|
|
#11
12-13-2005, 05:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Stupid Laws
[ QUOTE ]
#3 laws are for protecting people from other people -- and I like them very much. I want it to be illegal for YOU to get drunk & drive & significantly increase the risk that you will kill me & my family. I want it to be illegal for you to bring a loaded gun on a plane, where who knows what you might do with it [/ QUOTE ] Ok, fair point, I may well have overstated the objection to type 3 laws in my initial rant. I think the judge here is utility. There is no valid utilty in attaching a rocket launcher to your truck, even though someone could potentially do so and never cause any detriment to society. I have no problem with that being illegal because there's both a lack of valid utility and a potential for harm. Both of those things apply to drunk driving and carrying guns on planes also. But there are a whole host of laws for which there is valid utility, just the potential for harm bit. Gun ownership is one of these, and though I hate guns and would never own one, murder is already illegal and guns have a valid utility, thats enough. I can use my hands to beat the crap out of someone, or at least I could if I wasn't a wuss - are they going to introduce a law which dictates I have to wear oversized novelty wool mittens when leaving the house? 
|
|
#12
12-13-2005, 06:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Stupid Laws
[ QUOTE ]
#3 laws are for protecting people from other people -- and I like them very much. I want it to be illegal for YOU to get drunk & drive & significantly increase the risk that you will kill me & my family. I want it to be illegal for you to bring a loaded gun on a plane, where who knows what you might do with it. [/ QUOTE ] Why should you get to decide who can bring a gun on a plane? Shouldn't the owner of the plane be able to make that decision? Ditto for roads - the owner of the road should set the rules for their use. I just don't believe that the government should be in the road-owning business. Personally, I'd feel safer if you were never allowed out of your house, because geez, who knows what you might do if you got out. You could beat someone up, or run over somebody with your dangerous automobile.
|
|
#13
12-13-2005, 06:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Stupid Laws
[ QUOTE ]
2. Laws to protect people from themselves. Seat belts, drugs etc [/ QUOTE ] These laws are almost always an tit-for-tat between the US government and large corporations.
|
|
#14
12-13-2005, 06:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Stupid Laws
I believe that where I live in New Jersey, not wearing a seatbelt is a secondary offense so u can't be pulled over for it. but i have problems with saying anything anit-Nader so I'm going to plead the fifth...
|
|
#15
12-13-2005, 08:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Stupid Laws
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] #3 laws are for protecting people from other people -- and I like them very much. I want it to be illegal for YOU to get drunk & drive & significantly increase the risk that you will kill me & my family. I want it to be illegal for you to bring a loaded gun on a plane, where who knows what you might do with it. [/ QUOTE ] Why should you get to decide who can bring a gun on a plane? Shouldn't the owner of the plane be able to make that decision? [/ QUOTE ] Actually, society gets to make that decision. Just like society makes the decision that you can't own a nuclear weapon, on a smaller scale, they decide that you can't bring a gun onto an airplane. There is a significant risk with you bringing a gun onto a plane, as well as drinking & driving. Significant enough so that the case can (and has) been made that the utility you get by doing those things does not outweigh the utility everyone else gets by prohibiting you from doing them.
|
|
#18
12-13-2005, 09:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Stupid Laws
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Actually, society gets to make that decision. [/ QUOTE ] I am confused as to how it is possible for 'society' to make a decision. Please enlighten me. [/ QUOTE ] By metonymy. [/ QUOTE ] I'd say metaphor rather than metonymy. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#19
12-13-2005, 10:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Stupid Laws
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Actually, society gets to make that decision. [/ QUOTE ] I am confused as to how it is possible for 'society' to make a decision. Please enlighten me. [/ QUOTE ] By metonymy. [/ QUOTE ] I'd say metaphor rather than metonymy. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] I thought perhaps personification? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
|
|
#20
12-13-2005, 11:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Stupid Laws
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, society gets to make that decision. Just like society makes the decision that you can't own a nuclear weapon, on a smaller scale, they decide that you can't bring a gun onto an airplane. [/ QUOTE ] Why does "society" care what happens on private property? Even if "society" does care, what gives "society" a right to dictate what happens on private property? Do you see any difference between a nuclear weapon and a gun? It's not just a matter of scale. Firearms can be pinpointed to direct force at individual aggressors. Nuclear weapons cannot. [ QUOTE ] There is a significant risk with you bringing a gun onto a plane, as well as drinking & driving. Significant enough so that the case can (and has) been made that the utility you get by doing those things does not outweigh the utility everyone else gets by prohibiting you from doing them. [/ QUOTE ] Utility? My neighbor has a car in his garage that he never drives. He doesn't even like it. I would drive it every day. Therefore, it must be right and justifiable for me to take the car from him. A big gang of thugs finds pleasure in lynching redheads. A LOT of pleasure. In fact, they get the most pleasure when they do so to really old redheads, and when they do so in a painless manner. It's so much pleasure for such a large group, they surely get more utility out of the lynchings than the redhead loses.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
