Laws without substantial reason

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

  1. Jeremyhfht Registered Senior Member

    I have a question to all of you. I've been noticing in my research as of late that there are a large number of laws that hold no substantiated reason for being made a law. My question then, is, why is it some laws are drafted in that have no rational/statistical/empirical evidence backing?

    This is a country of democracy. But as a democracy, and given how many people there are in the country, it becomes near impossible to pay attention to the laws being snuck in behind the publics nose. Tell me how many of you have made it a point to search for the latest laws being made? If I'm right in my assumption, very few of you (USA or not) make it a point to pay attention beyond what the TV gives you.

    Because of this there are tons of absolutely ridiculous laws that were made in the past, and even more that are being made in the present. Such as the law that bans sodomy. It has absolutely no reasoning behind it other then "because it's wrong" (church circular-logic).

    On a non-gay account, there are also laws that ban ridiculous things like having a blade over 3-5 inches (varying from state to state) in public. This includes swords that you'd be taking to a display, or wearing for traditional purposes.
    So do tell me, when is the last time someone was held up successfully with a Katana? Y'know, before the knife law was made. None, I can most definitely assure you.

    Similarly, there are laws made that directly infringe upon the overall free will of both the people and the entire country. Such as the seat belt law. Why is that even in existence? If someone wants to save their stupid life, they can wear it. If they don't want to, whose right is it to force ANYONE to wear the seat belt? Why was that law made? HOW was it made?

    For further laws that don't make sense, follow google (and a few others):

    Nonsensical laws

    Seat belt law

    Knife Laws

    It would appear to me that the government largely uses scare tactics in order to sway people. This is ridiculous, and unforgivable.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    According to whose idea of "substantiated reason"? The problem, as you might have noticed, is that just because YOU can't see a reason, or YOU don't approve of the law, is no sign that others don't.

    Some people don't think so.

    You should learn to be a little more understanding and compassionate of others, it might help you in living your life more content and happy.

    Baron Max
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jeremyhfht Registered Senior Member

    Notice how later I specifically stated a rational reason? Followed by empirical evidence, etc? It's quite obvious the majority isn't a very rational body of people. It definitely doesn't help that the government uses appeals to emotions, as opposed to giving facts when they're due.
    Besides, I go out and check the reasons for these laws. I find tons of them utterly and incomprehensibly lacking. Especially when compared to overall statistics.

    So no, it's not my subjective opinion. It's an objective fact.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Exploradora Registered Senior Member

    These laws are often passed because someone wants something. Like if you want to pass a law making it illegal to beat children, you have to offer the child beating supporters something in return for their votes. So you make sodomy illegal.
  8. Jeremyhfht Registered Senior Member

    That was a poor example, as it's psychologically a bad thing to beat children.

  9. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    There are quite a few laws with emotional, rather than rational, reasons.
    More often than not, in my opinion, they are created to appease the emotions of the populous (whether or not that's a good thing).
    This does not necessarily mean that it is undemocratic - many of these laws DO have popular support (or did when they were implemented).

    Seat belt laws are a perfect example.
    I think seat belt laws are utterly absurd for anyone considered a legal adult.
    There is no reasonably conceivable way for me to hurt anyone other than myself by not wearing my seat belt.
    Laws should not be protecting me from myself.
    They are an example of government treating adults as children in a society that is supposed to be "free".
    I couldn't disagree with seatbelt laws any more than I do now - they disgust me.

    However, they DO have popular support all over the country.
    Welcome to "Democracy" - for better or for worse.
  10. Jeremyhfht Registered Senior Member

    Alas, Raven, this is an ongoing problem. As they normally screw over one group or another. Democracy without protection of minorities is more like a dictatorship to them. Especially since the minorities normally don't have the funds required to sway anyone (nor do those minorities usually know when some stupid law is about to be made).

    Furthermore, the fact they use emotional reasons instead of rational ones should be, in my opinion, made illegal. I personally believe it to be a flaw in the law making system.
  11. Exploradora Registered Senior Member

    Not completely true. You become a projectile without a seatbelt. You could, theoretically, fly out of your seat and onto another passenger inside the car. If you fell on a small child it is likely you would severely injure or kill the child. You could also, theoretically, fly out of your windshield and hit somebody on the street or in another car. And, if you become severely brain injured as a result of your accident the rest of us get to pay for your long term medical care.

