If you could introduce a law...

[zane900 1]

Thought it may sound unconceivable, I would make waste illegal. Could you imagine how efficient humans would be if nothing was wasted? Hunger, pollution, and prices would all decrease. What laws would you introduce?

[simsmart 1]

Hmm...

Escalators are not to be used as a form of exersise,

Yelling dirty words to random people is illegal,

Walking slowely is a crime,

No spamming of the STEX,

No flying kites in no-fly zones, they will be shot down by fighter jets,

No complaining about the heat,

[Easy Bakes 253]

Term Limits

[hym 358]

Interesting topic.

If you want a theoretically doable law, I'd might go with something that would effectively nullify the DMCA.

If you're not concerned about practicality, I'd pass a law banning irresponsibility and stupidity.

[ruennsheng 0]

And most importantly, I will force car makers to make only electric cars, even Hummers too

[Duke87 1,070]

Oh boy, this won't end well.

Personally, as a Libertarian, there aren't really too many cases where I'd like to see a law passed, but rather a lot of cases whee I'd like to see a law repealed.

My concern is with things that are not legal that should be. I can't think of too many things that are legal that shouldn't be.

So let's go with that. Things that are illegal which should be legal:

- possession, sale, etc. of marijuana and other drugs

- smoking in public buildings

- use of profanity and explicit content on the radio and on TV

- drinking at the ages of 18, 19, and 20

- teen drivers doing whatever silly restrictions prohibit them from doing

- display of religious icons in public places

- etc.

That's what the rational, practical side of me says. The cynical, satirical side of me starts to say things like "anyone who says guns ought to be banned should be shot. Because there isn't enough cruel irony in this world".

Originally posted by: hym If you're not concerned about practicality, I'd pass a law banning irresponsibility and stupidity.quote>

Well, you can't legislate responsibility. As for the stupidity part, you can't ban it but you can do away with crazy warning labels and other measures which try to prevent people from hurting themselves and instead let intellectual darwinism run its course. You want do something stupid that can get yourself killed, I'm not going to stop you. Hell, I'll encourage you. If you're stupid enough to actually do it, you deserve whatever consequence comes from it. It's for the better of humanity.

[screamingman12 30]

Smoking in public buildings is actually legit, as you worsen the health of those around you.

As for me:

Repeal Prop 8
Ban corporate lobbying
Random reforms to the LA zoning code
Un-bias all media
Ban people from texting/using cell phones while driving
Fix emmissions standards
ban DRM
once and forall seperate curch and state
Modd the first ammendment to prohibit discrimination
other corporate governance crap
increase fuel economy standards
ban Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich. No, I'm not joking
other random crap to get people to ditch cars

It's ironic that you advocate shooting people who support gun control. As it renders your agument that less of it will increase public saftey as completely void. The murder rate just increase with "self defence" killings as it would if a guy came into someone's house and shot them.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: hym If you're not concerned about practicality, I'd pass a law banning irresponsibility and stupidity.quote>

Well, you can't legislate responsibility. As for the stupidity part, you can't ban it but you can do away with crazy warning labels and other measures which try to prevent people from hurting themselves and instead let intellectual darwinism run its course. You want do something stupid that can get yourself killed, I'm not going to stop you. Hell, I'll encourage you. If you're stupid enough to actually do it, you deserve whatever consequence comes from it. It's for the better of humanity.quote>

I know that such a law would never work in the real world, which is why I mentioned the practicality part.  I didn't see anything that said we couldn't take a little license with our ideas.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: screamingman12 Smoking in public buildings is actually legit, as you worsen the health of those around you. quote>

Perhaps, but the problem is that "public buildings" also includes private establishments such as restaurants and bars. By banning smoking, you attract customers who can't stand being around smoking, but at the same time you drive away customers who are smokers.

If the government wants to ban smoking in the town halls, police stations, courthouses, etc., they have every right to do that since it's their property. But when they tell a private owner that he can't allow it, then they're overstepping their bounds. I'd much prefer smoking in restaurants and bars and the like not be legally banned but rather left up to the owner whether or not to allow - both as a matter of personal preference and as a business decision.

Ban people from texting/using cell phones while driving quote>

This is already illegal in many states. I believe New York was one of the first. Connecticut soon followed suit. As did many other states.

