Wow, last week there was a huge range of hobbies and interesting things that keep people relaxed and ticking over! Lot's of interesting and usual things, in addition to the more normal ones of exercise, reading and gaming!
This week, I'm writing this post a couple of hours early. The usual problem of a non-sleeping toddler combined with a sick wife means that I probably won't have time later when the post actually clears payout.
This week, I've been thinking about rules and laws. Mostly because I collected a hefty fine for running a red light by accident (I was tired and was looking at the wrong lights...). I know full well that I can't really appeal it, as I DID run the red light, and that is the problem, and not that I was tired and stupidly went through. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the law doesn't allow stupidity and tiredness as a valid defense.
So, this got me thinking about laws and rules in general. Do people see them more as guidelines or something that is concrete? So, on the road, a good chunk of the population see the road rules (laws) as guidelines, breaking the speed limits and various other rules with regularity. Other things, like murder are more concrete, it's generally not okay to kill other people.
Obviously, when we are on the receiving end of the law (like I just was), there is all sorts of reasons why the law is unjust and so forth. However, when you are protected from harm by the law, then it is the most incredible instrument of justice in the world. Obviously, there can be a range of good and bad laws, and there is a wide range of interpreting the laws (that's why we have judges and lawyers...) and so there is a vast middle ground of cases where the laws are at best unclear and need to be tested.
My question
Do you think, in general, that rules/laws should be concrete or treated more as guidelines?
(optional) Can you think of a rule/law that should be abolished (gotten rid of) or created?
My sample answer
I personally think that laws should be treated (in general) as concrete. Generally, there are there for a greater good reason, and if that means occasionally holding back a few then that is okay with me. On the other hand, that is not to say that there aren't bad laws/rules but in that case, the constant misapplication of the laws should lead to public outcry for change. Also, the concrete enforcement of the law doesn't rule out a leniency in the application of the punishment for breaking the law either.
Personally, I think people who push in front of lines should be fined, pilloried or jailed, or people who use their phones or are really loud in the silent carriages of trains/public transport or people who try to board the plane when it isn't their turn, but I guess that these rules would be impossible or difficult to enforce!
Keep in mind that I'm thinking about this from the perspective of someone who has lived in a Western democracy (Netherlands and Australia) for my whole life, so this is my experience of laws/rules. I understand fully that other people's experiences will depend on their own personal background...
Rules
- Upvote if you want, it increases the payout and then I can hopefully sponsor more people.
- Resteem is NOT neccessary, but the more people see this, the more the people will be likely to be sponsored.
- In the comments, tell me your thoughts about rules/laws.
- I have added a small Steem-Bounty to the post, so that everyone who replies with a valid entry will get something back. If I give your post a small upvote, it is valid (also, subscribe to @dustsweeper for maximum benefit!).
- I will be sponsoring as many people as this post pays out in liquid SBD/STEEM. Also I will kick in at least the required amount to round up to the full number. Winner is by random generator after a shortlisting of quality comments!
Steem Basic Income
One of the first communities that I came in contact with at the beginning of my time at Steemit was @steembasicincome. As a beginning author, Steemit can be a daunting place. It feels like you are posting into an abyss with no ability to grow. Steem Basic Income gives you a guaranteed vote on one post a day, thus giving you a small but cumulative over time support to your account.
With this post, I want to help sponsor people who might not even have the spare 1 STEEM that is required for registration. So, when this post pays out, I will sponsor people depending on the payout of this post. Basically, I will round up the SBD payout from this post and then that will be the number of people I will sponsor. (So, if the payout is 2.3 SBD, I will sponsor 3 people).
Last week's winners
Last week paid out (I don't know exactly yet, but it is close to 2 shares), so I will make it 3 shares. I will send the SBI shares when the post from last week clears.
Congratulations to:
Upgoats by ryivhnn
Account banner by jimramones
The classical music community at #classical-music and Discord. Follow our community accounts @classical-music and @classical-radio. Community Logo by ivan.atman
Join us @steemitbloggers
Animation By @zord189
Posted from my blog with SteemPress : http://www.gamerjokerbreadder.com/2018/07/31/steemit-basic-income-giveaway-rules-and-laws/
A couple of years ago I was speeding down the M7 from Dublin to Tipperary(it is a long way actually! ). I heard the siren. I started thinking of excuses ... wife in labour , late for work , something. So when I opened the window I was about to blurt out my excuse but the cop got there before me . “Trouble taking off ? Wing commander!.” All my excuses went from my head and I just started laughing. He issued me a summons and I paid my dues. I told that story many times and it is well worth the 80 quid from the mileage I got out of that one . Anyway this leads me to my answer . I think without law , the world would descend into anarchy! Watch the film “The purge”. I know it’s fiction but it wouldn’t be far off the mark! But every law has exceptions and as @bengy said , that’s why we have lawyers and judges. But law is complicated ! Very complicated. When it comes to abortion laws there has to be a bit of give and take. Drawing a line in the sand just won’t cut it and you need some educated people to make an informed decision .
There is a law in Britain that a policeman has to offer his helmet if you have to make an emergency number 2 💩💩. I reckon this law could be abolished 😂😂.
Ahahaahahaha! That story really was worth the fine! I wonder if anyone has really tried to test out the helmet law... could have interesting results!
Or perhaps expanded to them being required to don helmet again post poop 😁
The winners and the next SBI Giveaway (Superpowers) is here:
https://steemit.com/steembasicincome/@bengy/steemitbasicincomegiveawaysuperpower-kk3c7w2ju9
I always viewed laws as black and white, but saw “rules and regulations” as more nuanced. I guess in the United States I would say laws are things where you get charged with a felony if you violate them, while rule and regulation infractions only result in a misdemeanor or a fine.
Having established that, I do believe that rules should be treated more as guidelines. I have always viewed them as a sort of mechanism to police intentionally bad behavior. A good example being speeding while driving, which is generally not enforced when everyone is speeding. It’s only when that one person starts going way faster than everyone else that he gets pulled over.
I think they are guidelines in that they set expected behavior, and provide a means to punish someone who goes way over the line. To use your cell phone example: I have been in doctors offices and other places that have signs that say “no cell phone use”, and yet I have often quietly gone ahead and used my phone anyway. No one has ever said a word to me, because I am courteous and I remain aware of my surrounds and responsive when I’m called to the desk or when the queue moves forward. But if someone else were on their phone and they were being particularly loud or rude or simply oblivious to the world around them, the rule provides a mechanism to punish this person.
Bottom line: rules are not necessarily made to be broken, but they are made to be respected in the sense of the “spirit of the law” if not the letter.
It is a good example you give with the mobile phone (and I agree in part). However, couldn't someone who was loud and discourteous who was pulled aside for the rule-breaking have a cause for pointing at you and saying why wasn't he breaking the rule? Which could lead to a slightly more nuanced contrast, when have you stepped over the guideline? Where that line is, will depend on the person who is going to say something.
I park my car outside my garage, which is technically illegal, but none of my neighbours have a problem with it, as everyone does it (or the verges). However, last Christmas, someone did have a problem with it, and the entire neighbourhood got fined after they called police! So, in this case, the rule is enforced by the squeakiest wheel!
... also, about the speed limits. I live on a small road with a limit of 30kph, for good reason, there are limited sight lines and lots of kids and schools. However, there are many people who treat it as a "guide" and choose to race through at speeds that are much much faster! In this case, I would wish that the limit was more strictly enforced, as it is too late to be enforced after an accident...
...but it is good that you point out the difference between rule and law. I hadn't thought about that when I posted the question, I was just using the two words as synonyms.
Interesting examples, I can definitely appreciate them all!
You are correct, in the first example he most certainly point to me. In that scenario I would expect (and would comply with) the business asking everyone to put away their phones. This kind of hypothetical situation reminds me of the phrases “you’re ruining it for the rest of us!” and “this is why we can’t have nice things!” 😂
Definitely, give an inch....
Although, that is why we (as a society) constantly test the boundaries and interpretations of laws in court....
The winners and the next SBI Giveaway (Superpowers) is here:
https://steemit.com/steembasicincome/@bengy/steemitbasicincomegiveawaysuperpower-kk3c7w2ju9
Laws. Well,...
Laws.
I absolute think there are laws that shouldn't be. And laws that should be. I think it should be illegal for a society to force people into homelessness. It's hard to enforce something like that, because you're making a law for the government to enforce on itself.
I was just reading an article in the Los Angeles Times about people getting evicted from their homes because a group of investors had bought the building and was raising the rents. The people living in this building did not have the money available to them to let them move to a new place, so many of them were facing homelessness. And I feel just helpless in the face of knowing this happens. I often imagine what I could do to solve these problems if I had, say, Jeff Bezos' wealth. Snap your fingers, build a giant apartment building, and offer free apartments to people who are displaced all over the city... which would probably put some much needed downward pressure on rents all over this city.
But I don't have his money, and there's no financial incentive for him to do that, and he didn't get his money by being charitable in the extreme, you know? We cannot expect billionaires to solve the problems created by the economics that made them billionaires.
And so, we turn to laws. I digress?
