Laws without substantial reason

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Jeremyhfht, May 26, 2007.

  1. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Exploradora Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    Get severely injured in a car accident. Trust me, you'd qualify for medicaid and/or medicare and the lovely tax payers would be paying your bills. Your insurance would drop you so quick you wouldn't know what happened.

    *shuts up now and hand topic back to Jeremy*
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jeremyhfht Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    386
    *rolls eyes* >_> lol

    I've no idea why you're arguing about it. As there are few people who don't wish to wear a seat belt anyway. Aside from that, it should be legally their choice. Making a law to force everyone to conform (especially when it's such a ridiculous topic) isn't very democratic to them.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,433
    As I pointed out, backseat adult passengers are not required to wear seatbelts (in most places) in the US.
    Wehere there are seatbelt laws, they are restricted to children and front seat passengers.

    Show me studies that address the risks of people being thrown throught windshields and injuring people on the street.

    Absurd.

    Did you read this:

    Or this...
     
  8. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,433
    Same goes for skiing accident, mountain climbing accident, horseback riding accident or any other serious accident.
    Again, these activities are not illegal, nor should they be.

    Me too.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Jeremyhfht,
    Go on.
     
  9. Jeremyhfht Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    386
    >_> I said create a new topic you three! JEEZE!
     
  10. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    we are not talking about pool cues. We are talking about seat belts.

    I have already shown you a study that shows that not wearing seatbelts is irresponsible towards other people.
     
  11. Jeremyhfht Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    386
    And I disagree with it, since it's blatantly obvious that the driver has a say in whether or not someone wears a seat belt.

    Nice try, but no.
     
  12. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,433
    You showed a study regarding back seat passengers unbelted injuring front seat passengers...
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2007
  13. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,433
    Jeremyhfht,

    I dropped it. YOU started talking about it again.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,433
    They are both "theoretically possible", they are both equally unlikely and there is no records of either happening as far as I am aware.
     
  15. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    I'm sure i can find something on front seat belts to. That's because not all collisions are frontal. Most are actually angled, or straight from the side. Putting that in the equation the driver or front seat passenger not wearing seatbelts can become lateral projectiles. The same principle applies.


    But let me go back a level to show where I think you err.

    Laws are made with the good of the public in mind. Focussing on that aspect anecdotal evidence as you presented becomes meaningless. You as an individual become meaningless. If statistics show that wearing a seatbelt dramatically decreases injury than a law making seatbelts obligatory is absolutely substantial.

    As an individual you may not like the law, but you cannot make the case that this particular law is not warranted or substantial. Because laws are not about individuals. Laws are made to grease a society.
     
  16. Jeremyhfht Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    386
    What if statistics show only 1% of all drivers/passengers/etc do not wear a seatbelt? It becomes meaningless when the majority of people would wear seatbelts anyway. It then becomes a question of personal choice.

    You see, laws tend to be biased in that they only took one set of statistics into account. It's like banning guns because 0.05% of their users use them to commit a crime. Oh wait.
     
  17. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,433
    I couldn't disagree more.
    Statistics show smoking is dangerous, along with skiing, mountain climbing.
    Why are these not against the law?
    Laws need to take into account individual liberties when those liberties do not adversely affect the liberties or quality of life of others.
     
  18. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    Ah! Now we are getting somewhere.

    Let us first remind ourselves that there is a different view on individual liberties between Europe and the USA. We will never get agreement on these views.

    Secondly let us examine your other claim. Smoking is dangerous, skiiing is dangerous, mountain climbing is dangerous.

    So is driving a car with a seatbelt. Wearing a seatbelt does not eliminate risk. It merely diminishes risk. And this is good for society's sake. And laws are made for society's sake. Not for the sake of you as an individual. Of course some laws guarantee you rights as an individual. Those laws however are also made for society's sake. Since in our western world we want a society with a certain amount of individual freedom.

    What you want is anarchy. And anarchy is the total opposite of law. Your desire for anarchy doesn't diminish the reason behind laws like wearing seatbelts. The reason is rather substantial for our society. Society wants to dimish road carnage.