...although, what's banned is the use of handheld cell phones. You can still be talking on your phone via a bluetooth (or wired) headset so long as you're not using any hands to do it and can keep both of them on the wheel.

Are you saying even that shouldn't be allowed? That seems a bit extreme to me. I support the ban of handheld phones but not an outright ban. Some people these days really need to be able to talk on the phone while they're driving as a matter of business. My father is a doctor. Sometimes, he's on call. That means someone needs to be able to reach him immidiately no matter where he is or what he's doing. Back in the day he had a beeper and if he was out and about would have to find a pay phone. But nowadays he uses his cell phone instead. If he's driving somewhere, he has to be able to answer it.

Now, he'll just break the law and hold the phone in his hand because he's like that (and you wonder where my attitude of "If I think the rule is stupid, I'm not going to follow it" comes from), but at least with the law as it is he would have the option of getting a bluetooth headset and being legit. If he wasn't allowed to talk on the phone while driving period, he basically wouldn't be able to drive anywhere (if he cared about obeying that law, anyway) - which wouldn't work, since then what happens if he gets called in to the hospital? He has to drive there. Now what happens if he gets paged while he's on his way there?

Fix emmissions standards quote>

You kinda gotta be more specific on this one. What, precisely, would you change?

once and forall seperate curch and state quote>

See above note. Be more specific.

Modd the first ammendment to prohibit discrimination quote>

....your use of the term "modd" here is disturbing. The constitudion doesn't get "modded", it gets amended. It's a legal docuent, not a piece of electronics or a video game.

Besides which, the constitution already has amendments banning discrimination based on race (15th) and based on gender (19th). You can't ban "discrimination" outright since there are reasonable things to discriminate over. An employer has every right to discriminate against people who are unqualified for a job in faovr of people who are more qualified, for instance.

An amendment banning discrimination based on sexual orientation would be nice but the fact of the matter is that public support necessary for such a thing simply doesn't exist at this point in time. 2/3rds of the states need to ratify an amendment for it to be added to the constitution. I dare you to find 34 states which will support such a thing. I can imagine maybe 10 doing it.

It's ironic that you advocate shooting people who support gun control. As it renders your agument that less of it will increase public saftey as completely void. The murder rate just increase with "self defence" killings as it would if a guy came into someone's house and shot them.quote>

I was being facetious.

[screamingman12 30]

Besides which, the constitution already has amendments banning discrimination based on race (15th) and based on gender (19th). You can't ban "discrimination" outright since there are reasonable things to discriminate over. An employer has every right to discriminate against people who are unqualified for a job in faovr of people who are more qualified, for instance. An amendment banning discrimination based on sexual orientation would be nice but the fact of the matter is that public support necessary for such a thing simply doesn't exist at this point in time. 2/3rds of the states need to ratify an amendment for it to be added to the constitution. I dare you to find 34 states which will support such a thing. I can imagine maybe 10 doing it.quote>

I was typing that at 10:30, and wanted to get it done faster, so I used "modd" instead of "ammend". I haven't read all of the ammendments, so I didn't know about those, yeah, banning discrimination based on sexual preference should be illegal, that's what I was thinking of.

You kinda gotta be more specific on this one. What, precisely, would you change?quote>

Raise fuel economy standards to about 40-45 MPG, and require evaporative controls (California does this, look up SULEV).

As for seperating church and state, basically stop politicans and lawyers from saying "America is a Christian nation, so we should/should not do this", stop discrimination against athieists, ect.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: screamingman12

I was typing that at 10:30, and wanted to get it done faster, so I used "modd" instead of "ammend". I haven't read all of the ammendments, so I didn't know about those, yeah, banning discrimination based on sexual preference should be illegal, that's what I was thinking of. quote>

...you didn't know about the 19th amendment being women's suffrage or the 15th banning race from being a qualification to vote?

That's some pretty basic American history right there. Either your school curriculum was abysmal or you really weren't paying attention.

Raise fuel economy standards to about 40-45 MPG, quote>

Effectively require every car to be a hybrid and effectively ban SUVs, minivans, and pickup trucks, in other words. Yeah, that'll work real well.

