If you could change a law, wich one would it be?

[wolfram and hart]

thats right! its just a question. im cuious to see what laws Americans are actualy unconfortable with and would change.

just put in the law and why u think it should be diff. or what makes it not a so good law or even pointless..

this is my first, thread on here am new as of today so hi and nice to meet y'all!

[DavidOdden]

just put in the law and why u think it should be diff. or what makes it not a so good law or even pointless..

The 16th Amendment. It allows income taxes, and there's a "need I say more" if ever there was one.

[Tenure]

The 16th Amendment. It allows income taxes, and there's a "need I say more" if ever there was one.

Would that be the first law you'd change though? I mean, at present, we don't live in a society rational enough to support such a system (or lack thereof).

I mean, personally, I'd go for repealing all the Drugs laws. I belive it's somewhere around 60 to 70% of people who are locked up, are in there for drug offences? Such a blatant abuse of civil rights would make more sense, although it would free up tons of public money and I'd be quite hesitant then, because who knows what the government would do with it then (either in the UK or the US).

So maybe David is right - cut them off at the source, like you would a spoiled kid on your credit card.

Edited August 10, 2007 by Tenure

[DavidOdden]

So maybe David is right - cut them off at the source, like you would a spoiled kid on your credit card.

Assume no income taxes (like it was during the first half of American existence) -- goverment could only afford to spend on the bare essentials like protection of rights. They could not afford the something like $20 billion wasted federally each year on the "war on drugs".

[Mimpy]

I'd get rid of the antitrust laws.

[K-Mac]

Getting rid of income taxes and the IRS would be my first move also.

[John McVey]

Philosophy, people. Ethics trumps politics, and epistemology trumps ethics. Cut to the chase - obliterate the funding of inculcation of bad epistemological method. I therefore say instead the first thing would be to undo the laws that permits government funding of education. That will take care of a heck of a lot more down the track, including eventual repeal of income taxes and all the other things.

Without a change in philosophy, if David found a magic lamp and got a genie to erase the 16th Amendment there'd be a push for a new amendment to allow income taxes again, so he'd actually be wasting one of his three precious wishes. Ditto Mimpy and antitrust laws (on that note it would be better to go after the interstate commerce clause in the US Constitution rather than mere derivatives of it like the antitrust laws).

JJM

(Edit: grammar and spelling. Remember - PIMF!)

Edited August 10, 2007 by John McVey

[y_feldblum]

There would be an immediate push to government run schools again.

[K-Mac]

There would be an immediate push to government run schools again.

I agree. I say cut funding to all government programs, by repealing income tax laws, and let them "wither on the vine."

[y_feldblum]

I do not think there is any single legal change which would move the dominant trend in the ideas our culture holds. Abolishing taxation and abolishing public education are both impotent in comparison. Ideas lead the people, and the people lead the government.

[DavidOdden]

I therefore say instead the first thing would be to undo the laws that permits government funding of education.

Okay, but do you know what those laws are? I suppose that's an unfair question to ask an Aussie, but in fact there is no such law in the US. What you mean is that you'd like to pass a law to prohibit goverment funding of, well, I think it would have to be broader, like "research and education". At the level of different states, you can find constitutional requirements to require funding of education, so those could each be repealed.

Without a change in philosophy, if David found a magic lamp and got a genie to erase the 16th Amendment there'd be a push for a new amendment to allow income taxes again, so he'd actually be wasting one of his three precious wishes.

We need the genie to magically cause the de-funding of state education that you propose. So one way or the other, you have to believe in magic to be answering this question at all. Given the premise, namely changing a law, I propose that my change is the best. Just to remove state funding of education throughout the US, you'd need 50 changes in law, not one. In addition, that still allows federal spending and AFIK there isn't anly law pertaining to allowing federal spending -- the feds are allowed to spend if they wish and if they have the wherewithall.

Lastly, government-funded schools are not the only source of bad philosophy. The Catholic church runds an extensive bad-pilosophy training ground, and there are very many universities that are not govermental (Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Chicago, USC, Stanford, etc. etc.). Bad philosophy is not limited to government schools.

The golden rule trumps all: without the gold, they shall not rule.

[D'kian]

How about the constitutional clause regarding interstate commerce? Fowl things have been done in its name.