    If we want to eliminate all risk alltogether we would forbid cars. period.
    If we want to eleminate all risk we forbid smoking. Smoking however has been an integral part of society for centuries. Although currently smoking freedoms are being restricted. In finland it will become forbidden to smoke in bars and restaurant this june. There has to be a special cubicle or a smoking place outside. Indeed, many societies are currently making laws against smoken and their is substantial reason for it. Smoking is a health risk. Smoking less would benefit society as a whole.

    What you are trying to do here is to argue from a logical perspective that the world needs to be black and white. That is a foolish endeavour when talking about human culture or the structure of human society. There is definitely a logic behind making laws. And most of them are substantial on some level. But not all. And seatbelts have a substantial reason in the larger picture of society, and the concept of law and the relationship of law regarding society.

    I'm sure you would like to do whatever you want to. And you can. You can break the law. We all do at one point in time. However, you cannot sustain the argument that laws have no substantial reason because they have no substantial reason for you as an individual, because then you ignore what a law is.
     
  19. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    It just seems strange to all of us that you don't know the reasons for why some laws are passed and others not passed ...even idiotic, stupid laws. That's why the topic sucks giant d***** d****, and they've turned to a more interesting topic.

    Baron Max
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 30, 2007
  20. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,634
    I think seat belt laws do make sense when you take psychological biases into account. It is pretty clear that people do underestimate their own chances of getting into an accident. Humans are noticeably bad and measuring the expected risk in low probability but high cost circumstances. Sometimes people greatly overreact to a risk (for example, the average American's chance of being killed in a terrorist attack is ridiculously small...bathtubs and lightning are far more dangerous, and when was the last time the government spent billions on those issues?). Other times we greatly under-appreciate the risks (seat belts, the risks of tanning and bathtubs being prime examples of those). Possibly the "seat belt" misassessment of risk is related to the fact that, in America, 80-85% of people surveyed regularly identify themselves as being "better than average drivers." In the era before seat belt laws only about 50% of drivers were using them...even though they were shown to be remarkably effective at saving lives. Statistics were shared, but Americans proved remarkably resistant to those statistical facts, the increased perception of risk and the information about the easy way to avoid it, didn't change the percentage of people using seat belts by very much. It's not such a leap to attribute that to some cognitive bias. (In fact, researcher found a way to increase the use the seat belts--you use ads that show parents buckling up their children and make it seem like it's about protecting them, not about protecting yourself. The ads that appeal to the emotions got seat belt use up. Ads appealing to the statistics had little effect on subjects.)

    Seat belt laws increase the "perception of risk" associated with not wearing a seat belt and compensate for the internal biases that lead may people to not wear them. At least that's the theory.

    There is some evidence to suggest that forcing seat belt use makes drivers feel "safer" and so induces them to engage in riskier driving, but that is to say that there is a potentially countervailing consideration, not that the laws themselves have no basis in empirical evidence. A legislature is fully justified in finding the safety record of seat belts compelling and the evidence supporting the notion of "risk compensation" by engaging in riskier behaviors to be less compelling, They might be wrong in that assessment, but being wrong doesn't mean they are irrational or acting "without" evidence.

    As for knife laws . . . knife violence was once a problem in some cities...sorry that there is no "katana exception," but is one really needed? The truth is, if I see some dude on the street with a katana, there's a good chance he's crazy and I want the police to have a good reason to take it from him. If he has a good reason, I trust the police to let him go about his business. If not, it's probably for the best that police relieve him of that katana. Knife laws are mainly silly no because everyone and their mother has a gun on them, so the knife is the least of your worries, but once upon a time gangs actually did have "knife fights."

    I don't think any law is ever made up without some cause. Legislatures do not generally engage in rigorous scientific experiments...but they do occasionally hold hearings, or they respond to stories they've heard. That's the process. Anecdotal evidence gets weighed in the legislative process all the time and likely accounts for many of the "silly laws" (as would laws that had some basis of support a long time prior that is now forgotten, like the law forbidding one from holding a puppet show from one's own apartment window in NYC).
     
