What is one law (city, county, state, OR federal) that affects your lifestyle and that you believe is fundamentally unjust (this excludes outdated and unenforced laws). Defend.

6/5/2006 10:16:00 PM

The quartering of federal troops in my home during peacetime.

6/5/2006 10:17:48 PM

The tax on tea and playing cards.

6/5/2006 10:23:19 PM

Black people sitting at the front of the bus.

6/5/2006 10:25:24 PM

phone taxes

6/5/2006 10:28:12 PM

if i partied harder... the noise ordinance

but, i really don't party that hard, so...

6/5/2006 10:29:17 PM

oh, as a serious answer... that's easy

the criminalization of marijuana

6/5/2006 10:30:10 PM

speeding when you are the only one on the road.

6/5/2006 10:32:16 PM

The U.S. tax code.

6/5/2006 10:37:10 PM

my state (Washington) is set to make Online Gambling a "Class C Felony".

as of June 6th, anyone playing online poker in the state of Washington is at risk of being prosecuted on a felony charge.

how this might affect you in NC or elsewhere:

the WA legislature claims that the law was passed in order to make our state law correspond to existing federal law. now i dont know how this works, but apparently it means theres a federal law out there that can be interpreted as online gambling as a felony offense.

one of the main forces behind this law was the Director of teh State Gambling Commission. that is, a government employee who's job is to make the state Lottery profitable.

imagine that.

what sucks is, i've never been a gambler, and ive never played online poker. But it was a vice i'd been meaning to take up.

6/6/2006 12:10:04 AM

medicinal marijuana

importation of prescription drugs from canada

basically anything that negates the ability of the non affluent to afford the drugs they need to stay alive

6/6/2006 2:51:36 AM

if everyone got cheap drugs from canada, the pharmacutical companies would have less money to spend on the development of new, better drugs.

6/6/2006 2:54:34 AM

from what I understand, drug companies spend substantially more (five times?) what they do on research on advertising, but still try to substantiate their high prices on research

[Edited on June 6, 2006 at 3:00 AM. Reason : .]

6/6/2006 2:59:53 AM

^Hmmm...theoretically if they're advertising, then they're selling more...and the "high" price is due to research. Not sure about that though.

I think they're advertising to get their brand out there so that their specific drug will be requested and prescribed more than other brands of drugs that are prescribed for the same condition their drug is.

You also wanna get your name out there so that when the generic comes out, people will still prefer the original.

[Edited on June 6, 2006 at 3:26 AM. Reason : sss]

6/6/2006 3:24:59 AM

DEVELOPING LIFE-SAVING ITEMS MEANS YOU ARENT ALLOWED TO COMPETE IN THE MARKET. they've still got competitors and advertising isnt cheap. they do spend billions an assload on research though and have to deal with ppl suing them for the wrong reasons.

6/6/2006 8:50:28 AM

paying taxes to support people who don't work

6/6/2006 10:05:38 AM

seatbelt laws

6/6/2006 10:57:00 AM

^^ yeah, fuck our grandparents, what have they done for us lately

6/6/2006 11:07:27 AM

We seriously need to pass a law (or perhaps a constitutional amendment) which requires that all federal laws on the books be reviewed and voted on every 5 years. Any law that doesn't meet a re-vote is voided and has to go through the whole process all over again to be reinstated.

The way I see it, this has multiple bennefits.

1) It keeps laws fresh, and forces congress to rethink everything they pass.

2) It ties up the system to hopefuly prevent lousy legislation from getting made in the first place or continuing to exist.

3) It keeps congress busy focusing on what laws are important to maintain rather than the latest pork project they have in mind.

4) Puts most of the law's power back on to the states where it belongs.

Furthermore, I propose one more addition to this law. Any congresscritter who says, implys, or otherwise suggests that the reason they voted yes on any particular bill is that they didn't read it, is dismissed from their position, barred from ever running for federal positions and charged with defrauding the american public and treason.

\/ Hence the constitutional amendment part.

[Edited on June 6, 2006 at 11:31 AM. Reason : adsfadf]

6/6/2006 11:22:54 AM

yeah

they'll make that law

and then vote it out in 5 years

6/6/2006 11:28:57 AM

Wait, you mean like sunset clauses...? The ones built into most every piece of legislation passed...?
That'd be awesome

6/6/2006 12:03:17 PM

The problem with sunset clauses is no one pays attention to them and they're variable. This would be a specific procedure of congress much like passing a budget each year. Furthermore, unlike a sunset clause (which seems these days to only require a re-examination of the bill) my proposed idea should mean that any law which does not get voted on because it was forgotten or didn't have time would become void.

The purpose of this is not so much to change the fact that unjust laws are passed, but more to reduce the overall number of laws by the mere fact that it would be impossible for congress to revote every law all the time.

6/6/2006 12:37:23 PM

income tax

6/6/2006 12:39:10 PM

We should create an island for people who don't want to pay income taxes. You could do everything for yourself there.

6/6/2006 1:40:51 PM

Eminent domain abuse

6/6/2006 1:43:45 PM

^^ You mean like the "Free Trade Zones" spread all over Asia? THAT WOULD BE AWESOME!

[Edited on June 6, 2006 at 2:03 PM. Reason : ^]

6/6/2006 2:03:10 PM

Quote :

"We should create an island for people who don't want to pay income taxes."

tons and tons of people dont WANT to pay income taxes, regardless of if they know its theoretically a good way to build infrastructure, roads, etc

6/6/2006 2:07:36 PM

its the damn SS tax that pisses me off.

6/6/2006 2:30:13 PM

^

Quote :

"yeah, fuck our grandparents, what have they done for us lately"

6/6/2006 3:27:14 PM

it would be different if there was actually enough money in SS to pay back our grandparents

6/6/2006 3:29:48 PM

^bingo

6/6/2006 4:08:46 PM

I just remembered. We could move to Puerto Rico (sp), they don't pay federal income taxes!

