Stupid Laws

Political Philosophy
1

I don’t know about other countries but here in New Zealand if I iuse force to remove a trespasser or burglar from my property I can get charged with assault even though he has initiated force. Also if I have a dog that attacks said person the dog will get put down and I can be fined or even jailed for a small period of time.

I personally think these two laws are stupid and immoral. What do you think?

Also if you know of any other stupid/immoral laws feel free to mention them here if you wish to do so.

2

I don’t know about other countries but here in New Zealand if I iuse force to remove a trespasser or burglar from my property I can get charged with assault even though he has initiated force.

If you could provide a more specific citation for the law, that would be much appreciated. (Some presumed laws are apocryphal like the Ohio whale-fishing law, so in my own collection, I always point to government documents).

3

If you could provide a more specific citation for the law, that would be much appreciated. (Some presumed laws are apocryphal like the Ohio whale-fishing law, so in my own collection, I always point to government documents).

Well I dont know the official wording but I do know that is the case because people have been unfairly charged for it.

The law is worse in terms of stupidity than I thought… I found out that if someone refuses to leave you can “remove them”. However you can not use force to do so. That’s a contradiction not to mention stupid!

4

Sodomy Laws

Antitrust Legislation

Drug Laws

Friends who live there have told me the state of Maryland has laws similar to those DragonMaci is describing.

5

Sodomy Laws

Antitrust Legislation

Drug Laws

Friends who live there have told me the state of Maryland has laws similar to those DragonMaci is describing.

What’s wrong with drug laws? Also I’m not sure what antitrust laws frobid. Could you clarify that one.

6

What’s wrong with drug laws? Also I’m not sure what antitrust laws frobid. Could you clarify that one.

People who use drugs aren’t initiating force against anyone. While I don’t really look favorably on drug-users, they should be allowed to do whatever they want to their own bodies.

The biggest problem with antitrust laws is that nobody’s really sure what they forbid; or rather, nobody’s really sure how to avoid being prosecuted under them. They are the anti-monopoly laws. They are an incredibly poor, non-objective piece of legislation and leave a lot of to the whim of the judge. Any business could potentially be found guilty of violating them. They are basically used to persecute businesses. Microsoft is a big target. Poor Billy. :thumbsup:

7

Last November, Columbus (OH) passed a no-smoking-in-public-buildings law, which includes bars and restaurants. Not that I mind the fresh air, mind you, but to force businesses to turn away smoking customers is bad for business. I did an informal poll of several bars and restaurants six months after the ban went into effect and every place I asked told me they saw a significant (15-35%, the latter was a bar) drop in revenue after the ban. Restaurants were less hit, but their losses were almost entirely in liquor sales, to the point that one restaurant said they were contemplating not renewing their liquor license.

-Q

8

That’s a state-wide law here in California. I loathe cigarette smoke, so I rather enjoy the constant smoke-free environment, but I still disagree with the legislation.

9

People who use drugs aren’t initiating force against anyone. While I don’t really look favorably on drug-users, they should be allowed to do whatever they want to their own bodies.

The biggest problem with antitrust laws is that nobody’s really sure what they forbid; or rather, nobody’s really sure how to avoid being prosecuted under them. They are the anti-monopoly laws. They are an incredibly poor, non-objective piece of legislation and leave a lot of to the whim of the judge. Any business could potentially be found guilty of violating them. They are basically used to persecute businesses. Microsoft is a big target. Poor Billy. :thumbsup:

Indeed. Let me explain this too in a little more detail Kane:

The only proper role of government is to act as protection against/ to retaliation against the initation of force against others. Governments have no right to stop someone living their life as they see fit as long as that person does not initiate force against another. It is not a matter of whether the government “knows best what is right” or anything like that, it is a matter of one being able to folow their judgement as to what is best for them.

If they make the wrong choices, such as taking cocaine or such, then they should expect to suffer the consequences of such. It is not initation of force if they deal drugs with other misguided, but willing individuals. However, if they commit other crimes involving the initation of force in order to obtain drugs, then the government has the responsiblity to step in and take action against the crime of initating force.

Microsoft are classic examples of a company unfairly targeted by antitrust laws. This is partially because the charges are totally ridicolous. These days it is perceived that any big bussiness that dominates the market is is a monopoly, no matter how this came to be. But it is usually the non-coercive companies that obtain a large market share by releasing brillant, popular products that are charged. Never mind that Microsoft got where it is today by releasing products that are far more user-friendly than say other products such as Linux (although this is less true these days), reasonably powerful and stable.

Most companies it would seem are scrambling for a chance to claim Microsoft is “hogging the goods” by using propereity formats etc, or not providing secure products. The fact is that Microsoft have the moral right to not disclose information regarding their product if they do not choose to, and their rivals cannot claim a right to it on the grounds of “public good”.

And if you look at it rationally, Microsoft products are not inherently all that less secure than any other product, but it seems that way due to the fact it is usually targeted far more often. Recently for instance, Firefox has been shown after at least one particular month to contain more security holes than IE…

10

Last November, Columbus (OH) passed a no-smoking-in-public-buildings law, which includes bars and restaurants. Not that I mind the fresh air, mind you, but to force businesses to turn away smoking customers is bad for business. I did an informal poll of several bars and restaurants six months after the ban went into effect and every place I asked told me they saw a significant (15-35%, the latter was a bar) drop in revenue after the ban. Restaurants were less hit, but their losses were almost entirely in liquor sales, to the point that one restaurant said they were contemplating not renewing their liquor license.