My take on the matter is this: the government shouldn't set emission standards. Instead, there should be a sort of "inefficiency tax" on the purchase of new cars with lower MPG values. $1,000 for every MPG highway below 30.

At the same time, introduce a variable tax on gasoline. Set the price of a gallon of 87 octane at $4.00, 89 at $4.10, and 93 at $4.20. However far below that the market price goes, the difference is made up in tax. If the market price goes above that, then the tax reverses into a subsidy.

Point being, if you want to drive around your Lamborghini that gets 10 miles per gallon, go ahead. But you're gonna pay for it.

Using taxes to encourage or discourage things is a much more civilized thing to do than simply requiring or banning them, if you ask me.

In fact, ideally I'd say all tax revenue would come from such "sin taxes" and tariffs. Abolish income tax.

and require evaporative controls (California does this, look up SULEV).quote>

Again, when you use words like "require", I start to disapprove. Encourage, sure. Require, No.

As for seperating church and state, basically stop politicans and lawyers from saying "America is a Christian nation, so we should/should not do this",quote>

That would violate freedom of speech.

stop discrimination against athieistsquote>

Works for me.

[screamingman12 30]

I did pay attention, but I learned that in 7th grade, and those don't happen to be on the list that I can describe off the top of my head.
In the American Hist. class that I'm in now, we don't hit on ammendments very much (AP) we analyze stuff, also we are only in the 1840s, so that hasn't happened yet, and I wasn't takling about voting, I was talking about banning people from, well, discrimination. As in "you can't work here because your X" or "all people of X race/gender are stupid". Basically criminalizing (abet minimally) what Don Imus did.

high fuel economy doesn't mean no SUVs. When I went to Italy last summer, yes the majority of the cars were small, but there was the occasional SUV, minivan, and Hummer.
Plus, Europe is home to many of the world's most prestigious sportscar manufacturers, and you don't see them being put out of buisness due to fuel economy.
But glad you support gas taxes, your one of the few people I know who do...

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: screamingman12  I wasn't takling about voting, I was talking about banning people from, well, discrimination. As in "you can't work here because your X" or "all people of X race/gender are stupid". Basically criminalizing (abet minimally) what Don Imus did. quote>

Okay, there's a distinction that needs to be made here. Don Imus didn't deny anyone anything based on their race/gender/etc. All he did was make an off color remark. That's not discrimination, it's hate speech. They're two different things.

For one thing, while there are laws on the books banning discrimination, hate speech is, generally speaking, less clear cut. A lot of people say it's a legal gray area. Some people say it should be banned. Some people, like me, believe that freedom of speech is absolute and that includes the freedom to say hateful things.

The first amendment just says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.quote>

It bluntly states there is to be no abridging of freedom of speech. It does not mention any exceptions. I'd take that to mean "no exceptions". Never, in any situation, can having certain words come out of your mouth be illegal.

That isn't quite the case these days. The fact that there are rules about what you can and can't say on the air is the prime example of this. Flies directly in the face of the first amendment. But who the hell listens to the constitution, anyway?

high fuel economy doesn't mean no SUVs. When I went to Italy last summer, yes the majority of the cars were small, but there was the occasional SUV, minivan, and Hummer. quote>

And I guarantee you they don't get 40 MPG. Under your proposal those would be illegal.

But glad you support gas taxes, your one of the few people I know who do...quote>

Somebody agrees with me. There's something you don't see every day.

[Hahayoudied 3]

Here is one of my...

Ban faulty products, ripping off customers, and causing pain in the customers' rear from products (such as Spores).

[hamsterTK 93]

I'm like Duke here. As a liberal type I would relax a lot of laws related to censorship, alcohol, etc.

For more important, concrete matters...frankly I can't say. Since I don't have any expert knowledge on many subjects I don't know if I can propose anything. I don't really have any ideological convictions of whether or not government regulation of things like business is always bad or always good.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: hamsterTK I'm like Duke here. As a liberal type (...)quote>

You're not like me, then. I'm no Liberal, I'm a Libertarian.

Yes, they have a few letters in common, but they're not the same thing.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Canadian viewpoint:

Enact a statute to phase out the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs over a period of, say, 10 years.  There should be a schedule such that, by the end of the ten-year period, all so-called treaties with "first nations" are canceled and nullified. 