Are laws guidelines? Not generally. Should they be? No, not if they are just laws. But so many of them aren't just laws and are applied irregularly. People of color are more likely to receive harsh sentences for the same crime than white folks. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/16/black-men-sentenced-to-more-time-for-committing-the-exact-same-crime-as-a-white-person-study-finds/?noredirect=on)
I... it's a big topic. There are my 3 cents worth.
LOL, 3 cents! that's more than most people's 2!
...but on a more serious note. You can do that in America? Evict people without finding them housing? In the Netherlands, if something similar happened (or if someone bought a house that already had tenants), the tenants have the right to stay, or be relocated to a similar housing (I think that this bit would have to be negotiated).
Yep, and it happens all the time. It should absolutely be illegal.
I just also digested the last bit (I got stuck on the first part of your answer). Yes, the problem of unequal application of laws is also a big problem. I was also thinking of the proportional penalties. For instance, a particular fine (lets say 100 euro), is nothing to one person and a disaster to another. On the other hand, making it a percentage of income would introduce it's own perverse incentives....
Exactly! To musk, a parking ticket isn't a deterrent. To someone else, it's the beginning of the path to homelessness. We have to solve our world's income inequality before we can even begin to figure out how much a parking ticket should be. maybe a judge should decide, but bias is a whole nother ball of wax
Posted using Partiko Android
The winners and the next SBI Giveaway (Superpowers) is here:
https://steemit.com/steembasicincome/@bengy/steemitbasicincomegiveawaysuperpower-kk3c7w2ju9
Thanks! What a great regular contest! We should still chat about parenthood sometime. He had a rough napping day today, and finished the day with tiny little laugh/cry/cough sounds like a metronome. Very silly.
This discussion sort of reminds me of the debate whether the Constitution of the United States should be interpreted literally or broadly.
The law I think should be modified is the classification of cannabis as a schedule 1 drug. I wish it were treated similarly to alcohol.
This is just my opinion, I don't mean to offend anyone. Several states have already legalized it and I don't think it's total anarchy there. It is probably going well. Since it is decriminalized less spending goes toward processing would-be delinquents. Furthermore, the local government can tax it now! This doesn't really benefit users but it does incentivize other state governments to decriminalize the drug and make revenue from it. From experience, I'd say that without a doubt cannabis is the least psychoactive drug out of all the schedule 1 drugs. It would be inappropriate to call it the "safest" illegal substance, but while under the influence, one has the most control compared to other "harder" drugs. Just like any drug, whether it be over the counter or not, one should avoid operating machinery.
It is a little bit like that! Although, I would argue (from what I know of the United States Constitution) that that sort of high level documentation should be more a guide for the specific laws that are actually needed to govern. Sort of like saying, you shouldn't lie, but sometimes it is necessary, just not all the time! That and the fact that the document (whilst being well meaning) was written in a completely different age, and shouldn't be read too literally, especially as we know that the evolution of language renders a modern interpretation of the literal words risky.
To be honest, I can't speak of cannabis, I'm afraid I just don't know enough research about it to comment with any certainty! However, I do know about alcohol, and whilst enjoying the occasional drink, I would have to say that it's negative impact on society is probably far worse than the softer recreational drugs.
The winners and the next SBI Giveaway (Superpowers) is here:
https://steemit.com/steembasicincome/@bengy/steemitbasicincomegiveawaysuperpower-kk3c7w2ju9
Thankyou for the steembasic income for last weeks post. I don't have a good answer for you on this one. I work in pharmacy where I am beseiged by rules and regulations. I do my best to uphold them, but I wish dearly that there were less or at least that they all made sense.
No problem!
Well, I guess there are good reasons (I hope) for when you are dealing with drugs to have rules! I'm sure all of them made sense at some point in time when they were individually created, however, probably the combination of all of them makes for a messy soup!
The winners and the next SBI Giveaway (Superpowers) is here:
https://steemit.com/steembasicincome/@bengy/steemitbasicincomegiveawaysuperpower-kk3c7w2ju9
Hello that was a good read. This is a interesting question but for me has a very simple answer. Laws have to be looked at as concrete. Laws in general are need to help form a society. If your group of people are big enough to need any form of Government or leadership body they are going to set some rules and if they are not followed and nothing happens they they won't form the society that the group is trying to form. No this doesn't mean that i think all laws are good or that all punishments are correct. Say running that red light. That was a clear case of breaking a law but the goal of that law is to avoid people getting hurt in traffic accidents so should the punishment really be to pay a lot of money? That is where I start to disagree with how we do things. I real feel public service should be used a lot more as a punishment than money. A fine mean nothing to a rich man and everything to a poor man. Time spent helping your community would be equal teach a lesson and help the community. I really feel that monetary punishment should be used much less. We teach our children when they do something wrong but when we grow up we stop thinking we have things to learn.
I really agree with your idea of the size of a community needing to have rigid laws to bind the society. At smaller scales you can probably get away without much, but we don't have those sorts of societies anymore!
I was taken by your idea of community service as "punishment", the more I think about it, the more sense it makes than having a monetary fine. Although, that said, I would also argue that time is not an equal resource either... a single parent that is racing around with kids, would have much less spare time (that might need to be bought with babysitting/creche) than a person in a secure job with paid leave.
You make a good point with the baby sitting but I would assume that wouldn't matter as often as most public service is during the day when you kids would be at school or in a day care assuming you worked. If you are a stay at home parent then yes some deal might have to be made.
The winners and the next SBI Giveaway (Superpowers) is here:
https://steemit.com/steembasicincome/@bengy/steemitbasicincomegiveawaysuperpower-kk3c7w2ju9
I think laws should be treated as guidelines. When laws are very concrete and can only be applied by their strictly literal meaning, it is very easy for people to find legal vacuums and get unpunished. However, I have to admit that this approach also has disadvantages, because it makes law application subjective.
I propose the creation of a law that forbids the spread of information about terrorist group demands and actions. Expression through violence should not be allowed.
I think your first point touches on an important question when forming laws. Is it more important to catch the guilty or to avoid punishing the innocent? The settings you apply to this question is quite important, I would argue a balance towards the second option.
Whilst I agree with the sentiment of non-violence, I'm not sure a law like that would not have unintended side effects. First and most important of all, what and who defines a terrorist organisation?
A terrorist group is an organization that uses or promote the use of violence to achieve their aims. A court should create a list of terrorist groups. Most of these groups publicly announce their intentions, so they can be identified easily.
The winners and the next SBI Giveaway (Superpowers) is here:
https://steemit.com/steembasicincome/@bengy/steemitbasicincomegiveawaysuperpower-kk3c7w2ju9
The problem with concrete laws are we already have too many of them. You can't go through your day without breaking one you didn't know that existed We have too many laws on the books.
The federal goverment can't count how many laws it has spread of 50 titles of the US code cover 27,000 pages not to mention the statutory code. Best estimates are around 10,000 Federal laws not to mention state and local.
source
Here are a few of the crazy ones still on the books.
source
Massachusetts: Any person caught eating peanuts in church may be jailed for up to one year
Alabama: One is not allowed to play dominoes on Sundays
Concrete laws like this can be used to target individuals.
It's weird that those archaic laws aren't exercised from the books! I guess you argue that they don't cause harm if they aren't enforced, but the possibility of enforcement is plain weird!
I guess these things start to grow and evolve as new situations arise or new challenges are made to them, in a similar way to how computer coding can start simple then start to get out of hand for really large systems! But that is even more incentive to remove the useless ones!
The winners and the next SBI Giveaway (Superpowers) is here:
https://steemit.com/steembasicincome/@bengy/steemitbasicincomegiveawaysuperpower-kk3c7w2ju9
Well, about the creation and use of laws, I don't disagree entirely at a first glance, but I would question and think, if isn't there a better way to live in society. When came the time to use or apply some law, maybe we already failed to avoid the source of that behavior or situation at the first place, or we simply didn't design all the conditions and variables required to aim in a different direction or result.
In this context, I like the most part of the J. Fresco's view on this:
Definitely, if the law has been applied, then there is something potentially more wrong with the system (maybe poverty or bad education or poor future prospects) than the actual breaking of the law. However, I would have to say that past conditions shouldn't excuse present actions. They can help explain them, and educate us further on how to avoid the contributing factors in future generations or to help avoid the same situation with the same person again...
The winners and the next SBI Giveaway (Superpowers) is here:
https://steemit.com/steembasicincome/@bengy/steemitbasicincomegiveawaysuperpower-kk3c7w2ju9
I think laws should be concrete, but that they should allow leeway for a limited number of well-defined fringe cases.
I say concrete, because if everyone can bend the laws, depending on their situation, then they won't be effectively enforced. People can just ignore them, because the consequences of violating won't always be applied.
However, since we all know that there are situations when following the law is not always the best option, then it will be more realistic if the law identifies those instances (fringe cases) where violating the law will not be punished. The law just has to be clear on what those fringe cases are and be strict in making sure that people aren't always toeing the line and redefining the fringe cases.
For example, the law says pay your taxes and pay them on time. We should all pay taxes on time. And tax evaders should be punished. The same goes for late filers, who are punished with severe penalties. But the IRS will not punish you, forgiving your penalties if you can show reasonable cause for your late filing and have the proof to back it up.