    Not wearing your seatbelt is just plain stupid anyway you look at it.
  12. Jeremyhfht Registered Senior Member

    And it's entirely their choice if they want to or not. Making a law against it when the majority will do it anyway is just an asshole move.

    It's like ordering someone off of their own property.

    EDIT: I should also note that cases where someone smashed through a window due to not wearing a seatbelt and killed someone else by impact do not exist in the known history of accidents.
  13. Exploradora Registered Senior Member

    Actually, since seatbelt laws have been in place a record amount of people are now wearing them. So the law has done some good.

    I am often against laws regulating human behavior, but i really cannot see the harm in this one. Now, if they were jailing people for not wearing their seatbelt it would be a different case.
  14. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    What is "theoretically possible" is not the same as what is "reasonably conceivable".
    Tell me, how many projectile bodies have launched through a windshield and injured someone on the street?
    How often does this happen?
    I know a story of a man who was on a motorcycle and turning into a driveway with a lip.
    He was going at a normal, safe speed, but his bike came out from under him.
    The back of his helmet clipped the lip of the driveway, and he was instantly decapitated.
    Does this mean helmets should be illegal?
    Of course not - it is not reasonable.

    Since when is it the government's job to keep people from doing stupid things that could possibly hurt them?
    Climbimg mountains, skiing, unhealthy diets - do you think these things should be illegal?

    Do you want the government to treat you as a child and control everything you do and keep you from doing anything they consider stupid, by whatever standards?
  15. Exploradora Registered Senior Member

    Thus why I said theoretically.
  16. Jeremyhfht Registered Senior Member

    And highly improbably. So that's not exactly a reason to force people to wear a seat belt :/

    For something realistic: on the other hand, many people die because their seat belt has trapped them in an accident. And they cannot unbuckle it.
  17. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    It's also not only "theoretically possible", but there have been numerous cases in which someone would have not survived had they been wearing a seatbelt.
    As a matter of fact, it happened to my mother when she was hit by a drunk driver a number of years ago.

    What is "theoretically possible" is nothing to base laws on.
    It is "theoretically possible" that there will be an explosion at my house, and my pool cue could be blown out a window and impale a neigbor.
    Does that mean pool cues should be banned?
    See how absurd that is?
  18. Exploradora Registered Senior Member

    Nope. But the falling on children/other passengers is actually fairly plausible in a roll over or side impact crash and does happen. How frequently I do not know, but it does happen.
    Nope. But I do appreciate the need for the government to regulate certain behaviors. And I do not think fining me for not wearing a seatbelt constitutes regulating "everything I do". When they start censoring my computer searches and burning books I will get more concerned. Until then I will just accept that the government has to regulate certain things because too many people choose to be idiots.
  19. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    As I was saying, Jeremyhfht, popular support of such laws for emotional reason without reasonable support.

    That's why we have such laws.
    It's Frog Soup.

    People don't care if the government is treating the populace like children if it doesn't directly impact their lives negatively.
  20. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    By not wearing a seat belt you can be thrown out of the car. Hurting someone in front of the car.

    If you happen to be in the back seat without a seatbelt you will hurt the people in front of you.

    Moreover, by not wearing seatbelts you will certainly increase the risk of major injury putting more strain on the medical system. More time spend on your injuries will mean less time spend on other matters, that is other people.

    In fact, it is a clear cut case that not wearing seatbelts has a negative effect on other people.
  21. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    I already addressed this.
    How many times has this happend?
    How much of a threat is projectile bodies, really?

    Seat belt laws do not include adults in the backseat, however - only front seat passengers.
    Again, this is not a real threat - nor is it even covered by these farcical laws.

    In a country without national healthcare?

    Not even close.
  22. Jeremyhfht Registered Senior Member

    *sigh* this isn't entirely on topic. if you want a seat-belt debate, go make one in another thread please.
  23. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Once is too many. Either there is a threat to other people or there is not.

    Well, didn't know American laws were retarded. Here seatbelts are obligatory for everybody. And your denial doesn't change the fact that rear seat passenger do become projectiles in a frontal collision. This is pure fact. Similarly leaving stuff on the 'hood' shelf behind the back seat has been shown to be a major risk factor because everything on the shelf becomes a projectile in a collision. Similarly dogs on back seats have been shown to become projectiles.

    These are facts. Studied by engineers. Denial is ridiculous.

    A doctor only has a certain amount of time. A hospital only has a certain amount of resources. You put extra stress on the resources by not wearing seatbelts.
    This is logic. Denial is pointless.

    denial is an ugly thing.

Share This Page