This is a hard one, so how we would do this is a good question.  Many of our aboriginal are living in conditions that make third world countries seem like paradise.  After all these years of shoveling paternalism and money at this problem, it is time to make this people into regular citizens.  Time to root, hog, or die.

[Red1530 1]

Here are the laws I wo

• Allow collage students with conceald weapons permits to bring firearm on campus
• Light pollution control
• Net nutrality
• Overturn the Kelo v. New Haven decision.
• Only have civil unions in the law.
• Allow states to set their own drinking age and seatbelt laws.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Red1530

Allow states to set their own drinking age and seatbelt laws.quote>

What exactly do you mean by this?  I ask because states can already set their own drinking age laws.  They just choose not to because the federal government effectively bribed them to follow the federal standard of 21 years old.

I don't know about the seat belt laws, but I think it's a similar story there also, though I admit I could be wrong on that one.

[hamsterTK 93]

We could use an entire thread on eminent domain to tell you the truth, but anyways here's my attitude on the Kelo vs. New London thing.

Say a city wants to build a parking structure downtown, and has to use eminent domain to demolish a tiny and long-vacant rent house owned by an entire family from out-of-state who inherited it from the landlord who is now deceased. These people do not even get along with one another, and refuse to do anything and after plenty of due diligence and legal offers to buy the land at way over the market value, the city has exhausted all of their options.

So they use eminent domain to take the land because the "owners" have zero investment in it, refuse to respond to sales offers, and are not even locals, because the public need greatly outweighs them. But what happens if now the city wants to contract the operations of the garage to another company, or what if it wants to put in ground-floor retail spaces, which is good urban design? Suddenly this building becomes commercial, and had the court ruled in Kelo's favor, this would be illegal. Ironic isn't it, more layers of bureacracy piled on by a law like that?

I generally am against eminent domain but sometimes I think that a option of last resort should exist.

Also what I really hate are slumlords who moan over property rights whenever a city tries to something about blight. Personally I think the best solution for this is a can of gas and some matches, but since arson is a felony this is the next best option.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Red1530

Allow collage students with conceald weapons permits to bring firearm on campus quote>

Collage students? Students made up of an array of various things? I think you mean college students.

I agree with you, though.

Only have civil unions in the law. quote>

Do you mean the government giving "civil unions" to both gay and straight couples, leaving the word "marriage" in the hands of religious institutions?

Huh. And here I thought I was pretty much the only person on the planet with that idea. Good going!

Anyways, my take on eminent domain is as follows:

It's a necessary evil. The government needs to have that power, but there also need to be restrictions on it. As it is, there are already reasonable restrictions: the owner must be paid fair price for the property and must be given a certain period of advance notice before they have to move out.

But the one key restriction I would add would be that it only be permissible for the purpose of building a public or civic facility. The government can knock houses down to build a school. It can knock huge lines of houses down to build a highway. It can forcibly buy people out to build a police station, fire house, government offices, etc.

The government may not, however, use eminent domain to seize land and then hand it over to a private developer or owner, just because it's "prime real estate" and it's better for the city's image to put something nice there rather then the run-down slummy stuff that's current there. That is blatant abuse of eminent domain. It's not buying people out for public benefit, it's forced and governement-sponsored gentrification. Kick out the poor for no good reason other than so that the rich can move in. That's a huge no-no.

...of course, when gentrification occurs naturally by purely private means, it's a different story. Neighborhoods naturally change over time and it's foolish to try and prevent them from doing so. It's okay when it occurs naturally. The point is not that gentrification is an evil thing (as some people seem to make it out as), there are both pros and cons to it. The point is that the government has no business trying to either prevent or encourage it. It keeps its damn hands off. (Libertarian perspective again )

[Ratieya455 1]

It would be illegal to build any normal building with less than 30% of the windows operable. I am bitter that my school's new architecture building does not have a single one, so it relies completely on mechanical systems for all ventilation.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Update the International Law of the Sea to classify pirates as terrorists.

[Odainsaker 2,137]

Like the one wish being for more wishes, Our first Enabling Act under the National State of Emergency would establish that "l'état, c'est moi."  All the other ideal laws and happy proscriptions will then flow afterwards, and we will have peace.