So this way, the law is concrete, but it has a pre-defined list of cases when the law can be violated without suffering the consequences.
Yes, it is the edge cases where we need guidance from lawyers/judges to try and get the best interpretation on what is in the end, an imprecise wording of a social norm. To paraphrase: we know it when we see it... I think I really do agree, the law is violated, but the punishment can be muted and witheld.
Exactly. I'm not a fan of too many laws, myself. But the reality is, once a law is in place, we have no choice but to follow. The only recourse we have is to make sure that we can escape punishment once we fall into those grey areas where violating the law is the only/right choice.
The winners and the next SBI Giveaway (Superpowers) is here:
https://steemit.com/steembasicincome/@bengy/steemitbasicincomegiveawaysuperpower-kk3c7w2ju9
Super interesting question and conversation! It's difficult (and not necessarily right) to answer for laws in general I think. As you say, some laws you may wee more as guidelines as others and I think a "free" mind should be able to have it's own meanings and views on different laws. I think it is a very dull mind that just gives all the responsibility of right and wrong to the law and don't question anything. I mean somethings (like for example homeschooling as you know I recently wrote a post about) is completely fine in Denmark, but illegal in the very similar neighbour Sweden, where government can surprisingly easy take away the children from parents (which I can almost not think of a worse punishment!) for not sending their children to school.
I guess my point is that it is strange to decide right and wrong just by the law you live under, especially when the difference can be so big so close by each other. At the same time smoking cannabis is legal in one state and illegal in the next.
So I think we must make up our own minds of right and wrong and then either be willing to take the risk to live by our personal right and wrong or try to change things.. Or bend our necks and try to fit in. Personally I think it is important to fight for what we think is right and I think it is more important to follow our hearts than the law. At the same time I wouldn't call out for complete lawless anarchy, but I would find it beautiful to see a place where law was not necessary and we could figure out dealing with each other! But I don't think we are quite there yet!
this conversation reminds me that i just found out that naked bathing is legal in all denmark😁😆
Haha, you mean public naked bathing? I'm assuming that it is okay in your own home!
yes, I don't know if it is legal in most other countries too, I just didnt realise that it was because I'm pretty sure being naked in public otherwise is illegal, but I just love the fact that it is legal to be naked on all beaches in the whole country :) But doesnt mean it is the norm though.
I agree that the rules don't always fit every situation. However, there is a need for rules in a society, if only to establish a baseline for what is okay and not. Obviously, in the middle it can get quite cloudy and then it can be that different societies come up with different ideas on where the line should be drawn (as in your homeschooling example). At that point, I believe it is the duty of the citizen to challenge the laws (peacefully!) to establish a precedence and to perhaps push the authorities to re-interpret the wording and spirit of the laws. After all, there is no such thing as an absolute law, they all change and evolve with time and situation. Things that were "obviously" right and wrong a century (or even less) ago, are now considered archaic ideas.
Personally, I think some sort of laws will always be necessary. To believe that a society could be completely and without exception altruistic would have to deny that there could eventually be a selfish mutation (I have read papers that try to model this, and a complete selfish or complete altruistic society is energetically unstable, the balance is (as always) somewhere in between). Also, infringing on another's freedom's and rights doesn't have to be done with ill-intent, it could always be unintentional or just the boundary clash between two prevailing good intentions....
The winners and the next SBI Giveaway (Superpowers) is here:
https://steemit.com/steembasicincome/@bengy/steemitbasicincomegiveawaysuperpower-kk3c7w2ju9
I hope your wife is feeling better and able to take over again to give you a break.
My 2 cents- As long as rules are fair and just and benefit the majority then I have no problem with them.
We all break some rules intentionally or not but in most cases, if caught, have to accept the consequences of our actions.
Thanks! Well, I figure she is here more often when I go away on long tours, that the short time that she is ill is the least I can do!
Definitely, the rules are there (although sometimes, they can be obscure to those not trained in law, however in most 1st world democracies they tend towards just being a nice person...) and if broken, the responsibility is to take account for your actions. Although, I guess in the more gray areas of the law, the idea that the citizens should challenge the interpretation of the law is also important in establishing limits and precedence.
It will be interesting here on PEI, Canada when the new marijuana laws come in effect. In Oct. it will be legal and can be sold in stores. The stores will be government run. This will cause a lot of people to lose money as they were setting up private stores to sell it; Also everyone can grow 4 plants.
Where to smoke is a big question and it looks like nowhere.
There’s so many rules and regulations government might as well make it into a pill or cookie form to sell.
That's interesting news! Hopefully the public can give a new system time for stabilising and ironing out the unintended side effects and wrinkles before leaping to a judgement! Ha ha, a touch of wishful thinking there....
The winners and the next SBI Giveaway (Superpowers) is here:
https://steemit.com/steembasicincome/@bengy/steemitbasicincomegiveawaysuperpower-kk3c7w2ju9
I hope your wife gets to feeling well soon ....
As for laws they are concrete. They are there and if we break them we suffer the consequence. In your case it was a fine. We don't have to agree with the law and we don't need to follow them if we really don't want to but we will 100 % with certainly be subject to the penalties given to us from authorities if we are caught breaking them thus making them concrete.
Yes, I think I agree (for the laws part, I definitely agree for the getting better!). If you break a law (knowingly, or in my case stupidly), you should expect some consequence. However, there is always the option for appeal, if you think you have been hard done by. I guess this is where things start to fall down, as you often need time and money to appeal the more serious infractions!
The winners and the next SBI Giveaway (Superpowers) is here:
https://steemit.com/steembasicincome/@bengy/steemitbasicincomegiveawaysuperpower-kk3c7w2ju9
Plenty of engagement going on here!
I have a friend who was fined for doing 33 mph in a 30 zone in the UK, on a pedal bike...
Pretty ridiculous if you ask me!
Generally though, I appreciate there are rules and laws, the place would fall apart without them I think. I can think of a few is like to see abolished in the UK - marijuana consumption is one.
I hope the personal life improves for all and you've can grab some more sleep soon!
Thanks! This post has kept me pretty busy this week which probably was the boost that got me to go the lucky 7 spot...
It's amazing that your friend got for speeding on their bike, after all the kinetic energy stored in a fast moving is not really comparable to a car! I'm surprised they even triggered the speed trap in the first place! Were they able to get an exception?
Anyway, I do agree with the sentiment that rules and laws are necessary and that a large scale society would find it difficult to remain coherent without them. In the other hand, we are falling somewhat short of the ideal in creating and evolving these laws. There does seem to be a bit of vested interest (aka corruption) involved in the creation process and the evolution and testing of laws are limited by the relatively high financial and time requirements for challenging them.
Hopefully this disenchantment with the whole process doesn't lead to throwing the baby out with the bathwater...
The winners and the next SBI Giveaway (Superpowers) is here:
https://steemit.com/steembasicincome/@bengy/steemitbasicincomegiveawaysuperpower-kk3c7w2ju9
Should laws be concrete or flexible?
I think a lot of it depends on the situation. This is where number of offenses comes into play.
If you were making a habit of running those red lights, then you should be treated more harshly than if it's the first time or caused by tiredness (though in some places, driving while tired would give you a more serious penalty - and for good reason!)
Same as with even murder - if you manage to kill while defending your home/property/family, it's a lot different than killing in cold blood - or killing someone after running that red light because you were tired... This is where in the US, anyway, the lesser charges of "manslaughter" are useful.
Intention is a huge part of it.
Then, there are things that are simply stupid. Our town tried to bring in a law to force people to keep their yards reasonably clean. People basically flipped them off and didn't change their behavior - because it wasn't really an appropriate law. (Eventually those laws get changed, repealed, etc.)
I think laws should be based more on what damage is done to others rather than how someone should behave.
I.e. second-hand smoking is a problem to everyone else, hence the ban on smoking in pubs is a good thing (or confining it to a special room.) But helmet laws are more of an individual freedom thing - yes, you may end up costing the taxpayers more because of your stupidity, but fundamentally, it's a "victimless" crime. It's like outlawing suicide. I'm pretty sure the only reason that's on the books is so that they have the right to try to stop you - but otherwise, the law itself is pretty pointless.
We really don't want laws to stop everything that we don't like - because it takes away so many freedoms and lawmakers often don't know when to stop.
Just a few of my thoughts.
I always liked the saying that wearing a helmet was just the difference between a closed-casket and an open-casket funeral.
As both a libertarian-minded individual and a first responder, I am conflicted on helmet laws. I think instead of a rule mandating them, there should be a rule that the hospital can refuse to treat you if you get into an accident while not wearing one. I wonder if having THAT on the books would change some behavior? 😅
I've never looked at it that way! (Open-casket vs closed-casket.)
I think it's very good to have your view on it as well.
I'm also quite libertarian-minded, but my dad is an ex-cop too.
I would say that the hospital should still treat you, but you might be responsible for the bill at the end of the day. Or something like that...
I am aware that helmet-less motorcyclists are reputed to be called "donors" in the ER/A&E...
You’re already responsible for the bill in the US no matter what 😂
Yep, I’ve heard that term too! Also heard the bikes referred to as “murdercycles”
Unless you're poor, like we are. But I could see someone refusing to bill insurance for you if you did something stupid like that.
