Loss of rights due to inconvenience.

[Thurlor]

Hello all.

I haven't been around for quite a while now as I have been busy with moving from Central Victoria to Phillip Island and getting settled.

Recently I've given thought to this topic and have come to the conclusion that many of our rights are being abbrogated or ignored due to the inconvenience/expense of enforcing/maintaining them.

Examples;

*Here in Australia there is a blood alcohol limit of 0.5% whilst driving. Why such an arbitrary number? Surely some people lose control with les alcohol in their system, whilst others maintain there control for longer.

*Voting age, age of consent, etc should all be on a case by case basis. I'm sure there are some 15 year olds who would be better qualified to vote than some 50 year olds.

*Due to the inconvenience of psychologically profiling all potential gun owners governments have enacted gun control laws. If I want to walk around with an AK47 (never intending to use it) why can't I?

*Here in Australia most states have made bullet proof vests illegal instead of making it illegal to wear one whilst commiting a crime.

*Instead of criminalizing the use of drugs because they MAY lead to the user committing crimes to support their habits we should be prosecuting the users for committing those crimes. This relates to more than just drugs. The same principle applies to gun owners who misuse their guns. Don't ban the gun, prosecute the user.

*Where I live I am unallowed to take my 2 year old labrador to the beach during summer months. Every reason I have found for this law involves my being irresponsible with her. So, just as with guns and drugs, don't punish all dog owners for the actions of some. Find thos that do wrong and prosecute them.


Tied to all of this is the idea that the logic/rationale of a law should be applied 'across the board'. If the reason guns are illegal is because they can cause death then cars should also be illegal. Give me a car and a crowd of people and I can almost guarantee I could kill more people in less time than a gun owner could.

So, where do you stand in regards to this issue? Should personal rights be abbrogated because it is inconvenient/expensive to maintain them?

 

[Duxwing]

Yes, if the inconvenience to the State and the People involved in maintaining them exceeds the benefit of the right: to use your examples, tracking every psyche and dog turd would require an almost Orwellian level of surveillance and psychoanalysis of the People by the State, so rather than have cameras and shrinks (and higher taxes or debts to pay for all of these) everywhere, we choose the simpler albeit blunter option out of the two bad ones.

-Duxwing

 

[BigApplePi]

When a law is made, enforcement counts. The easier the defined law, the easier to enforce. Fairness carries the price of complexity and cost for this complexity. There can either be more subtle laws or seek fairness in the courts. You've given a lot of examples.

*Here in Australia there is a blood alcohol limit of 0.5% whilst driving. Why such an arbitrary number? Surely some people lose control with les alcohol in their system, whilst others maintain there control for longer.

Imagine the testing necessity to balance that percentage with qualifications and the accompanying corruption.

*Voting age, age of consent, etc should all be on a case by case basis. I'm sure there are some 15 year olds who would be better qualified to vote than some 50 year olds.

Imagine tests for qualifications and the accompanying corruption.

*Due to the inconvenience of psychologically profiling all potential gun owners governments have enacted gun control laws. If I want to walk around with an AK47 (never intending to use it) why can't I?

I promise not to use it. Do you trust me?

*Instead of criminalizing the use of drugs because they MAY lead to the user committing crimes to support their habits we should be prosecuting the users for committing those crimes. This relates to more than just drugs. The same principle applies to gun owners who misuse their guns. Don't ban the gun, prosecute the user.

Prevention versus enforcement.

*Where I live I am unallowed to take my 2 year old labrador to the beach during summer months. Every reason I have found for this law involves my being irresponsible with her. So, just as with guns and drugs, don't punish all dog owners for the actions of some. Find thos that do wrong and prosecute them.

I may complain when I lay my head in sandy poop, but it's too late. Who let their dog do that? Call a cop. Where's my cell phone?

Tied to all of this is the idea that the logic/rationale of a law should be applied 'across the board'. If the reason guns are illegal is because they can cause death then cars should also be illegal. Give me a car and a crowd of people and I can almost guarantee I could kill more people in less time than a gun owner could.

True if killing is my aim. I use my auto primarily for non lethal reasons. I use my piece to put holes in things. I'm packin' so don't mess with me ... unless you're packin'.

 

[Thurlor]

@Duxwing

So, majority wins?
Would this apply to murder cases? If a trial inconveniences the 'State and the People' and exceeds the benefit of prosecuting a murderer should the trial be abolished?

