What legal things should be banned?
Interesting question that came in from an audience member (Steemians -- feel free to submit your own questions for the program) about what legal things should be made illegal. Payday lending and bail bonds came to my mind...plus some others. What are your thoughts?
I think alochal should be ban as it is ruining the future of youth and why so the nation.
They tried that already. Have You heard of prohibition? Crime shot up, quality of product reduced, and even some poisons were sold as "alcohol," sickening and killing People. It is a fool who would "ban" things that are not unEthical (behavior choices are the only things that can be unEthical - whether "under the influence" or not).
Exactly.
The thing about banning substances that inebriate you, is that it only serves to make it more desirable. @oodeyaa
How about we allow people to do what they want as long as they don't use force or coercion? It's called freedom. When you ban something, you are saying we will use violence to stop you from doing that thing. Bringing violence into a non-violent situation is never the answer.
I am a strong supporter of ditching the legal system and upholding the three Laws of Ethics (though called "laws," nothing in the legal system is a Law; everything is an act, statute, code, bill, mandate, ordinance, regulation, etc.). The legal system thwarts Ethics FAR more than serves them...
The legal system is far more damaging than 99% of the criminals they lock up.
Exactly, dajohns. You might be interested in watching the vid in My latest post... Would love Your thoughts.
Me personally, I would ban cigarettes @davidpakman
Why do You think Some would have authority to dictate what Others may or may not ingest? Smoking tobacco is not unEthical. That is a personal choice, a FREEDOM, We humans have a right to. To think that bullying People who smoke is acceptable is beyond Me.
enjoyment moment
Wonderful and thoughtful post @davidpakman, @oodeyaa, i share a bit in your opinion.
Walking around while high should also be banned.
You can't legally drive high, but harmlessly walking around while high isn't illegal.
Being high and causing a ruckus, though, might get you thrown in jail.
Public intoxication laws vary greatly among states, but in general they encompass both alcohol intoxication and being under the influence of substances, such as THC. However, most state intoxication laws don't kick in unless you “breach the peace” by harassing others or endangering yourself or others in a public place.
"harmlessly walking around while high" is a bad thing? Sounds pretty harmless to me. You know what isn't harmless? Increasing the amount of money I spend on taxes, because your dumb ass wants to throw every person that smokes a joint and goes for a hike in jail.
Choosing unEthical behavior, "under the influence" or not, is what is unLawful. I do not worry about People doing ANYTHING as long as it is not unEthical. Driving while drunk is unEthical as it could hurt the flesh of anOther. Walking around in ANY state is not unEthical. Choosing unEthically is.
People driving cars on public roads as soon as self driving cars are viable.
People driving themselves kills people, does huge amounts of property damage every year, is a huge waste of time, slows down traffic for all, makes cars more expensive and inefficient with the weight of safety systems, and makes the job of anyone building automated systems extremely hard.
We know that many people are terrible drivers, they drive distracted by gadgets, makeup, other people, music, food. They drive inebriated, tired, and angry. They treat a shared infrastructure as a private racetrack.
And for the rest of us who are careful, patient, considerate drivers - it's still a huge waste of our time and everyone makes mistakes.
Therefore I say as soon as self driving cars are viable we should ban humans driving cars from the roads just like we ban pedestrians, bikes and horse and cart carriages from freeways in the US.
Oh, good grief. You know that if You take the number of trips made safely in a car and compare the number of trips NOT made safely, the number not made safely is not only statistically insignificant, but insignificantly insignificant, right? But the propaganda makes You fearful - OMG! It just might happen! Yes, Let's strip FREEDOM to take risks because there is a remote possibility that the risk might pan out! Sad that the propaganda is working.
People using money to directly buy votes and influence in government. Private public collusion with government is one thing that drives libertarians nuts - it's the thing that they almost always cite for ruining their free markets and I'm inclined to agree with them. In fact I strongly agree with them.
Regulations should be supported by and for the people and regulations should be supported by hard empire data that they work and are beneficial for the purpose as claimed. Having them to funnel money into private interests who curry favour in Washington (or other local governments) should be illegal.
A corollary of this is that treating corporations as people to justify their influence in Washington should be made illegal once and for all with a constitutional amendment.
And since I'm on a tear here - all private meetings between government officials and the public, or between themselves should be public record. Only meetings dealing with national security should be allowed to be private (but still on the record for future release after a safe epoch). I seriously think our representatives should be wearing body cams!
You are aware that every "government" body is a corporation, owned by the investors (the psychopaths in control on Our planet) and that the ONLY requirement of a corporation is to make a profit for its investors? The legal system is there to protect the investors of these corporations (and other corporations as well). They create the ILLUSION that Their corporations are "Ours..."
They will not be passing "laws" that restrict Themselves except in minor things that help prop the illusion. They are NOT "Our" representatives, being officers of the corporations, and We do NOT "elect" Them. The corporation SElects Them with an illusion offered that We do.
I'm well aware of the nature of corporations in the current era. That's not how they started and it was use of money that coopted government to give them stronger zombie-human powers. But government and corporations are different things - and if we take the red pill we could actually vote in a new slate of representatives that would change everything in the time it takes to pass a constitutional amendment that would sidestep even the presence of corporate agents in SCOTUS.
Unfortunately too many libertarians are in love with the idea that
money == speechis a right so they won't vote for anyone that would fix this problem. This belief is the same one that got us in this mess in the first place.Our only route to freedom and government of, by and for the people, is to stop giving them our money and take what ill-gotten gains they have away from them, but we don't have that power anymore, save a bloody revolution, because the majority of the country is living hand to mouth and has no latitude to strike or quit their job or even buy moderately more expensive products from a less evil company. Furthermore they apparently have no stomach for actual civic protest like other countries do, and government simply ignores them because come next election our system gives them the same Tweedledum and Tweedledee candidates.
So yeah, we're fucked, bar a huge success of decentralization - if they don't find a way to outlaw that which could be they actual source of the next revolution - but I still think if the hypothetical question about what things should be made illegal is raised I stand by all my suggestions. But I'm not holding my breath waiting for it to happen because our country is full of anti-social short-sighted people brainwashed by opium for the masses, and Monday night football and pizza - the modern equivalent of bread and circuses that kept our ancestors entertained and off the streets when they should have been tearing down the house.
If We take the red pill, We would realize that Our voting is just creating the ILLUSION of choice, while the corporations that call themselves "governments" do the actual choosing, TELLING Us We voted in So-and-so.
The only route to freedom is to cease consenting to systems that promote psychopaths to power - as do ALL top-down controlmind setups. That power over Others draws Them FAR more than it draws the non-psychopaths.
I suggest You watch My vid on a better way to operate Human society - just be aware that You will have to overcome the indoctrination that one top-down system or another is the be-all and end-all of ways We can do that. See:
https://steemit.com/politics/@amaterasusolar/do-you-have-the-balls
How about We ditch the legal system. It thwarts Ethics FAR more than serves them. It is used by the psychopaths in control to manipulate Us, justify forcing Us (bullying Us), and to protect Themselves and Their investments. I advocate the three Laws of Ethics. I will be having posts soon on the three Laws, but cover them a bit in My most recent post, in the video I produced and included there.
I would ban banning and let each live according to his own conscience provided he does not harm another. No victim, no crime.
I fail to see why any of us should be forced to live according to the moral/ethical code of another.
Interest rates which are more than 25% over the base rate (as set by Gov't) per year.