Ooo, "murdercycle" is good. Though do they normally take out others with them? Certainly most motorcycle fatalities only take out those on the bike.
True, most are solo fatalities. But they are still murdering the rider 😕
True, Medicaid and Medicare will take care of some at the margins, good catch!
My parents ended up in the margins, but not taken care of for awhile... They had taken early Social Security, but that doesn't include early Medicare. They then had too much for Medicaid, but still couldn't afford Obamacare.
Then, my mother fell and broke three bones in her wrist. Most of the bill was for rent on the stupid room for her surgery!
In Wyoming, I have yet to be able to get onto Medicaid - not for lack of trying - I've been here 1.5 years now. Thankfully, we have several places where we can get sliding-scale fees based on our income, so we still get something.
Yes, I agree with your first half, although I would say that you are talking more about the application of the penalty. I should get a heftier fine if I make a habit of running lights, but I should get a fine each time I run a light! Likewise, what you said about the distinction between manslaughter and murder.
Haha, a law for clean yards? Although, I would have to say I do agree with littering laws for public spaces... I just wished it was enforced...
I would argue that there is no "victimless" crime. Take the example of helmets (well, in NL we don't wear helmets... but that is a debate for bikes, but let's talk about motorcycles!), if you got in an accident, you are essentially socialising the cost of your injury (and carelessness) and just passing it on to society to foot the bill for keeping you alive afterwards or to assist in your healing. (I wouldn't extend that to suicide, that is a much trickier topic!).
A fine for each incident of running of a red light is an interesting though, but I don't think any of us really want to live in a society where each and every infraction is awarded to us in a penalty... The level of big-brother aspects of society would be extremely unpleasant for everyone regardless of how many laws someone breaks...
See the conversation I was having with @dollarsandsense regarding helmets, I thought his perspective was quite interesting.
There's also a difference between a broken law and a consequence.
You do realize that in many places homosexual relations are still on-the-books as crimes. Victimless crime. I can come up with other examples if I work at it. Bicycles, btw, have the same debate as for motorcycles... same potential for injury, just a different scale, but a bad bicycle injury will cost too. Unfortunately, you can't place stupidity on a criminal record. (And we shouldn't "go there.")
The winners and the next SBI Giveaway (Superpowers) is here:
https://steemit.com/steembasicincome/@bengy/steemitbasicincomegiveawaysuperpower-kk3c7w2ju9
No laws are or should be concrete. To quote Capt. Picard, " there can be no justice so long as laws are absolute. Even life itself is an exercise in exceptions."
That is not to say rules shouldn't be respected, indeed the harm caused by breaking them should factor into just how extenuating the exception must be for bending them.
Any rule which does no concrete harm except by violating a more held by a specific group is fairly suspect. A really illustrative example would be outlawing the consumptio, for all, of spaghetti if Pastafarians came to power.
Haha! Two great references (picard and pastafarians!)!
I agree, laws should be subject to change (or modifications) over time and whatever else, but I guess that part of this change is the (mis)application of the laws in the first place which lead to a challenge.
The winners and the next SBI Giveaway (Superpowers) is here:
https://steemit.com/steembasicincome/@bengy/steemitbasicincomegiveawaysuperpower-kk3c7w2ju9
Rules are flexible and can change with the time and the society...laws, contrarily, should be concrete (and countable on two hands)...in this respect I can think of THOUSANDS of “laws” that should be done away with. If someone is harmed by an action, that deserves a law and a consequence (murder, rape, assault, theft - pretty much does it - only 4...one hand!!!).
If ignorance of the law is no excuse, then it should be possible for the average person to know them ALL.
Counted on two hands... so a max of ten laws... or ten commandmens, if you will 😜
Yes, that would be easier. However, I would point back to my red light running. Technically, I didn't harm or inconvenience anyone (it was in the middle of the night, no traffic). However, I would argue that there should be a red-light traffic law, as the time I cause injury or death would be too late. Or would you define that as a rule instead of law?
Also, how about threats of (murder/rape/....), I would argue that that sort of thing isn't on either, as it impinges on someone else's freedom and rights.
I guess, I would be saying, it would be nice to have simplicity, but people, situations and contexts are just not simple...
Murder, rape, assault, theft, coercion...5 is a nice number.
There’s no crime in you running the red light...the crime would be if you had hurt someone or damaged something in doing so.
... but I would argue there should be a fine. Otherwise there is no incentive (in general, some may, some won't) to obey the red light ever, as long as you could get away with it. By the time I hurt someone, it would be too late? Surely the prevention of the threat of fine (to coerce people to stop) is better the application of a crime after the fact of serious damage/injury to an innocent party?
In fact, if you drove a truck , you could force others to stop. I would rather be alive than have the "right" of the law behind me!
Why should there be a fine for something that could have (but didn’t) happen?
The incentive to stop 🛑 is clear...to avoid hurting anyone and the severe consequences that would bring...I honestly don’t believe that if there were traffic lights but no fines people would just ignore them...too dangerous.
Or we could just do roundabouts and life would be easier...joking, but seriously there’s usually better ways to solve a problem/make something safer without invoking armed government thugs to take our money.
Well, technically I would say that the fine was for the red-light running, which did happen! (but I see your point!)... but what would stop a road arms race. I would be much happier running an intersection in a huge FWD (SUV, I think you call them), rather than a little hatchback? In which case, it is an issue of vehicle protection vs risk of injury (with no fine), wouldn't that become an issue of might makes right? I think most people would be careful, but there would be enough people who wouldn't to eventually bring the system down.
I would like to believe that people are more altruistic (as a whole, I know that people tend to be altruistic if they can!), but I fear that even two well-intentioned ideas can butt heads hard, leading to a potentially disastrous contest to decide which side backs down. In that case, I would prefer a third party arbiter, preferably one that had mechanisms built in to be accountable and it's power leashed. I would argue that the democratic form (that is by no means perfect!) is currently the best attempt to have that (given that it is under constant scrutiny). Or perhaps, I would better say (given that the leashing doesn't seem to have totally worked always) that other forms are in the long term potentially more disasterous...
In small societies, I do agree that people can structure themselves. I would argue the limit of this would be the size where everyone is able to know the other members.... but on a larger scale, I'm a bit dubious. We see this in public situations (even here on Steemit!), where people are more than happy to screw over someone else to gain a small advantage, essentially socialising risk whilst capitalising benefit. I wish it wasn't the case... and you can't stop people forming bigger societies either, which would have more power than smaller ones.
So, to cut a long story short! I want and wish it were possible to have what you describe, but I'm afraid my faith in the collective individual actions (none of which need to be bad intentioned) is not so strong! On the other hand, I'm happy that there are people like you who also advocate for a different view than mine!
I was just thinking a bit further!
For you and I (and possibly a good chunk of the populations) the incentive to stop is clear. But I would hesitate to project the notion (or any notion), that because we would, then most or all of the population would. In that case, it would only need a few people to cause problems, and in those cases, the people most needlessly affected would be the other party in an accident.
Man, that’s a tough argument...”one bad apple spoils the bunch” is very true. Still, I never viewed it as fair that I should be punished for what someone else did (or even worse, might do).
I think in a free society that reputation is paramount (like here on SteemIT)...bad actors could well be punished without the need for specific laws (that is, for breaking rules).
Let’s stick with the stop light...had you missed it and no cop there who would have been harmed, who would even have known the difference? I mean, you wouldn’t just fine yourself because you broke a “law” would you?
Lol...we’re getting pretty deep for a “newbie game” 🤓
The winners and the next SBI Giveaway (Superpowers) is here:
https://steemit.com/steembasicincome/@bengy/steemitbasicincomegiveawaysuperpower-kk3c7w2ju9
Thoughts:
-Interpreting the law is a difficult task, according to point 1 (I am not talking about lawyers and the like).
-But there is always room for COMPROMISE when life is not endangered.
Thanks! I think you have the tricky part there, the point of view can really cloud what is just and true. One person's idea of truth and justice can be the complete opposite for another person. Definitely, there is always room for compromise!
Thank you @bengy!
The winners and the next SBI Giveaway (Superpowers) is here:
https://steemit.com/steembasicincome/@bengy/steemitbasicincomegiveawaysuperpower-kk3c7w2ju9
The Rule of Law should be concrete and treated in general, it should be taken serious, in it is the balance of the society, the equal right of all men is protected by the law, the law makes sure you respect others and there decision.
If there is a law on the road on use of traffic light, it's to protect the life of others.
The only problem we now have in some corrupted country is the law made to punish the poor while the rich trample on it.
Yes, I think I see things in a similar way. The laws are there (at least in theory) to protect the rights of others. However, I do see how they can also be used to create an unbalanced game as well...
It's a Law, it can be tilted by whoever wields it.
The winners and the next SBI Giveaway (Superpowers) is here:
https://steemit.com/steembasicincome/@bengy/steemitbasicincomegiveawaysuperpower-kk3c7w2ju9
Here is my 2 cents and I have not read the other commenters yet so they may have said it.
I believe no law has been broken if no one was damaged. Flexible
Also about 20 years ago we had over 60 million laws in the US and many are rediculous. They are created to give them something to do.