Regretfully, the place is a welfare hell, no one will work, everyone would prefer to wait for a government position. Not to mention the rediculous regulations imposed by the local/federal agencies in charge of the place.

6/6/2006 4:31:23 PM

Quote :

"Not to mention the rediculous regulations imposed by the federal agencies in charge of the place."

that would be the U.S. wouldn't it?

6/6/2006 4:35:06 PM

Yep, just another good old U.S. protectorate.

Regretfully we havn't administered the place like Hong Kong, instead choosing to administer it like we did the tenements of detroit.

6/6/2006 4:38:57 PM

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: We should create an island for people who don't want to pay income taxes. You could do everything for yourself there."

We should create an island for people who don't want to pay incomes taxes...

 

6/6/2006 6:52:36 PM

6/6/2006 7:36:39 PM

Basically any law that restricts liberty in any way (either economically or socially) is unjust. The only just laws are ones which prevent infringement of rights from occuring.

6/6/2006 8:59:26 PM

^ every post by protostar seems to be him saying that he wants to have sex with children.

6/6/2006 11:53:21 PM

I'd rather live in a world in which minors can vote, drink, and consent to sex than this world where children are treated like property.

6/7/2006 12:26:42 AM

^^ what's worse? protostar having sex with children? ssjamind fucking his grandparents?

6/7/2006 1:10:16 AM

Where in my post did it seem like I was supporting pedophilia? I do believe that would be covered under this:

Quote :

"The only just laws are ones which prevent infringement of rights from occuring."

I guess everyone just missed that, or they were just trolling.

6/7/2006 9:41:20 AM

Have we fallen that far that when someone imparts their love for liberty and freedom, they are accused of supporting pedophilia? True believers realize that with freedom comes responsibility and accountability.

6/7/2006 10:24:22 AM

cohabitation in nc is illegal, which means i'm breaking the law right now.

6/7/2006 12:36:37 PM

You have to pay taxes on winning from gambling, but you can't write off gambling losses on your taxes.

6/7/2006 3:32:51 PM

pensions for politicians

they should save money in retirement accounts like the voters

6/7/2006 4:05:55 PM

1) Having to remain stopped at a red light when there is clearly no danger in proceeding through it from the unobstructed vantage point of the driver. This part should be easy to understand:

If you can see 50 yards of the cross street, THERE'S INARGUABLY NO FUCKING DANGER GIVING THE GOVERNMENT THE RIGHT TO PROTECT YOU FROM BY IMPOSING ON YOUR LIBERTY.

2) Also, 24/7 speed limits. They should be conditional based on the time of day in all areas. Few could argue that there is any good reason you shouldn't be allowed to drive at least 85mph on parts of I-40 at 3am. It's not complicated or expensive to implement, so I don't see why they shouldn't act on this one.

3) The given example about marijuana is obvious enough. I think even average pothead advocates do a fair enough job arguing the point when they stick to these two points:

a) Weed is no more or less responsible for the behavior of those intoxicated by it than alcohol, which is regulated but not illegal.

b) If the gun isn't responsible for the crime, and the government should hold murderer who used it illegally accountable for his own actions instead of a banning guns, shouldn't the same be true of pot smokers?

4) Any laws that are on the books but aren't enforced. If the executive branch refuses to enforce a law for a number of years and the constituents don't shout enough to convince the legislature and courts to apply pressure accordingly, the law ought to be null and void.

I'll take a 6-year turnaround time to account for the Senate seats; after that, an effectively unenforced law ought to sunset. Period

5) South Dakota's total ban on abortion. The "No Exception Ever No Matter What" argument is ultimately batty and usually parroted by a crowd that would pale in the face if approached with the tax consequences of a nationwide ban on abortion.

I welcome the criticism, but I probably won't look at TWW again for another month or three. Anticipate a delayed response.

---

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: This would be a specific procedure of congress much like passing a budget each year."

You mean like the one they and the executive mutually and blatantly ignored recently? Come on. While I agree fully that your idea has far more merit than it lacks, one small hole in it allows the whole thing to come apart:

If our agents in government decide to ignore the procedure set before them, they will find a way.

Do we need any more evidence for this than you can find in any newspaper?

I read a report today about 14 different European countries that were willfully violating international law by aiding the CIA in their secret detention and abduction of foreign citizens. The recourse? A headline, and a quick one at that. I doubt anything more.

The NSA's domestic spying program (I don't mind using a loaded term; everyone else does) is another crystal clear example of this in our own country. The Fourth amendment, and in a very real way liberty itself, bowed before our eyes under the weight of inflated insecurity without our even hearing a whisper. Again, I ask: the recourse? A headline, revived occasionally by a courtroom development. Little more to convince me that anything will change.

To a certain extent there's a real oversight issue at work. Simply put, the inmates are running the asylum and sadly, most of us know it but are apathetic. Why would the government ever elect to put itself out of business?

6/7/2006 10:33:15 PM

Quote :

"You mean like the one they and the executive mutually and blatantly ignored recently? Come on. While I agree fully that your idea has far more merit than it lacks, one small hole in it allows the whole thing to come apart: If our agents in government decide to ignore the procedure set before them, they will find a way."

Well, that's kind of why I said that any laws which do not get voted on become void. Sure they could ignore it but I highly doubt the congress critters who allow child molestation to become legal will be in office very long. And since the guilt of a crime is determined in court, it's a small check on the system because the court's don't make the laws.

Sure the details need to be fleshed out but I think we could bennefit greatly from a system like this.

[Edited on June 7, 2006 at 10:49 PM. Reason : sdfa]

6/7/2006 10:48:45 PM