Spinoff: We have way too many laws

[Emmitto]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Like with software, it is usually less time consuming & costly to modify or build on existing law rather than rewriting it entirely. The problem with that is it becomes clunky and unwieldy and creates a need for head-scratching debugging down the road.

I knew my spreadsheet story would change hearts and souls. Magical.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by Emmitto

I knew my spreadsheet story would change hearts and souls. Magical.

How does it feel? Sharing an apt metaphor, that is.

[Emmitto]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

How does it feel? Sharing an apt metaphor, that is.

Life affirming!

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Anarchy has been tried more than a few times in human history. Hasn't worked very well.

Neither has government.

History has shown us that when formal, agreed upon structures of society largely break down, people can revert back to savagery pretty fast.

You mean, kind of like WW1 and WW2?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Perhaps I have too dim a view of humankind.

If you have a dim view of humankind, how does government magically solve that?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Neither has government.

Hasn't been perfect, but often much better than anarchy

You mean, kind of like WW1 and WW2?

Good examples of government run amok.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

If you have a dim view of humankind, how does government magically solve that?

Doesn't. Government is a human construct. One reason it was invented because we found anarchy was worse.

[wgbgator]

Actually, I think gov't was a solution to the tyranny of kinship societies more than it was to anarchy.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Doesn't. Government is a human construct. One reason it was invented because we found anarchy was worse.

Government wasn't invented by people because anarchy was worse. This is a myth. The reality is, government was invented by psychopaths as a way to more efficiently lord over and exploit non-psychopaths.

You see, under anarchy, psychopaths were the enemy and they were easy to identify and resist. But under government, they are our saviors, and they use government as a legal shield while they lord over and exploit non-psychopaths. The psychopaths have tricked people like you into thinking the government (Mafia) exists for your own benefit, while in reality, they use government for the sole purpose of enriching themselves at your expense.

Just look at what goes on in Washington for all the evidence you need.

[JerseyGator01]

I work for a Meals on Wheels program that gets some money from my state and county for feeding poor clients. On a regular basis, we have county regulations that say just the opposite of state regulations regarding food temperature. County says food isn't hot enough. State says it's fine. These people work in the same town. You would think one might dare talk to the other.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Government wasn't invented by people because anarchy was worse. This is a myth.

Sorry, but you have to go on ignore. Your posts are just not worth reading.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Sorry, but you have to go on ignore. Your posts are just not worth reading.

I've always gotten a kick out of it when people announce to you that they are putting you on ignore. If you're going to ignore someone, just do it. You don't need to make a public proclamation that you're taking your ball and going home.

[jdrgator]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Here is a good web site that discusses the impact laws have and can have our our lives.

Agitator

Good find. Absolutely, part of the problem is too many laws. But equally important (at the fed level at least) is the convoluted nature of federal laws, particularly criminal law and federal sentencing guidelines, which are so byzantine as to be criminal itself.

[JohnC1908]

Originally Posted by jdrgator

Good find. Absolutely, part of the problem is too many laws. But equally important (at the fed level at least) is the convoluted nature of federal laws, particularly criminal law and federal sentencing guidelines, which are so byzantine as to be criminal itself.

Dang JDR, how'd you find this thread from two months ago?

[jdrgator]

Originally Posted by JohnC1908

Dang JDR, how'd you find this thread from two months ago?

Actually, it was listed at the bottom of the firearms thread, alerting us to similar threads. I clicked on it because it looked interesting (and I had been away from posting on TH for a few months when the thread was created).

[kygator]

Originally Posted by JerseyGator01

I work for a Meals on Wheels program that gets some money from my state and county for feeding poor clients. On a regular basis, we have county regulations that say just the opposite of state regulations regarding food temperature. County says food isn't hot enough. State says it's fine. These people work in the same town. You would think one might dare talk to the other.

Technically they aren't saying the opposite of each other. One is just more strict than the other. If the state said the food exceeded maximum allowable temperatures and the county said it was under minimum allowable temperatures, then you are in a position where you can't comply with the laws. However, I completely agree with your main point. Either the temperature is fine or it isn't. One set of rules should be sufficient.

Getting back to the OP, we of course have way too many laws. We also elect people based on their promises of new laws and regulations. We also say with a straight face that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" even though there isn't a single person in this country that knows all of the laws, or probably even 1% of the laws.

[jdrgator]

Originally Posted by kygator

Technically they aren't saying the opposite of each other. One is just more strict than the other. If the state said the food exceeded maximum allowable temperatures and the county said it was under minimum allowable temperatures, then you are in a position where you can't comply with the laws. However, I completely agree with your main point. Either the temperature is fine or it isn't. One set of rules should be sufficient.

Getting back to the OP, we of course have way too many laws. We also elect people based on their promises of new laws and regulations. We also say with a straight face that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" even though there isn't a single person in this country that knows all of the laws, or probably even 1% of the laws.

Part of the reason we have too many laws is because there is no efficient mechanism besides inefficient legislative repeal and/or court challenges in which to eliminate laws.