No one can know all the laws. I also read a while back that at least 75% of the people in the U.S. break one law everyday, most not even knowing it.
That is an interesting way of seeing it! Although, at least in my case, there would be no law broken by my going through a red light (I didn't hit anyone, and it was in the middle of the night, so no other car was inconvenienced at all!). This would lead to the idea that you could just run red lights as long as you could get away with it, until the moment that you hit someone? In that scenario wouldn't it be better to have the rule, before the accident instead of applying it retrospectively after the accident?
...but agreed, I'm sure there are more than enough laws that have long outlived their usefulness!
The winners and the next SBI Giveaway (Superpowers) is here:
https://steemit.com/steembasicincome/@bengy/steemitbasicincomegiveawaysuperpower-kk3c7w2ju9
My problem with this post is that it treats like we all really want to see Laws executed on the spot or have execeptions whenever applicable. Yet truly, we all have to treat it as general guidelines yet those interpretations, nonetheless, of the guidelines to be enforced concretely, or else we would lose this cohesive connection amongst society itself. But ah, you would say this is a contradiction in human behaviour, but human psychology is always more crazier (or antithetical to "normal") and our perception should be towards the problem of the creation of such laws.
The problem with laws in general is that they always had functioned as general guidelines due to one qualifier: unwritten rules. Yet of course, what am I rambling about? What I am trying to state is this thesis: that the Laws since society came about were always treated as general guidelines - not because of the legalese in them, but because of how they are adopted from area to area. An these areas with differing unwritten rules will always slightly affect Laws in the practical scale, but have massive implications in Legislative writings and Judicial inquiry.
Ah, one might say, then we should have a cohesive unwritten rules to dictate how we should interpret and concretely enforce the law then, right? Well unfortunately this insight falls real short of noticing how each area differs from their material conditions (wildlife land, farm hectares, city-scaping or housing, industry and so on and so on) and how they are culturally function.
I say I'd abolish the most dumbest tariff in my country, yet I have yet to see all of the existing ones and haven't chose which one would be beneficial whence removed.
Eeeep! I just got your vote in before the bounty paid out!
Yes, I knew when I phrased the question that it was not nuanced at all! In reality, things can never really be a binary choice as there is just too many infinite combinations of factors that lead to any one situation... However, it was a good place to start kicking off the ball!
Yes, the differing interpretations, due to differing cultural or national unwritten rules or "values", have always applied. However, I would say that would be in the interpretation or the application of the penalty (at the judicial stage), and at that point I would be of the mind that flexibility and judicial discretion (assuming an ideal world of no corruption and a frictionless appeal system) would be best.
However, in the actual question of whether or not the law had not or had been broken, I would suggest that it would be concrete, after which the appeal or interpretation of mitigation (or the opposite) could take place?
Which is the dumbest tariff that you currently know of?
The 2009 Appropriations Bill in the USA: not only did it limit a lot of Mexican exports, it banned Mexican truckers to come into the USA. Of course this would lead to Mexico retailating back - to this day I have no clue if it got repealed or not.
Weird! I thought there was North American free trade zone? Although I know that free trade is not really ever free trade...
The winners and the next SBI Giveaway (Superpowers) is here:
https://steemit.com/steembasicincome/@bengy/steemitbasicincomegiveawaysuperpower-kk3c7w2ju9
@bengy, you've highlighted the Practical subject and it's really important to understand the basic nature of Rules, Regulations and Laws in common. Rules have to be both concrete and as an guideline as per the nature of the situation.
But important thing is, when Law Makers are making an particular law may be it can be an concrete law or just an guideline, in my opinion there should be space for the workshop and that means, we have to spread the message with common public also through work shops, this way law makers can develop an integrity with the common public.
But, in my opinion truth is opposite, means most of the time we saw that, in some cases law makers compromise one law breaking act in exchange of money and it's not good because, it's sending an picture outside as, if you don't have enough money or you are not wealthy then you will be dominated by the law makers no matter how small law is broke, same way if you are wealthy then in some cases you will get the chance of compromise in exchange of money.
The concept of Rules and laws are really simple but in my opinion law makers are making it more complex because they are moulding the rules as per their benefits and inturn it's not benefiting common public. Let's hope that both common people and law makers will maintain the integrity towards the Rules and Laws.
Wishing you an great day and stay blessed. 🙂
Yes, I think I agree with what you are putting forward. Laws and rules should be concrete (although the application of penalties might be open to discretion), but as you point out, the way that laws are initially crafted can be open to corruption.
It is a big problem, especially when you see the revolving door of politicians being offered jobs in the very industries that they passed laws for. Hopefully it is a problem that could be fixed with some tweaks to our democratic systems of governance...
Yes, and only raising questions and standing against when we see flaws in laws will lead to the improvement, if we ignore the flaws then it's open to expand. Stay blessed. 🙂
The winners and the next SBI Giveaway (Superpowers) is here:
https://steemit.com/steembasicincome/@bengy/steemitbasicincomegiveawaysuperpower-kk3c7w2ju9
This is almost a philosophical question. If we use the law as a guideline, where do we draw the line at what's OK?
Sure, there are some very minor offenses which can be overlooked, but where does it stop. Do we condone beating the living crap out of rapists and child molesters? I don't think too many people would be upset of those types of criminals got their comeuppance, but we risk descending into absolute chaos.
As for a law that I would like to see introduced, this may be somewhat controversial, but I would like to see smoking outlawed in public places. As a non-smoker, I hate walking past groups of smokers where I am forced to breathe their pollution. I am not denying anyone's right to smoke, it's a personal choice, but I think there should be designated enclosed smoking areas with huge exhaust fans that can remove the pollutants without impacting other people that just want to go about their day.
Sorry about the delay in replying! This thread has got me running around trying to reply in an intelligent way to every comment....
I agree that it is big problem of where to draw the line if we applied laws as mere guidelines... in that case why bother having them. However, I do think that after the law is applied then we should be flexible in the allocation of punishment or penalty (well, maybe not for parking fines, but I think you know what I mean!).
I'm a non-smoker, but I would hesitate to ban them completely in public places (if by that you mean outdoors). Indoors, I'm against smoking, but outdoors I don't mind so much. It's funny that you mention these smoking rooms, I recently was at a concert hall and backstage there was one almost exactly has you described, a glass box with a huge exhaust fan... seemed like not fun, I'd rather go outside!
I think there is scope for being able to smoke outdoors of that's your thing, but it needs to be in a way that does not impact anyone that chooses not to smoke. Public spaces in urban areas should absolutely be non smoking zones.
The winners and the next SBI Giveaway (Superpowers) is here:
https://steemit.com/steembasicincome/@bengy/steemitbasicincomegiveawaysuperpower-kk3c7w2ju9
Hi @bengy, interesting question(s)!
I don't think this can be answered through "either/or" thinking. In most cases, I would submit that laws tend to be more flexible when they are new, and get more fixed as they are tested and reasonable exceptions either present themselves, or not.
Should I get a ticket for pointing the wrong way on a one-way street because I GOT there because a swerved to avoid a child on a bicycle, and it was the only place I could go that wouldn't involve plowing through someone's fence?
Of course, then the possibility exists that we can make laws absolute, but the penalty for breaking them highly flexible.
"Well, you did break the one-way street law, but since the outcome was saving a child's life, we only fine you a symbolic $1.00 for breaking the law."
On the other hand, the clearly drunk person going the wrong way on the one-way loses their license for six months and gets a $1000 fine.
The strangest "law" I have seen that was still on the books when we lived in Texas was a county-wide law stating that it was illegal for anyone to have... ummm... "marital relations"... before noon on Sundays. As best I could find out, it was created to make sure that happy "Saturday night celebrators" properly showed up in church in the 1800s, in this rather religious part of the USA!
I think that I agree more with your alternate solution. The penalty being more a flexible thing. For instance, for your one way street example, I would say, technically yes, you broke the law regardless... however, in that case (probably there would have been a cop there to book you), you could argue a waiver of the penalty or the infraction itself due to extreme circumstance...
Ahahaha!!!! Is that still on the books... as I've mentioned in other comments, it is so strange that these laws aren't just removed... surely there would be little to no opposition to having sex on Sunday mornings?
The winners and the next SBI Giveaway (Superpowers) is here:
https://steemit.com/steembasicincome/@bengy/steemitbasicincomegiveawaysuperpower-kk3c7w2ju9
We will always need an arbiter to decide! The judge has a very important place in human culture for just this reason. Laws cannot be 100% concrete, or we would be computers.
Even murder. You said
So true! Unless it's self defense. Or war. Or you are playing a video game and its just their avatar.
There are so many conditionals in circumstances, and that is before we even consider motives. Motive is often used, but not required, in a majority of cases that require understanding of the state of mind. Another, different aspect of the human mind is intent. Was this intentional, negligent or accidental without culpability?
Laws are important but, in my eyes, should be kept as simple as possible. Then we must have good judges that can interpret individual instances and be flexible to circumstances.
Our values should be concrete. Our laws should be flexible.
Love and Light!
I think in this case, you would be talking about the application of the penalty/punishment... Murder would get transmuted to manslaughter and/or have a deferred sentence... that sort of thing?