Hunger...illegal

Poverty...illegal

Corruption...illegal

Disobediance...err, well, you get the idea.

Muhuhahahahahahaha.

[jammy 0]

---All cars should have to get the highest safety bracket possible (eg European National Car Assessment Programme highest rating is 5 *****)

---Cigarettes would be an illegal drug

---Drinking age in UK brought down to 16

---Inefficent cars will be eventually phased out... Hybrids are fine

---minimum wage in UK brought up to

[Psycho_Teddy 25]

- Minimum fuel efficiency for all privately-owned vehicles be restricted to no less than 40 MPG. For commercially-owned vehicles, excluding Semi-trucks and heavy equipment, 20 MPG.

- Ban on Universal Default Interest rates for credit cards and loans, Caps on recurring penalty fees (can't charge overdraft fees per day/week, only monthly), 25% APR cap

- Universal Healthcare coverage for all, free of cost.

- Ban discussion of religious beliefs during political campaigns, on grounds of separation of church and state.

- Union representatives must be local, no regional representatives, nothing gets done that way. One rep per one store.

- Ban on right-to-strike waivers, except in public safety and health care fields.

- Large tax incentives given to the company who makes a viable, permanent solution to the energy crisis. Tax holiday for the company for one year? Advantageous competition.

- Government bailouts will be explicitly outlined, stating exactly where the money is going, who it's going to, and why.

[Geronimo 4]

Originally posted by: jammy 

(...)

---minimum wage in UK brought up to £8.00 per hour from only £5.73 (its £12.50 in Norway)

---and finnaly Chavs should be made illegal (people outside the UK might not know what they are) search google.

---quote>

 

Just to sort out, there is no such thing as minimum wage in Norway. 

If you`re not member of a labor union theres no regulations to your wage. It could be as low as 45 NKR/ 4.95 EUR/ 6.25 USD per hour. 

And chavs should be banned!

[LivingInThePast 364]

Make me dictator of the United States and we'll go from there!

[astronelson 339]

All laws for the USA:

Make voting compulsory for everyone 18+, dump the electoral college, and start preferential voting.

Note these are the laws that are in effect in Australia, and we don't seem to be doing too bad.

Set up a national health service. [Russian Accent] In socialized medicine, doctors treat you! [/Russian Accent] However, keep the HMOs. That way, if you can't afford HMOs, you can go to the public hospital. We may see an increase in health there. Also sort of Australian.

Federal government funding of education: Not less than half that of defence. You seriously need it (does the US federal government even fund education?)

Finally, make the US part of Australia.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: hamsterTK  As a liberal type I would relax a lot of laws related to censorship ...

quote>

Oh, liberals do believe in censorship, they would just censor different things than conservatives would, that's all (clear from other posts here).

---

Originally posted by: screamingman12

As for seperating church and state, basically stop politicans and lawyers from saying "America is a Christian nation, so we should/should not do this", stop discrimination against athieists, ect.quote>

But, it is. To wit:

" It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not to be religionist but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ." -Patrick Henry

and of course, that liberal stalwart, Justice Earl Warren:

"I believe no one can read the history of our country without realizing that the Good Book and the spirit of the Savior have from the beginning been our guiding geniuses ... Whether we look to the first Charter of Virginia ... or to the Charter of New England ... or to the Charter of Massachusetts Bay ... or to the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut ... the same objective is present ... a Christian land governed by Christian principles. I believe the entire Bill of Rights came into being because of the knowledge our forefathers had of the Bible and their belief in it: freedom of belief, of expression, of assembly, of petition, the dignity of the individual, the sanctity of the home, equal justice under law, and the reservation of powers to the people ... I like to believe we are living today in the spirit of the Christian religion. I like also to believe that as long as we do so, no great harm can come to our country."

So, you would outlaw history? Or just your perception of it? The phrase "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the Constitution. Anywhere. Not once.

---

It's astounding how many here would simply force their views on others without any thought of the liberties of others, or the economic and social consequences of their ideas. I had no idea there were so many would-be Stalins mucking about on ST.

As hym said, is this thread about reality, or simply fantasy?