 

[Thurlor]

@BAP

You'd never need to complain about laying your head in MY dog's 'poop'. That is the point.

What if my aim in owning an AK47 and walking around in public with it is not to shoot people? I'm trusting you to not skittle people with your car and you are trusting me to not shoot people. How can I trust your statement that you don't intend to kill people with your car?

 

[Polaris]

So, in other words: spend more millions of our tax dollars policing drug users and dealers a la big brother (as if the law enforcers aren't already busy doing this), legalise guns and armour and spend more dollars policing users; and finally let dog owners have their often poorly disciplined animals run free whilst spending more dollars policing all dog owners.

What do you think the combined potential outcome would be of all of these new amendments eventually? Do you think all people who then gained access to weapons, armour (I mean, why would you need armour in Australia, let alone Phillip Island in the first place ) and owned dogs would behave as responsibly as yourself?

How would you feel in a place crawling with police, watching every move you make?

Where are you going to get all the money from to put this into practice?

I mean, guns are so necessary, particularly in Australia. Meanwhile, in less fortunate parts of the world (non-Phillip Island sanctuary scenarios), citizens are being prosecuted, imprisoned, tortured and executed because there are no laws to protect them, or the laws are conveniently ignored.

 

[Duxwing]

@Duxwing

So, majority wins?
Would this apply to murder cases? If a trial inconveniences the 'State and the People' and exceeds the benefit of prosecuting a murderer should the trial be abolished?

When did I mention the majority? And yes, but you're begging the question because you haven't defined what would cause such a massive inconvenience: for example, prosecuting one murder might preclude the prosecution of others, so utilitarian ethics dictate that we sacrifice one chance at justice to save the rest of them. Ideally, we would prosecute all of them, but like BAP said, the practicalities of enforcement must also be considered when legislating, ruling (as in a court) and executing. And you still haven't addressed my point that we cannot have the laws that you describe without my aforementioned Orwellian level of surveillance.

-Duxwing

 

[BigApplePi]

You'd never need to complain about laying your head in MY dog's 'poop'. That is the point.

I trust YOU alright. It's those OTHER dozen's of dogs running around the beach with inattentive owners.

What if my aim in owning an AK47 and walking around in public with it is not to shoot people? I'm trusting you to not skittle people with your car and you are trusting me to not shoot people. How can I trust your statement that you don't intend to kill people with your car?

Again I trust YOU as an individual. My car? You can't trust me but the situation is different. When I drive my car you are probably near me cuz you're driving yours. So we respect each other on equal terms. Not so with the AK47. It ain't equal cuz I'm not carrying one and you are.

 

[Thurlor]

@Polaris

When did I mention anything about 'poorly disciplined animals'? I have my dog on a leash. I pickup any mess she makes. I walk out of my way to avoid other people whilst walking her. You are making assumptions that aren't based on reality. You want to punish me for the actions of others.

 

[Polaris]

You are ignoring the larger issue by drawing attention to a detail. You know I am not talking about your behaviour, but the potential behaviours of others.

What you are doing is irrelevant.

 

[BigApplePi]

Is the world going to the dogs? I forgot there may be very few dogs around on an island. Then it's much easier to tailor the law to the situation. I can say hello to my fellow dog owners and ask them how they watch their dogs.

 

[Thurlor]

@Polaris

Details are important.

You are talking about my behaviour (indirectly maybe). You are backing a system that limits my behaviour based on what others may or may not do.

What I am doing is not irrelevant. If it was there wouldn't be laws in place preventing me from doing what I want.

 

[Thurlor]

@Duxwing

"State and the People" means the governing body and the MAJORITY of the population does it not? Sorry if I misinterpreted your statement.

In regards to an 'Orwellian level of surveillance' I'm not sure this is the only other option. An alternative would be to base the 'abbrogation of rights' on past offenses. So, if an individual has used a weapon previously in a wrongful manner they are no longer allowed a weapon. Those that haven't done wrong can own weapons. Punish those that do wrong, leave be those that don't.

 

[Thurlor]

Surely it was inconvenient and expensive for the 'State and People' of the U.S of A to abolish slavery. Yet they did so because it contravened the rights of people.

Surely it was inconvenient and expensive for the 'State and People' of the former East and West Germany to tear down the wall and re-integrate. Yet they did.