However, then this leads to another problem... who chooses the judges? I think in the US it is a political appointment? This is strange from an outsiders point of view... however having the legal profession nominate or having a direct election also have their particular disadvantages....
I am not so keen on the US system, even though I have lived in it. I know some higher judges are definitely political appointees, perhaps the lower ones have other ways of being chosen.
Manslaughter and murder are different things, because the law has defined them as such. This is the law trying to make its flexibility concrete.
I always tend to think about my experience with coding a computer or a website. There are always situations that you cannot anticipate when writing the code, thus there occur bugs, exploits, hacks, etc.
Then we must return to the code and adjust, add flexibility or change entirely.
The law is the same, except we are imperfect unique beings! We need much more flexibility that even computer code can express.
Thank you for such an interesting discussion.
The winners and the next SBI Giveaway (Superpowers) is here:
https://steemit.com/steembasicincome/@bengy/steemitbasicincomegiveawaysuperpower-kk3c7w2ju9
Thank you for telling me about this! I am already considering what exciting superpower will change my life with its unintended consequences! ;p
I'm tending to leaning to laws being more flexible with classifications of types of laws. Misdemeanors definitely should be more flexible while crimes that cause harm need to be more concrete. The one law that I think should be abolished are the laws against usage of herbs and natural substances. I think it's absurd for someone to be able to tell you what you can and cannot put in your body.
Grrrr... Steemit chewed up my reply....
It is an interesting idea to divide up the laws into classifications... Although that does lead to the hairy question of where to draw the line? There are things that most of us could definitely agree belonged in one camp or another, but there would be a middle ground where different people would come to different conclusions (Euthanasia or abortion to name a couple of examples). I guess that's why we have judges....
You bet ya!
The winners and the next SBI Giveaway (Superpowers) is here:
https://steemit.com/steembasicincome/@bengy/steemitbasicincomegiveawaysuperpower-kk3c7w2ju9
I live in Venezuela, a country which isn't in democracy so I have lived very close how is to not making laws be respected, and I can assure you it doesn't work. Laws have to exist, and have to be respected!!!! If not, everyone wants to do whatever they want and you feel unprotected of those because laws doesn't exist and anyone can do whatever they want without paying for it.
At least, for building a country where everyone can live in peace and safe, laws are necessary. That's my opinion, from my experience.
Thanks for the perspective from a different country that I experience! So, even if the laws are not ideal, you think that the alternative of ignoring them is also not a solution? I guess getting the root cause is pretty difficult but ultimately worthwhile....
The winners and the next SBI Giveaway (Superpowers) is here:
https://steemit.com/steembasicincome/@bengy/steemitbasicincomegiveawaysuperpower-kk3c7w2ju9
Laws have all sorts of consequences, both good and bad. While some laws (and regulations as well) will typically have better consequences and others much worse, most laws have both good and bad consequences. Prescription drug laws are designed to protect people from misusing drugs, but they are also made (and gamed) to increase fees to medical professionals and drug companies. These laws also take away freedom from individuals who would not abuse drugs. They can make it impossible for someone with limited means to get the drugs they need. So because laws are double-edged swords we need to be very careful about making them and changing them. We also need to have flexible interpretations of them. A lot of problems in the United States has resulted from taking human judgment out of law. Minimum sentencing, for example, has required judges to throw people in jail for life for what amounts to very minor crimes. Overall, this has decimated entire communities in the United States. Making and interpreting laws are difficult and, frankly, should be left to trained experts. However, in the US they are made by untrained politicians who often know little about what they are actually doing, and increasingly by the very industries the laws are designed to boost. The US private prison industry lobbies for longer sentencing and more laws. Why not? More people in jail means more profit for the jail owners. Also, think about the complexity of laws. In a healthcare setting, I've heard doctors and nurses complain that they must break the law every day just to care for patients. The laws are so complex in healthcare and so disruptive that they actually impede the quality and efficiency of care.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't have laws, but that we should definitely be skeptical of laws, willing to change them to address problems, and willing to let their enforcement be flexible and subject to common sense.
Proud member of #steemitbloggers @steemitbloggers
I think this resonates with me as well... to all things there is a balance of benefits and consequences. I really agree with the fact that the enforcement of laws (at least in the judicial sentencing, maybe not parking fines...) needs to have some discretion. In Australia, we had a bit of a run with mandatory sentencing for some things, and it did prove to be not as advantages as hoped...with prisons getting fuller and basically just exposing kids to criminals.... it is the problem, when some people think that simple solutions are all that are needed to fix complex situations, you never see (or perhaps choose not to see) the unintended side-effects. I would suggest that every action has unintended consequences, the trick is to see if the balance is worthwhile.
The winners and the next SBI Giveaway (Superpowers) is here:
https://steemit.com/steembasicincome/@bengy/steemitbasicincomegiveawaysuperpower-kk3c7w2ju9
In general, I feel that we have way too many laws and many of them should be broken because they are very, very bad laws. Often, societal change only came about by breaking the law - over and over and over again.
Sometimes, that action can be fairly harmless - like breaking the law that didn't allow greywater to be used in the landscape. Many broke that law and it gave enough samples to show that people weren't getting harmed and that made it possible to change the law.
Other times, breaking the law to bring about change was dangerous - like in the civil rights movement.
Then, there are the laws that people get punished for following after the regime has changed - like in/after Nazi Germany.
The problem is that laws are often made to remedy one situation and the consequences that are way more far- reaching are not considered. And mostly, laws are made by old white men who are not in touch with society at all.
That said, without laws, we would have unsafe workplaces, child labor and all kinds of things that are bad for most of us. Without traffic laws - we would have way more bad accidents than we have now.
So, I do think that we need some laws since I don't trust in the fairness and/or goodness of mankind. On the other hand, laws that don't make sense or are harmful need to be broken and changed.
And laws should never be absolute.
Definitely, laws should be tested, as that is the only way to see if they are either robust or non fit for purpose... although it is a thin line that has seperated the social activism from borderline terrorism (my example would be the Suffragettes vs Suffragists, that were trying to push the women's vote).
Agreed, I also wrote in a different comment, laws are well-intentioned (mostly) to fix a certain problem, but of course they don't account for unintended consequences and edge cases, and this is where it is our duty as citizens to test these situations. Of course, that brings in the question of the access to legal systems, which are often limited by both time and money....
I'm sadly in agreement that we can't just trust in the complete goodness and fairness of the population... not neccessarily because poeple are ill-intentioned, but just because we all protect more strongly things that are of value to us, and we all value different things... also, one person's freedom will eventually come into contact with anothers....
The winners and the next SBI Giveaway (Superpowers) is here:
https://steemit.com/steembasicincome/@bengy/steemitbasicincomegiveawaysuperpower-kk3c7w2ju9
Laws should be flexible and that is why great care should be given when selecting a judge. Even biblically you are in greater risk of severe judgement if you knew in your heart that your actions were intentionally causing harm. If your actions caused harm but your intent was one that was grounded in ignorance than a lighter judgement, or even being let off with counseling should the outcome. Every judgement should always be based on the intent of the individual charged. Laws that should not be enforced are ones that govern the individual when their actions only effect their own personal welfare. Drug usage being one of those. If someone is using drugs in a way that they are out of the public view and in a controlled environment like their home than the law should have no say as to what they are doing. Sex workers should not be charged for breaking the law if they are having sexual relations with a consenting adult in the privacy of their own establishment. I believe the speed limit should be reconsidered and high speeds of travel should be legal in remote areas as long as that person can reasonable maintain control. I even feel people should be able to apply for a special speeding liscense which gives them special permission to greatly exceed the speed limit by proving to a qualified authority that they are trained and skilled in exceeding the speed limit, I think it's rather odd almost 20 years into the 21st century and we are still bound to antiquated laws governing speeds on equipment that is high performance and is capable of far exceeding the speed limits posted.
Definitely, the application of the punishments of law (and the interpretation of the law) are critical components in the judicial system. However, care in selecting judges can be a bit tricky when they are selected by political representatives (as I believe they are in the United States), on the other hand, the idea of electing judges or allowing the law societies to appoint judges are also systems that can have their own particular downsides... and advantages.
It is an interesting idea of different tiered speeding licence (I think it most countries, we call it a diplomatic plate... ha ha...). However, isn't the greatest danger on motorways, the difference in relative speed between cars, and less so the absolute speed of the vehicles? Wouldn't that make the problem worse? I guess you could have high speed roads that you could only use with the special licences, but that has other ramifications....
The winners and the next SBI Giveaway (Superpowers) is here:
https://steemit.com/steembasicincome/@bengy/steemitbasicincomegiveawaysuperpower-kk3c7w2ju9
The saying "Rules are there to be broken" is a nobrainer for me. They are there to serve a purpose. Yet I do think that (in Holland) we are overreacting with rules and regulations. And then I mean with food, drinks, smoking etc. I do believe they are made from the best intend but people do have a natural thing against rules in most situations. :)
With law's I am the opposite, law's are build to obey, they server the greater good. Safety, health, peace.. Freedom of speech, you name it... It's the foundation of our democracy... Criminal law the same, although I think we (dutchies) are way to soft in the consequences for breaking the law....