  21. Jeremyhfht Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    386
    Speaking of psychological bias...*COUGH*

    How wrong you are. Most policemen relish the opportunity at bringing someone ELSE in. It means promotions. The law does give leeway if you're carrying it to a demonstration, but even then it must remain in a carrying case.

    Yes, and once upon a time they can still have knife fights. Limiting the knife size to 3-4 inches does jack shit.

    My point is, knife laws are stupid.

    Okay. I'm going to kill you because I feel like it. See? that has basis. Therefore I can do it!

    According to your reasoning anyway. I said "no cause" because stupid reasons basically denote "no cause". And when you mentioned gangs having knife fights, that's ridiculous. Banning knives over 3 inches because a gang has a knife fight? Lets ban automobiles because gangs use them as get-away cars.
     
  22. Mosheh Thezion Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,650
    JEREMY....

    these laws... are not laws... they are statutes.

    statutory laws... are not real laws.

    real law... is derived from the Magna Carta, and it is called the Common Law.

    this is the only law which is constitutional...

    its the old world... NO HARM = NO FOUL = NO CRIME.

    IE... if you havent hurt anyone, or their property... then you have not commited a crime.

    to carry a lb of marijuana... or even coccaine... is not a real crime.
    since no one is getting hurt... its your drugs,,, you are a free man... you can do what you wish...

    the reason it is now... today possible for the Government to imposes the now.. 66 million statutory laws on the books....

    the reason they can do that... is because...

    because...

    because... we no longer have a constitutionally limited federaL GOVERNMENT.

    DO YOU GET IT?

    THE CONSTITUTION IS SUPPOSED TO LIMIT THE FED. thats what its for.

    but it doesnt anymore... do you know why?

    in 1933 they gave america a NEW DEAL.... do ya remember that from history class?

    a NEW DEAL.... that established a state of emergency, using the 'war and emergency powers act of 1873'... 187??? anyway..

    this act, states, that during times of emergencies, the federal government can put the constitution aside, and exercise any and all needed powers to protect the nation from whatever precieved threat.

    get it?

    we were in a depression.

    so the fed used the emergency powers act... to put the constitution aside and ... so... IT, THE FED... COULD NOW DO ALL THE THINGS, THE FOUNDING FATHERS TRIED TO PREVENT.

    UNDERSTAND?

    they threw out the old common law legal system, and replaced it, with a contract / tort system of maritime admiralty law....
    based on statutes...

    statutes.. they could now write... in endless numbers to control us all.
    66 million statute laws now exist.


    they also made it illegal for americans to own and use gold as currency.
    and they put us all... on a new dollar...

    a dollar based on our gdp... based on our labor... and they used all the gold americans owned to pay off the interest to foriegn investors.

    in this way... we can never go bankrupt... because we already are.
    and always will be... the problem, is.. this bankruptcy, means our nation is financed by those who actually have the gold...

    and our entire economy is used to generate the interest payments to payoff the investors who own our government.

    do ya get it?

    we dont have any of our constituional freedoms anymore....

    why??

    because after 1933.. the government forced all children born to have BIRTH CERTIFICATES... these certificates, make you all 14th ammendment citizens....

    but the constitution says... 14th ammendment citizens are UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE...

    WHY?

    because the 14th ammendment was written for slaves... who had no rights.


    so, by forcing all americans to become 14th ammendment citizens, you have been robbed of your consitutional rights.. and have been made a slave, who is then given priviledges and benefits from the new fed.

    the fed that owns you and your labor.

    it is estimated that each american will on average generate one million dollars worth of wealth derived from labor.

    this future wealth output, is the credit apon which our nations currency is backed.
    and our taxes, go to pay off the interest on the loans.


    dont you get it?

    you are all owned cattle... worker bees...

    you lost you consittutional freedom in 1933.

    free men... can own land.. without tax.. can own anything, without tax..
    and none of it, even if taxed, can be taken away without being compensated for it.

    in todays world... they take your land... your car.. all your belongings...

    and you are not compensated for it..... ever.



    you are not free... no one is.


    so get back to work..

    -MT
     
  23. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    This is the greatest law of all time. Fucking beautiful!
     

Share This Page