Sorry if this seems repetitive but it illustrates my point well.

 

[Duxwing]

@Duxwing

"State and the People" means the governing body and the MAJORITY of the population does it not? Sorry if I misinterpreted your statement.

If you want a more precise term, then use 'a properly functioning constitutional republic'.

In regards to an 'Orwellian level of surveillance' I'm not sure this is the only other option. An alternative would be to base the 'abbrogation of rights' on past offenses. So, if an individual has used a weapon previously in a wrongful manner they are no longer allowed a weapon. Those that haven't done wrong can own weapons. Punish those that do wrong, leave be those that don't.

We already do that with felonies, etc. However, not all cases are so clear-cut, thereby opening the door for corruption and injustice. Nevertheless, I appreciate your idea: the law should be unobtrusive. Nevertheless, one would still require someone to track each individual dog turd, tie it to each dog, and tie each dog to an owner, and so on: you've severely underestimated the amount of bureaucracy necessary to achieve your aims.

Regarding your point about inconvenience, and at the risk of sounding like a condescending Dr. Freud, you seem to be arguing semantics to soothe your anger at a perceived injustice. But if you'd rather not use the term inconvenience, then let us use another: practicality. Tracking every dog turd, for example, is ideal to you, but it's not practical because it requires a great amount of cameras and taxpayer funds that could be better used elsewhere (e.g., maintaining the USA's crumbling infrastructure).

Abolition, then, would have been inconvenient (or, more specifically, difficult) but ideal practical, as was re-integration. Do you see my idea now? I want the kind of laws that you describe, but I don't find them practical, so I don't support their implementation.

-Duxwing

 

[Polaris]

@Polaris

Details are important.

You are talking about my behaviour (indirectly maybe). You are backing a system that limits my behaviour based on what others may or may not do.

What I am doing is not irrelevant. If it was there wouldn't be laws in place preventing me from doing what I want.

No, the larger picture is more important as it will show you the net behaviour of a proposed scenario.

Hmm. Did you read and understand my first post at all?

Have you actually thought this through?

It is irrelevant that you are doing the "right" thing when the amended laws you are proposing may result in more people not doing so. Why do you think the laws were made in the first place? Not to deliberately "violate" your so-called right to own a weapon.

And you still have not addressed the policing/economic aspect of your argument. This is quite important if this discussion is to have any relation to reality at all.

Surely it was inconvenient and expensive for the 'State and People' of the U.S of A to abolish slavery. Yet they did so because it contravened the rights of people.

Surely it was inconvenient and expensive for the 'State and People' of the former East and West Germany to tear down the wall and re-integrate. Yet they did.

Sorry if this seems repetitive but it illustrates my point well.

You are comparing apples and oranges. These arguments only serve to confuse the issue.

 

[Thurlor]

We already do that with felonies, etc. However, not all cases are so clear-cut, thereby opening the door for corruption and injustice. Nevertheless, I appreciate your idea: the law should be unobtrusive. Nevertheless, one would still require someone to track each individual dog turd, tie it to each dog, and tie each dog to an owner, and so on: you've severely underestimated the amount of bureaucracy necessary to achieve your aims.

How does this differ from what is happening now? If you find a dog turd on the beach how do you know who's dog it was? Dogs aren't banned on the beach completely, only during daylight hours.

I am proposing that if someone does wrong they are prosecuted as opposed limiting the rights of those who haven't done wrong.

In a 'perfect world' none of this would be required as no-one would be doing wrong.

 

[Thurlor]

@ Polaris

I did read (and undersrtand) your first post.
Two of your statements seem to be implying that if something is unnecessary we have no right to it. Another statement implies that we can't complain about anything if others are worse off.

I did address the policing in a response to Duxwing. Prosecute those that actually do wrong. Why should someone be held accountable for the actions of others.

In regards to financing such a proposal I don't really see it as an issue. If we need more money then we take away government funding from entertainment, religious institutes, sporting events, etc.

How are my arguments 'confusing the issue'? The principles involved seem the same.

 

[Thurlor]

It seems people are expected to care more about what might happen as opposed to 'what is'.

 

[redbaron]

I am proposing that if someone does wrong they are prosecuted as opposed limiting the rights of those who haven't done wrong.

