out what the minority feels? No. I think that the minority should be able to have their say and should not be deemed immoral (even if they do not agree with me). The splitting up of a nation is not a viable option, as the minority is usually not located in a central location, and all nations oppose having a chunk of their nation split off from them.



I agree.

The laws of the government are not really towards moral taste. They are more based towards the protection of property and individuals.

And these are significantly different how, exactly?

Musician - The south beleived their slaves were property, and that they protected them.

After about two weeks a baby is a human being and should not be allowed to be murdered.