[Miles White]

It disgusts me that we even still have a 16th amendment. I would absolutely repeal that amendment, for almost 100 years our government was funded entirely off of excise taxes or tarrifs alone, there is absolutely no reason why any government needs to levy any kind of an income tax unless we were to become a communist state. Another minor law I find annoying in California is the law that says you can't stuff animals, that is so ridiculous to me, if you want to take an animal to a taxidermist you have to have a government approved license and you have to only stuff animals so you can give them to museums. What the hell is the purpose behind that law what is it trying to solve? I also believe hearing somewhere- I don't really know if it's true- that theres a law in New York that says that you can't blow bubbles and eat ice cream at the same time.

[DavidOdden]

theres a law in New York that says that you can't blow bubbles and eat ice cream at the same time.

It's a physical law.

[Robert J. Kolker]

Getting rid of income taxes and the IRS would be my first move also.

How would you fund the military. Do you think there is enough trade that tariffs would be sufficient?

There are three legitimate areas of government operation:

1. National Defense against foreign enemies;

2. Internal Defense against criminals and defrauders;

3. Maintaining the courts to handle both criminal matters and torts.

To do these functions revenue is needed. Without an income tax (corporate and personal) how would you fund the legitimate functions of government? Please support your position with economic data.

Bob Kolker

[John McVey]

Okay, but do you know what those laws are? I suppose that's an unfair question to ask an Aussie, but in fact there is no such law in the US.

My apologies. I thought there was one overall law as I recall that public schooling got off the ground because Jefferson said it was going to be necessary so as to teach kids their rights and so forth.

So one way or the other, you have to believe in magic to be answering this question at all.

I do not think there is any single legal change which would move the dominant trend in the ideas our culture holds. Abolishing taxation and abolishing public education are both impotent in comparison. Ideas lead the people, and the people lead the government.

Yup, there's a big-ass chicken and egg situation to deal with.

Lastly, government-funded schools are not the only source of bad philosophy. The Catholic church runds an extensive bad-pilosophy training ground, and there are very many universities that are not govermental (Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Chicago, USC, Stanford, etc. etc.). Bad philosophy is not limited to government schools.

I know. I was thinking more in terms of the schools for children rather than the universities. The 'no one law' thing wrecks what I had in mind re W&H's requirement, but I was thinking that if there were nothing but private education then huge numbers of parents would send their kids to far more decent schools than exist today. I didn't think it would eliminate bad philosophy overnight. Think of Lisa van Damme's school multiplied several times over, turning into a chain of franchised schools across the country. There doesn't need to be a great majority of such students, just a sizeable number who get good ideas and become far more open to Objectivism. This increases the number who will get through Dr Brook's funnel to the OGC and from there to academia.

Given the premise, namely changing a law, I propose that my change is the best. ... The golden rule trumps all: without the gold, they shall not rule.

I've never quite agreed with that. There's the lead rule, too. If push came to shove, who has the lead can get the gold. That's why there are so many demands for ever more gun control, not just in the US but everywhere. Public safety excuses are secondary. Change the philosophy and you change the ideas motivating the use of both the lead and the gold, so I thought it would be best to have a quick opening of the door to philosophy, even if it does get shut again some time later.

JJM

[Solid_Choke]

I am torn between rewriting the Second Amendment to make it almost impossible to misinterpret(such as spelling out that the right to self-defense is a corollary to the right to life) and totally repealing the Sixteenth Amendment.

[K-Mac]

How would you fund the military. Do you think there is enough trade that tariffs would be sufficient?

There are three legitimate areas of government operation:

1. National Defense against foreign enemies;

2. Internal Defense against criminals and defrauders;

3. Maintaining the courts to handle both criminal matters and torts.

To do these functions revenue is needed. Without an income tax (corporate and personal) how would you fund the legitimate functions of government? Please support your position with economic data.

Bob Kolker

I'm afraid I don't have too much "economic data" for you, but I do know what theft is. There must be a better way than to steal money from people. Humans are smart enough to come up with something. From personal experience, I think personal and corporate donations would work. It worked for volunteer fire departments and it works for churches so why wouldn't it work for something as important as national defense, personal and property protection and the courts?

Just because I don't have a crystal ball with all the solutions doesn't mean that I will accept theft in the meantime.

Edited August 11, 2007 by K-Mac

[DavidOdden]

How would you fund the military.

Ayn Rand wrote on this, in the essay "Government Financing in a Free Society", which was published in Virtue of Selfishness. I highly recommend it.