Yeah, not being able to wear body armour in the street is such a limitation of my rights. I mean, there's just so many reasons for me to need body armour here in Melbourne, Australia. I'm surprised that anyone can even walk down the street without at least wearing a kevlar vest and helmet, what with all those gangs shooting up the streets and shit.

And of course, why worry about 'what might happen?'. That's fucking stupid. Seriously, what's the point of that? I'm living in the warzone of Melbourne, Australia - I NEED MY FUCKING BODY ARMOUR NOW, MAN.

Personally I think you're right Thurlor - there's just no point in thinking about the future. Where has thinking of the future ever gotten anyone? 'What is' is the most important, future consequences don't matter.

#YOLO
#SWAG

I live on a strict diet of Swaghetti Yolognaise.

 

[walfin]

It seems people are expected to care more about what might happen as opposed to 'what is'.

If everything were based on the circumstances of each individual case there would be no law and no predictability of the legal consequences that could happen to you. You will have decisions which are based on the whims of individual decision makers which cannot be questioned because there is no objective standard.

In any case, if you still don't get it, the purpose of the AK-47 is to kill. The purpose of the car is transportation. This is also why we allow time-shifting recording devices (because there's a legitimate use) but ban digital piracy itself.

If you can give me one significant use of the AK-47 apart from shooting, which functionality cannot be replaced by another instrument, I will concede that you are justified in wanting to own an AK-47.

 

[Thurlor]

@redbaron

I'm confused.
Are you claiming we should only be allowed to do what is needed? Do we need to wear clothes in good weather? Do we need to eat junk food? Do we need to watch T.V? Do we need Freedom of Speech?

Obviously I don't believe "future consequences don't matter" but there is a big difference between definite and potential future consequences.

 

[GodOfOrder]

The standard of the law, whatever it may be, must be a standard of some sort. If everyone was held to a different standard, the rule of law could not exist, and all enforcement of the law would be entirely arbitrary.

In one of OP's examples, Op claims that voting age and age of consent should be variable, based on the ability of any given citizen. If these ages are variable, then citizens are subject to different standards.

The OP seems to have a loose definition of "right", as the same rules do not apply to all people. So simultaneously, while granting the 15yo the right to vote, the state may remove it from the ignorant 50yo. Certainly from perspective of the 50yo, his rights are being violated.

So far from merely being inconvenient, having laws tailored to each citizens degree of responsibility is actually a threat to rule of law, and individual rights of citizens.

However, with all of that being said, some of the standards and laws which are passed are certainly unjust.

The OP mentioned

Instead of criminalizing the use of drugs because they MAY lead to the user committing crimes to support their habits we should be prosecuting the users for committing those crimes. This relates to more than just drugs. The same principle applies to gun owners who misuse their guns. Don't ban the gun, prosecute the user.

I certainly agree with this principle. Arrest murderers, thugs, vandals, and thieves, but save our tax dollars and stop going after drug users. Lower the standard, and simply legalize drugs. But once again apply a universal standard.

In terms of method, the OP is seriously and fatally flawed. His heart however, is in the right place. The standards should all be equal, but the standards should be lower. Therefore we would actually require less government, not more. But if law was enforced as suggested by the OP surely a totalitarian regime would be required.

 

[Thurlor]

@Walfin

Target Shooting is a valid reason to own any gun.

But I maintain my pov that a reason is irrelevant.

I am well aware that the purpose of a car is transportation but it can be used to kill. In fact I would go so far as to say I can kill more people in less time with a car solely because no-one considers it a weapon.

 

[Thurlor]

@GodOfOrder

What should be the determining factor in allowing someone to vote? Ability to understand the issues at stake? What if a 15yo is more able to understand the issues than a 50 yo? Logic would indicate that if the 50yo is allowed a vote then the 15 yo should also be allowe a vote. What of a 50yo that has less mental ability than the average 15yo?

The standard is universal. Those that can understand the consequences of voting (or sex) are allowed to do so. Those that don't understand aren't allowed.

 

[Duxwing]

How does this differ from what is happening now? If you find a dog turd on the beach how do you know who's dog it was? Dogs aren't banned on the beach completely, only during daylight hours.

I am proposing that if someone does wrong they are prosecuted as opposed limiting the rights of those who haven't done wrong.

In a 'perfect world' none of this would be required as no-one would be doing wrong.

Dogs are allowed at night because banning them completely would have been overkill: most people walk their dogs in the daytime. Knowing would require an entire Bureau of Dog Turds and all its requisite surveillance.

