(no subject)

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Would you support a rule/stipulation/guideline/whatever that any law enacted to ban or restrict an activity would have to prove that said activity is harmful to society?

For instance, last night's vote on the initiative to ban gay marriage in North Carolina. Gay people marrying each other hurts noone, yet it was banned after already being illegal in the state. The United States' drug war is another example, where the ban arguably does more harm than no ban at all by creating a black market where there otherwise would be none.

The purpose of laws (either their existence or lack thereof) is to form the society we want to create. If we can't prove harm, then the passage of such a law is irrelevant at best, and in most cases I can think of creates more harm.

Comments

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

I've been pushing that metric on every politician I meet. I go further to say that it must have statistically significant harm based on scientific consensus of experts.

[dukexmachismo.livejournal.com]

Yes.

And I want at least an estimate off what it's going to cost to enforce said ban/restriction.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

You know the game (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/261191.html).

1 hour.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

FUCKING FASCISTS

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Sorry.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

It's OK, those jackboots need to get aired out every once in a while otherwise they get stale.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

We don't wear shoes in Africa.

[jolly-roger.livejournal.com]

I'd support that if you can join or leave that society anytime voluntarily.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Leaving society is always an option:

[dwer.livejournal.com]

yes.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Rights should never be subject to popular vote. There are no valid reasons to deny gay marriage except for cultural traditions that frankly shouldn't be taken into consideration. People are still free to keep their own values. Except of course social conservatives like to reinforce why they shouldn't be given the ability to impose their values on others like this:

Supporters of Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment Prove They’re Assholes With Incredibly Tacky Victory Party (http://jezebel.com/5908874/supporters-of-anti+gay-marriage-amendment-prove-theyre-assholes-with-incredibly-tacky-victory-party)

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

Agree 100%.

[rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com]

Republicans already think that homosexuality harms society and the evidence for AGW has them calling for end to global academic conspiracy.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

No I wouldn't support any sort of absolutist infringement upon the democratic process.

[korean-guy-01.livejournal.com]

Too subjective. There are legitimate grounds to ban Social Security since the demographic that receives it the most is least likely to be in poverty. 0bamatrons wouldn't support a ban of that even though their demographic would experience a good bump in income.

Another consideration would be 0bama's oil moratorium. What is your verdict on that? I'm sure you would bemoan the evils of global warming in light of mathematical realities like increased employment and reduced oil dependence on terrorist regimes (with the caveat that oil from federal land be sold in the US).

Verdict by the general populace voting is more preferable.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Why are you using zeros instead of Os?

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I don't know, but it makes his comment that much more hilarious.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

It could be the new fashion in the meme world.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

It's so the PSYOPs don't track him down and put him through reeducation.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure how my grandma, who fled the Soviet Union after retirement age, would experience a bump in income without Social Security.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

^^^ He'll never address this in a million years.

[vehemencet-t.livejournal.com]

While I agree with the spirit of this suggestion, I must deny it on other grounds.

I think people should have the freedom to do whatever the hell they want, restrained only by the same freedoms of others--i.e. my freedom ends where yours begins and if I try to use my freedom to do something that would deprive you of yours, you have the freedom to resist and correct the attempted injustice. That's how I try to live my life and I don't thnk we need a legal code to guarantee that--just depriving the ruling class of its power to lockdown society into it's desired mold and a mass civil disobedience on the part of "citizens" against such "laws" to show their impotence.

For example, most people say no vaccinating your children is harmful to society, but I still support the freedom of parents to say no.

Gay monogamy does no harm. Personal consumption of recreational drugs does no harm. Those laws should be ignored en masse along with just about every other law out there. That is to say people should choose for themselves what they wish to do based on their own conscience, both cooperatively and as individuals, rather than following self-serving codes made by the ruling class to protect their interests and tastes.

It's amazing that "common law", which seems to have developed rather organically in Western history, dealt with most transgressions against society without needing to write them down for a long time before they were statutized by the monarchy. People kind of knew what they considered unacceptable and when someone broke it, they got together to decide what to do about it. It seems to have worked, although there were definitely imbalances and inconsistencies. But I think situationalism is far preferable to some arbitrary universal standard that doesn't really apply to specific individuals, motivations and situations.