He he! I'm never playing a board game with you!
When I wrote the post, I was using rules and laws a bit interchangeably, as you and a couple of others have pointed out, there is a distinction. Although some have chosen the criminal conviction to denote laws, and monetary fines to denote rules.
I think I do agree with you (not so much on cheating in board games!), laws are the foundation of our societies (speaking from the point of view of a first world Western liberal democracy). Sure they sometimes restrict our freedom, but the main point of them is to protect the freedoms of others. As I had recently read in a post by @zen-art:
The winners and the next SBI Giveaway (Superpowers) is here:
https://steemit.com/steembasicincome/@bengy/steemitbasicincomegiveawaysuperpower-kk3c7w2ju9
I find that more and more laws are passed based on the moral degradation of society as a whole. In the past people had a stronger moral compass that guided them and certain things were not done based on these beliefs. With the loss of morality, laws began to be passed ti try to force morality on the populace. When that was excepted, the next step was special interest groups getting laws passed based on their beliefs, which in my opinion is a perversion of the process. A prime example is the abortion debate. “Christian” extremists are trying to have the procedure out lawed. No one has any right to tell anyone else what to do arbitrarily. It is perfectly ok to lobby against someone getting the procedure, but it is completely inappropriate to take away the choice. Taking away the choice is an unacceptable infringement on personal liberties. I may not agree with having the procedure, but I will never preclude anyone else from making their own decisions. By the same token, I would never and believe it is completely inappropriate to burn the US flag, but I will defend a persons right to make their own decision to do so. I also believe that the state mandating car insurance is inappropriate; that should be the decision of individuals whether to carry it or not. When it comes to speed limits, lights and traffic laws I tacitly agree with them because they are based in public safety. We need to focus on education spending not defense spending so the necessity for some laws are rendered moot.
I'm not sure that people had a stronger moral compass in the past! People did all sorts of heinous things and then got a free pass with a confession... On the other hand, the norms were different back then, so it is difficult to recast our current morality into the past!
The thing that caught my eye was the car insurance. Surely, that is the third party insurance that is mandated? So that it is certain that you can cover the damage you do to other people, whether you can cover the damage to yourself or not is your own problem. But if you can't cover the damage to someone else because you go bankrupt that is a problem for someone else?
In the case of insurance that is how they sell the mandate to the masses; to cover yourself against causing damage to yourself OR others. If I carry insurance on anything it is for damage that is done to it regardless of the source. The mandate to have coverage for doing damage not recieving it is an out for your insurance carrier to charge another insurance carrier instead if having to pay out themselves. Insurance in general is a scam but this particular instance shows how the populace is sold a line of goods to benefit the insurance company, that lobbies and pays off politicians to have laws passed to their benefit. The insurance that you choose to carry is supposed to cover any damage recieved, so if someone without insurance hits you, your company is supposed to cover you.
Interesting, maybe the laws are somewhat different in the United States (sorry, I'm assuming that's where you are from). As far as I understood over here, there are two parts.
The first party part (receiving damage) is optional as long as you own the car (you don't have to repay a loan if it is written off). The third party part is mandatory (liability), to cover the damage that you do to someone else. As I understand it, if both parties have both first and third party insurance, then the insurance companies will compare the difference and sort the claims that way, so one transaction rather than 4?
Apologies if that is what you were already saying! Also, I don't know how the laws work in the US! That said, maybe I should double check our own insurance to see if my understanding is correct or not...
You are correct in your assumption that I am from the US. We have a similar system were if you own the vehicle you can drop the portion that covera user caused damage and only keep the liability portion. However I am speaking in a more broad, conceptual sense that insurance should be a choice not compulsory. I am firm believer that individuals should be left to their own devices to make choices that they deem best for them without interference from government and with the full responsibility and consequences of their actions. Rights as citizens are infringed as government takes choice away in the guise of public safety. Regulations dont make us safer in the long run, having the faculties to make informed, educated and safe decisions on our own is the way. Education not regulation is the answer.
The winners and the next SBI Giveaway (Superpowers) is here:
https://steemit.com/steembasicincome/@bengy/steemitbasicincomegiveawaysuperpower-kk3c7w2ju9
Trouble comes when, as in the US, there are very limited funds available to courts and lawyers that cater to the poor.
I cannot fault any individual who, when set to enforce laws they find objectionable, steps aside from the duty. That is in no way to say that they should be able to simply not enforce a portion of the law, however.
All this is complicated of course by capitalism as it currently exists. Someone who works as a police officer has trained for years to do that job. It's not feasible for someone in that position, someone who likely has a family, to simply walk away and find a new career.
So, I dunno, I guess I'd say strict laws/lenient adjudication when social mobility is high, with laws being less set in stone the less egalitarian your society is. Though the real solution to that problem is, of course, fix your society, heh.
I think that this really is one of the biggest problems with democracy at the moment. The ideal of citizens being able to test and contest the boundaries of law and overreach, to establish precedent and revisit interpretations of the law is crucial to the functioning of democracy. When this is out of the reach (due to financial or time constraints), then the democracy is not going to function properly, it is these mechanisms that are supposed to restrain the power that we give to government.
Without these mechanisms being easily applied by citizens, then we start to lose faith in the democratic system and start to look for alternatives that might initially look appealing but might be worse in the long run.
The winners and the next SBI Giveaway (Superpowers) is here:
https://steemit.com/steembasicincome/@bengy/steemitbasicincomegiveawaysuperpower-kk3c7w2ju9
Setting myself a bookmark
https://steemit.com/bot/@remind.bot/about-this-remind-me-bot
Interesting question... Most of the rules should be concrete, there are those that are obsolete or just stupid but that is because laws do not change over time as much as they should and nobody really cares. It also depends on where you are living, some countries are really scary when it comes to rules and some, not so much. In my country, we have good rules and laws but there are problems with reinforcing them and our justice system is sadly a joke. I do have hope, however, that it will get better. Happy thoughts, happy thoughts, happy thoughts....
Haha, yes... happy thoughts... it could be much worse!
I agree that laws should be concrete at the time of application, but must need to evolve over time. Generally the only way to do this effectively (I think) is via the testing of them in the courts... which (whilst being a great idea in theory) is generally out of the reach of the ordinary person, both in time and money. Of course, all of this assumes an otherwise un-corrupted and well functioning accountability mechanisms.. which might not be the case!
On the other hand, like I said at the start... it could be much much worse (but that shouldn't excuse us from trying to find better ways!).
The winners and the next SBI Giveaway (Superpowers) is here:
https://steemit.com/steembasicincome/@bengy/steemitbasicincomegiveawaysuperpower-kk3c7w2ju9
Oh Wow, look at the lengthy discussion this week's question has sparked up, love it.
So for the question of whether I think laws should be concrete or as guidelines? My answer to that is CONCRETE 100%, I believe that rules and laws are part of our society and plays a big part in how we function.
I believe the majority of rules are to govern and protect the majority of people.
I'm not saying that all rules/law are perfect ( there are some pretty silly rules ), which many people choose to ignore, but be prepared to face the consequences if you are caught.
For the second question, I think the law which stats that if you step onto the road when a pedestrian crossing start to flash yellow, then it is considered jaywalking.
I walk fast so if it just starts to flash yellow, I have more than enough time to make the crossing before it turns red, hahaha
Oh! Tell me about it! I'm enjoying it, but it is pretty tough going to write decent comments in reply! I have to write 2 or 3 and then take a break!
I think I've written this in a couple of other replies, but I think also that the laws should be concrete at the time of application (of course, the punishment can be flexible as required by the situation). However, laws do need to be able to evolve with changing norms and ideas, which means they need to be easily tested by the citizenry... which I would argue is not easily the case at the moment (time and money constraints). On the other hand, perhaps the slow moving nature of changing laws could be a good thing in the long run. It wouldn't be great to have rules that constantly were shifting due to the prevailing trend or popular opinion of the moment, this has the down side that they might be a bit outdated, but perhaps the alternative is worse?
I didn't know that it was jay-walking when it turned yellow! I guess this is the problem with making laws that need to suit many many many people... you might be able to make the other side, but someone else might not (and think that they could!). Or more possibly, it is taking potential errors into account (the walker tripping, a car also running a yellow...) and weighting them against the possible gain in sidewalk efficiency!
The winners and the next SBI Giveaway (Superpowers) is here:
https://steemit.com/steembasicincome/@bengy/steemitbasicincomegiveawaysuperpower-kk3c7w2ju9
Forgive me my hard words (I'm not really into a mood to choose my words carefully,lol), but I think a lot people are simply not capable of making their own, well-thought decisions. Which is not necessarily their own fault: they've grown up having to obey all this rules and laws - they are like brainwashed.
I mean, just some simple examples: I've seen people wait fo.r a red light to turn green for 25 minutes. It took me less than 10 to realize the system was broken, but I stayed and watched just to see how long they would keep waiting - what can I say, I love social experiments :0)
After 25 minutes I had to go because I had an appointment, so I don't know how long they stayed there, but it was hilarious.
And it wasn't just one car, but many.
You can consider those people as being 'good' for not breaking the rules, but to me it's just another example of how people are not able to know whether it is smart to follow the rules, or just plain stupid.