Like I said, a noble aim, but one that is not always possible to achieve without ultimately doing more harm than good: Your proposed legislation requires a perfect police state.

And we are concerned about what "might be" because, as far as I know, your proposed legislation is not in force; therefore, what "might be" would become "what is" if it were.

-Duxwing

 

[Cherry Cola]

OP: Stop treating largely practical problems as if though they were purely philosophical and things should get a lot clearer. If you aren't very young I'd worry about that complete lack of insight into how the world works and what morphologies really constitute society. You have to realize humans aren't sentient logical apparatuses but simply intelligent animals. Discussing any of the stuff your brought up in detail is going to be tedious to the point that I cba, that much is obvious.

 

[Thurlor]

@Cherry Cola

I thought everything is philosophy.

Sorry, but I don't understand your statement

If you aren't very young I'd worry about that complete lack of insight into how the world works and what morphologies really constitute society.

In what context are you using the term 'morphologies'.

 

[Thurlor]

I must admit that I am somewhat surprised that some people don't seem to agree with the concept of;

"Do as you will as long as you don't infringe upon the rights of others".

Personally I can't see where anything I'm suggesting would infringe upon the rights of others.

 

[Duxwing]

I must admit that I am somewhat surprised that some people don't seem to agree with the concept of;

"Do as you will as long as you don't infringe upon the rights of others".

Personally I can't see where anything I'm suggesting would infringe upon the rights of others.

Your suggestions would, if enacted, create massive opportunities for discrimination and oppression and require Orwellian levels of surveillance as BAP and I have demonstrated earlier; however, if the system that you designed to execute your suggestions were perfect--and nothing less--then we would gain a small bit of freedom at the expense of a great deal of treasure, privacy, and security. The trade-off isn't worthwhile, so unless someone can resolve the problems that have been presented to you, we'll keep the old system despite its imperfections.

-Duxwing

 

[Polaris]

When a law is made, enforcement counts. The easier the defined law, the easier to enforce. Fairness carries the price of complexity and cost for this complexity. There can either be more subtle laws or seek fairness in the courts. You've given a lot of examples.Imagine the testing necessity to balance that percentage with qualifications and the accompanying corruption.


Imagine tests for qualifications and the accompanying corruption.


I promise not to use it. Do you trust me?


Prevention versus enforcement.


I may complain when I lay my head in sandy poop, but it's too late. Who let their dog do that? Call a cop. Where's my cell phone?


True if killing is my aim. I use my auto primarily for non lethal reasons. I use my piece to put holes in things. I'm packin' so don't mess with me ... unless you're packin'.

Perfectly good reasoning, all points addressed and considered with care.

@BAP

You'd never need to complain about laying your head in MY dog's 'poop'. That is the point.

What if my aim in owning an AK47 and walking around in public with it is not to shoot people? I'm trusting you to not skittle people with your car and you are trusting me to not shoot people. How can I trust your statement that you don't intend to kill people with your car?

Thurlor's reply to the above. Thurlor ignored all of BAP's carefully considered ideas and instead uses evasive tactics by focussing on a detail and using a rather absurd example. Of course, a large number of devices could potentially be used as a weapon; but the point here is that we are talking about devices specifically designed for harming people and animals. Thurlor uses nit-picking tactics to confuse the issue in order to maintain his rather extreme idea that he has a 'right' to carry an AK47, of all things. He twists the whole argument into a "philosophical" discussion in order to circumvent what in reality simply would not work.

I agree with his principles, but we could potentially turn any of these discussions based on practical real-life issues into philosphical ones and get absolutely nowhere faster than oiled lightning (Norwegian proverb).

GodOfOrder's perfectly reasonable suggestion:

The standard of the law, whatever it may be, must be a standard of some sort. If everyone was held to a different standard, the rule of law could not exist, and all enforcement of the law would be entirely arbitrary.

In one of OP's examples, Op claims that voting age and age of consent should be variable, based on the ability of any given citizen. If these ages are variable, then citizens are subject to different standards.

The OP seems to have a loose definition of "right", as the same rules do not apply to all people. So simultaneously, while granting the 15yo the right to vote, the state may remove it from the ignorant 50yo. Certainly from perspective of the 50yo, his rights are being violated.