-Q

Centerville, Ohio just recently did the same thing. The Washington Township Applebees put up a sign explaining that they’re not technically IN Centerville to keep people from complaining. I heard that they’re contemplating forbidding people to smoke outside as well.

Personally I HATE cigarette smoke, but I thoroughly support everyone’s right to DO it. I will just not sit near you or talk with you . . .depending on your opinion of my temper you might think that’s a good thing.

11

People who use drugs aren’t initiating force against anyone. While I don’t really look favorably on drug-users, they should be allowed to do whatever they want to their own bodies.

The biggest problem with antitrust laws is that nobody’s really sure what they forbid; or rather, nobody’s really sure how to avoid being prosecuted under them. They are the anti-monopoly laws. They are an incredibly poor, non-objective piece of legislation and leave a lot of to the whim of the judge. Any business could potentially be found guilty of violating them. They are basically used to persecute businesses. Microsoft is a big target. Poor Billy. :stuck_out_tongue:

Actually the statistics show that they DO harm others more often that not when on drugs. They are trying to prevent innocents from unnecessary and undeserved harm. What is wrong with that? Do you know that the official don’t care at all about drugies? Not even the slightest bit. So the law is not trying to protect them…

As for the anti-trust laws… yes I know of what you speak now… and I agree.

12

Actually the statistics show that they DO harm others more often that not when on drugs. They are trying to prevent innocents from unnecessary and undeserved harm. What is wrong with that? Do you know that the official don’t care at all about drugies? Not even the slightest bit. So the law is not trying to protect them…

As for the anti-trust laws… yes I know of what you speak now… and I agree.

Then prosecute them when they do harm others then. The government should not go locking people away because they might or might not harm people, otherwise a lot of currently innocent people would be in prison. It is not morally right to lock someone away due to the fact they take substances which could contribute to them deciding to initiate force against others.

It it is not initating force against others to take drugs, it may or may not make someone more likely too, but you cannot morally lock someone away based on an unknown probability. Would you suggest we lock away parents that we think are likely to hit their kids based on something which is far from certain? Because you see, unless you can find me some stats I would say the excuse of locking druggies away because they MIGHT harm someone is pretty flimsy.

13

Actually the statistics show that they DO harm others more often that not when on drugs.

There is no such statistic, so please don’t make things up.

14

When has there ever been a case of a pothead committing a legitimate crime because he was stoned? The worst offense I can think of is hogging the TV and eating the last of the Frito’s.

Even with other drugs, you can’t legitimately punish somebody because they might initiate force, and I would debate whether any drug is the real cause of any legitimate criminal action, or at least whether or not they would be if they were legalized. Most of the violent crime we associate with drug use is a result of their illegality, not drug use itself.

Even if such statistics existed, statistics are not conclusive scientific evidence, contrary to what the empiricists might say. If you can identify some type of causation… that’s evidence.

15

There is no such statistic, so please don’t make things up.

I didn’t make it up. I’ve seen it on documentaries, news articles and current affairs articles. just becuase you’ve seen no such stastistic doesn’t mean there is none.

16

I’ve seen it on documentaries, news articles and current affairs articles.

Then you should provide evidence for that claim: a citation. Why should we believe such an outrageous claim? What if I told you that statistics show that 80% of all adults have shoplifted at least $1000 worth of merchandise in their life. I saw it somewhere. The charitable interpretation is that you think you heard some statistic along those lines, you forgot a lot of the details, and you rewrote the statistic in your mind. You should come up with a real figure and a traceable source.

17

The charitable interpretation is that you think you heard some statistic along those lines, you forgot a lot of the details, and you rewrote the statistic in your mind. You should come up with a real figure and a traceable source.

In order for the statistical argument to hold any weight whatsoever, an identification of the causal connection between drug use and initiation of force needs to be made as well. Without that, statistics are nothing more than trivia.

18

I didn’t make it up. I’ve seen it on documentaries, news articles and current affairs articles. just becuase you’ve seen no such stastistic doesn’t mean there is none.

This is probably referring to the increased rate of car accidents involving fatalities, which is causally related. In reports on the dangers of drug use things like car accidents and walking off a roof are usually cited.

19

The biggest problem with antitrust laws is that nobody’s really sure what they forbid; or rather, nobody’s really sure how to avoid being prosecuted under them.

There’s one sure way - just don’t be in business :slight_smile: All the anti-trust laws do is make a business a potential target if they (1) have a lower price than competitors, (2) have the same price as competitors, (3) have a higher price than competitors, (4) have no competitors. The only logic is that those 4 conditions literally cover every logical possible combination of being in business.

20

Last November, Columbus (OH) passed a no-smoking-in-public-buildings law, which includes bars and restaurants. Not that I mind the fresh air, mind you, but to force businesses to turn away smoking customers is bad for business. I did an informal poll of several bars and restaurants six months after the ban went into effect and every place I asked told me they saw a significant (15-35%, the latter was a bar) drop in revenue after the ban. Restaurants were less hit, but their losses were almost entirely in liquor sales, to the point that one restaurant said they were contemplating not renewing their liquor license.

-Q

New Zealand passed such a law this year. Or was it late last year? I am a strong hate smoking but I hate that law even more. Mind you here in NZ the drop in revenue and patronage has not happened, but still. The government claimed they were protecting the health and rights of non smokers like myself. As if that somehow overrides the rights of the smokers. When I walked into a bar or pub I know what I was getting myself in for. I choose to be in a place with smokers so there was no breach of my rights.