(History has showed us those kind of people are simply dangerous.)
I was discussing leavig trash all aound with someone earlier this week, and we agreed that we couldn't understand that people - in spite of all awareness campaigns - were still littering all around.
Last week a friend of mine tossed his burning cigarette bud out of the car window - while it hasn't rained for weeks...
As sad as it may be for those who are capable of making their own relevant choices, and know the difference between right and wrong, a lot of people have to be protected against themselves...
We do have quite some crazy laws here in Belgium. Next to the old ones that are not relevant anymore (like the King still being allowed to send soldiers to Belgian Congo - while it hasn't been a colony anymore since 1960), they introduced a new kind of fines a couple of years ago. I can't really translate into English, but those fines are different for every city. In some cities, it is forbidden to sit on the back of benches in a park, in others it is forbidden to climb a tree, to play false notes as a street musician, to scare someone and other stupid things. In our beautiful city of Antwerp it is even forbidden to demonstrate against those fines... I'd say: no more of those
LOL, those are some seriously crazy laws... I wonder why they are still on the books? Surely, if they went to be tested, they would fall...
Of course, the rules only define the framework of the game! If that results in deadlock, then something needs to be circumvented! I think history has shown us that both well intentioned rule breaking and blind obedience have all caused problems! As far as I understand, you have also made the same point, that both extremes of blind obedience and sheer neglect of rules is not really a great way to live!
Maybe in the end, all kinds of people are dangerous!
The winners and the next SBI Giveaway (Superpowers) is here:
https://steemit.com/steembasicincome/@bengy/steemitbasicincomegiveawaysuperpower-kk3c7w2ju9
FACE the consequence the damage is already been done. Here in my country justice isn't fair. I might even say it that mostly sinners are those who went in church rather than those who are behind closed bars. No matter how pure your conscience is sometimes, money and power also the sickness of those who are in the government even for lawyers to give justice but still there is also good people who never let justice be demoraliized by anyone.
So I wish justice be concrete but also it must have stages of warnings after execution taking place. It may also differ from what offenses or what kind of laws did you break into. Abiding the laws is giving us restrictions to do something unjust.
Yes, I understand completely that the concept of "justice"is often mis-applied in some countries. It is a pity that some people decide that laws/rules are better for serving themselves rather than for the protection of others.
The winners and the next SBI Giveaway (Superpowers) is here:
https://steemit.com/steembasicincome/@bengy/steemitbasicincomegiveawaysuperpower-kk3c7w2ju9
I think laws should be as concrete and absolute as possible, which means they should also be used sparingly.
The red light is a good example, as you pointed out the fact that you were tired and not actually malevolent, and that no one was hurt is of little consequence. The law exists because that action (stopping at red lights) needs to happen every time without question. The lack of consequence was mostly good luck. I once happened across an accident where the drivers were not so lucky. The driver who ran through the stop sign was innocent in her intention, but someone still lost her life. Incidentally, if the deceased had been following the law about wearing her seat belt, she might have survived. I think both laws should exist and should be enforced with little regard for intent, because it harms no one and can prevent great harm to others. The seat belt one is arguable, but I'm glad that law exists. The stop sign is not arguable in my opinion.
There are plenty of laws I'd argue should not exist. First, any law prohibited by this:
"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."
I know that's an American thing, but it's really fundamental. Y'all should get one of those.
Beyond that, I'll go with low-hanging fruit. There should be no law restricting use of any kind of substance for your own consenting self, whether for medication or recreation or ritual. I'd like laws that punish misrepresentation of what a substance is (you can't sell me cocaine and call it super coffee sweetener, for example), but that (compelling truthfulness) should be the only consumer protection. We should only be stopped from doing that which directly harms others, like lying about what's in the coffee.
Yes, I completely agree. The laws are there to be obeyed and applied at the time they were current (not retrospectively). Of course there can be some variation in the application of the punishment (like if I kept running red lights, I would expect to also lose my driver's licence). The consequence of a infraction (a car crash) isn't the purpose of the law, it is the avoiding of the potential situation where my own actions impinge upon someone else's health or security.
I would say the same about the seat belt. If something bad does happen, it is possible to argue that the only victim is yourself. However, it is also passing on the cost of treatment to society. You take up a hospital bed that could have been used for better uses....
It's a good idea, but I think in the end it is too much of an ideal statement! To take an extreme case, the right of people to freely assemble. I would definitely agree in principle, however, if people wish to freely assemble with weapons (without using them), I'm not particularly keen on that!
Likewise, if a particular religion has as part of it's exercise, some questionable ideas that potentially impact upon the freedom and rights of others, then perhaps it should be restricted?
However, yes as a guiding principle, but I fear it is too high-minded to use as anything more than a guideline!
Having witnessed that particular traffic fatality, I would say the cost to society goes beyond medical care. There is also trauma to not only the familes but community members (like me) who end up involved. But still, it's arguable. I'm fine with seat belt laws but against drug prohibition, and my only logic is whether or not I believe they do more harm than good.
I'll stand by our first amendment 100%, because the key principle is
Any law that restricts these things, or forces them in a particular direction, is a bad law. So if people peaceably assemble with weapons it might be a very bad idea, or a renaissance fair, or zombie apocalypse training, but that is not something the state can discern in making a law.
There might be lots of specific and local examples that make necessary for individuals or communities to put limits on assembly, religious practices that harm others, even speech (I will not allow some kinds of speech around my young child, for example). But none of these are reasons for anyone to trust the state to do it with laws. It's too blunt an instrument. Let's say your religion demands human sacrifice. Obviously that's murder. But what if your sect only does a symbolic sacrifice? How can the law decide? If the religion is deemed too dangerous, when do you begin to violate the law- when you use certain symbols or words, when you associate with people of that religion, when you have certain thoughts or beliefs?
Better to keep laws as concrete as possible. Murder is illegal. Religion, expression, and assembly, a judgement call for individuals and communities to make on an ongoing basis.
Drug prohibition (I include medical drugs) is a tricky one as in most cases we fly blind with limited or unreliable scientific studies, compounded by the reproducibilty problem and fact that we can't just do direct tests on humans! But I do agree that there is a problem of mixed standards with drugs of all types (legal and illegal).
When you mean Congress, are you speaking of the top level government? So, not states in America? I still find it a good aspirational guide, but I think it is a bit too broad to apply broadly... (that came out ineptly...)....
The winners and the next SBI Giveaway (Superpowers) is here:
https://steemit.com/steembasicincome/@bengy/steemitbasicincomegiveawaysuperpower-kk3c7w2ju9
@bengy has set 1.000 SBD bounty on this post!
What is a bounty exactly?
A bounty is money sent to a post to be distributed to the users commenting on it. It provides a way to reward users directly and works in addition to the steem/sbd they receive from the blockchain. It works independently of SteemPower.
You create a bounty by sending any amount of sbd/steem to @steem-bounty together with a post-url in the memo.
How can I earn a bounty Users are then competing for the bounty by writing their answers to the post in comments that will achieve upvotes from the community and especially the bounty creator. The money of the bounty gets distributed to all top level comments of the post at the same time when the post is paid out (7 Days after it was written). How much everyone gets depends on the votes the comments received. The sender of the bounties votes are weighted higher so that she decideds where 80% of the bounty money goes and all other votes determine the rest.@steem-bounty does all of this for you automatically. You can use this service to automatically pay out a challenge, ask a hard question or simply to reward the people that interact with you.
Read more about how it works, even in different languages here.
You got voted by @votefun thanks to Bengy (also musicapoetica). We are still in early alpha, users can use us to get free upvotes. This is mainly directed towards users of the @cryptowithincin bot. We are in a few discord servers. To get full benefits, you have to be subscribed to @cryptowithincin. To support us, you can delegate to @votefun or just give this comment a upvote. Or you can even use http://votefun.tk/ to trade your STEEM/SBD for other coins. We charge a 0.1% fee and most of that will be used to help votefun get more steempower.
This post has received a 1.56 % upvote from @drotto thanks to: @votefun.
Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by Bengy (also musicapoetica) from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, theprophet0, someguy123, neoxian, followbtcnews, and netuoso. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows. Please find us at the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.
If you would like to delegate to the Minnow Support Project you can do so by clicking on the following links: 50SP, 100SP, 250SP, 500SP, 1000SP, 5000SP.
Be sure to leave at least 50SP undelegated on your account.
This post was shared in the Curation Collective Discord community for curators, and upvoted and resteemed by the @c-squared community account after manual review.
Rules & Laws are good in many ways. So yeah, I think it's good to have some rules and laws.
NEW TIER UPVOTES user guide
Current price is 0.150 or 0.151 SBD for 200%, 250%, or 300% upvote based on tier level.
200% ($0.30) - Bronze Level - No requirements
250% ($0.37) - Silver Level - SteemAuto Upvote of 100% or $0.02 (whichever is possible)
300% ($0.45) - Gold Level - SteemAuto Upvote of 100% or $0.02 AND 50 SP delegation
50 SP --- 100 SP --- 200 SP --- 500 SP --- 1000 SP
That being said...
Investors who delegate SP to @thundercurator are entitled to 75% of @thundercurator income after curation. Get on-board early and grow with us!