So far from merely being inconvenient, having laws tailored to each citizens degree of responsibility is actually a threat to rule of law, and individual rights of citizens.

However, with all of that being said, some of the standards and laws which are passed are certainly unjust.

The OP mentioned



I certainly agree with this principle. Arrest murderers, thugs, vandals, and thieves, but save our tax dollars and stop going after drug users. Lower the standard, and simply legalize drugs. But once again apply a universal standard.

In terms of method, the OP is seriously and fatally flawed. His heart however, is in the right place. The standards should all be equal, but the standards should be lower. Therefore we would actually require less government, not more. But if law was enforced as suggested by the OP surely a totalitarian regime would be required.

Thurlor's reply:

@GodOfOrder

What should be the determining factor in allowing someone to vote? Ability to understand the issues at stake? What if a 15yo is more able to understand the issues than a 50 yo? Logic would indicate that if the 50yo is allowed a vote then the 15 yo should also be allowe a vote. What of a 50yo that has less mental ability than the average 15yo?

The standard is universal. Those that can understand the consequences of voting (or sex) are allowed to do so. Those that don't understand aren't allowed.

Thurlor used evasive tactics again, completely ignoring the rationale in GOO's carefully thought out reply. Instead he decides to repeat the shaky premises for his argument again; much like the ignorant person traveling abroad for the first time who encounters someone local and asks for directions in his own language; when the local does not seem to understand, Mr Ignorant just repeats the same thing over, but louder.

I could go on and on with more examples, but I'm losing interest quickly, like other people.

Thurlor, if you are going to keep your debating tactics to this level, I suggest you sharpen up and start addressing the rational arguments that people are presenting to you, or people will lose interest in any discussion with you for the future.

 

[BigApplePi]

Personally I can't see where anything I'm suggesting would infringe upon the rights of others.

This must be addressed because it's bothering you. What you suggest DOES infringe upon the rights of others. Here's how:

I take it you are proposing responsibility. If you are responsible, why should you be restricted? This is true for people in the public eye who are well known. If they have been responsible in the past, they can get away with a lot of rule bending.

The problem is other people don't know you. If you demand a lot of unrestricted freedom, even though you are nice, others will see you and want exactly the same freedom. They are not as responsible as you. They will do what they can get away with hiding from the law. Then we all suffer and our rights are infringed.
________________________________________

Let's see if this applies to the car and the AK-47. Once again you are responsible. But give others an AK-47 and a car and some will use both to kill. But percentage-wise most will use the car with intended safety. Not so with those who pick the AK-47. Criminals will love to have these because they can immediately use them in their chosen trade.

 

[Thurlor]

I understand what you are all saying but I don't agree. This doesn't mean I'm claiming you MUST believe me or that I'm in any position to actually bring about changes to the current system.

Do any of you agree with validity of the 'Harm Principle' or the 'Silver Rule' or fairness? Note that the Harm Principle mentions nothing about 'potential harm'.

Lets go through each of the examples in greater depth taking the Harm Principle and/or the 'Silver Rule' and/or fairness into account.

* Why does society want to prevent people from driving whilst they are impaired by alcohol? Because they are unable to maintain sufficient control of a vehical and are likely to cause severe harm to others. At what blood alcohol level is someone 'sufficiently impaired'? For some it will be less than 0.5%, for others it'll be greater. If any blood alcohol level is too much this would mean a legal limit of 0.00%. If society deemed it necessary to drive whilst intoxicated but not 'sufficiently impaired' it would then be necessary to determine at what blood alcohol level someone becomes such. It wouldn't be fair to set an 'across the board' limit as not every one becomes 'sufficiently impaired' at the same level. If one is itoxicated but not 'sufficiently impaired' then the harm principle would prevent society from dictating whether or not they can drive. A proposed solution would be sobriety tests instead of an arbitrary blood alcohol level.

* Why does society set a lower age limit on voting? Because children are unable understand the concepts involved and therefore can't make an informed decision. At what age does someone develop the mental skills required to understand the concepts involved in voting? This would depend upon many factors including education and base intelligence. To arbitrarily determine this age would be obviously unfair. The 'Silver Rule' would imply that one should not prevent a competently thinking entity from voting if one does not want to be prevented from voting. A proposed solution would be to determine if someone understands the issues involved before being allowed to vote. This could be done be testing their understanding at the end of their schooling.

* According to the Harm Principle anyone can carry a weapon so long as they don't harm others. If you want to prosecute offenders of the Harm Principle that's different.

* The same reasoning applies to body armour as carrying weapons.

* The same reasoning applies to drug use.

* The same applies to dogs on beaches.

**************

OMCC
I can't believe I have enough interest in this topic to actually explain this in so much depth.

Sorry if this comes across as being me pedantic. I just felt others weren't understanding my reasoning. If my reasoning is flawed please point this out to me. I want to know if I'm wrong.

 

[SpaceYeti]

*Here in Australia there is a blood alcohol limit of 0.5% whilst driving. Why such an arbitrary number? Surely some people lose control with les alcohol in their system, whilst others maintain there control for longer.

Since it's a percentage, then it has roughly the same biological effect on all people, a measurable lack of judgement and control. While some people have trained the3mselves to handle their booze better than others, the difference isn't obvious or easily quantifiable.

*Voting age, age of consent, etc should all be on a case by case basis. I'm sure there are some 15 year olds who would be better qualified to vote than some 50 year olds.

According to whose standards is that 15 year old better than the 50 year old? We must have a standard by which to judge that someone is capable of voting. Currently, that standard is being a legal adult, with a caveat here or there. The idea is that you live under the laws, you should have a say in them regardless what other people think of you or your ideals. Is there a better standard than being legally an adult?

*Due to the inconvenience of psychologically profiling all potential gun owners governments have enacted gun control laws. If I want to walk around with an AK47 (never intending to use it) why can't I?

While I think everyone should be judged based on their own actions instead of the actions of others, the fact of the matter is that the easier it is to get a gun, the more likely it will be used illegally. The government's job is to protect it's people. So, do you allow a higher rate of homicide and open carry of easy to obtain weapons, or do you reduce the number of homicides by making it more difficult to obtain weapons?

*Here in Australia most states have made bullet proof vests illegal instead of making it illegal to wear one whilst commiting a crime.

This one is pretty confusing. I don't understand this one. I mean, sure, criminals might use vests, but so, too, could anyone else. It's not like they make you bulletproof, or something. I don't know.

*Instead of criminalizing the use of drugs because they MAY lead to the user committing crimes to support their habits we should be prosecuting the users for committing those crimes. This relates to more than just drugs. The same principle applies to gun owners who misuse their guns. Don't ban the gun, prosecute the user.

This one I'm pretty iffy on. I mean, almost all illegal drug trafficking involves or allows for violent crimes, but making them legal would move them from the realm of criminals into pharmacology.

*Where I live I am unallowed to take my 2 year old labrador to the beach during summer months. Every reason I have found for this law involves my being irresponsible with her. So, just as with guns and drugs, don't punish all dog owners for the actions of some. Find thos that do wrong and prosecute them.

This is similar to the gun issue. If people are allowed to do something, but they keep screwing things up by being irresponsible, then people are going to stop being allowed to do that. Nobody has the time or energy to watch every single person with a dog on the beach. Is it fair to the responsible people? No, but it certainly stops the irresponsible ones.

Tied to all of this is the idea that the logic/rationale of a law should be applied 'across the board'. If the reason guns are illegal is because they can cause death then cars should also be illegal. Give me a car and a crowd of people and I can almost guarantee I could kill more people in less time than a gun owner could.

So, where do you stand in regards to this issue? Should personal rights be abbrogated because it is inconvenient/expensive to maintain them?

The thing is, you need to distinguish between privileges and rights. If you're allowed to do something on or with property you don't own, that's a privilege, not a right. You don't have the right to take your dog to the beach, because it's not your beach. If you bought some land on the water, your dog could probably chill anywhere you want to let him get to on that property. Of course, that's assuming it doesn't effect the use of your neighbor's property, kind of like how you can't dump trash in your backyard for years and years because it will effect the sanitation and smell of your neighbor's property, as well as potentially ruin the ground water. So when you ask why you don't have the right to do something, why don't you take inventory on who the actions you want to do actually effect, and who actually has authority over the area you want to treat as your own?

 

[Thurlor]

Sorry a few posts have appeared that have nothing to do with my latest reply.

 

[Thurlor]

There's been many points raised that I'll have to consider.

The first conclusion I've reached is that we all (obviously) have very different priorities.

The second conclusion is that I'm probably wrong.

 

[just george]

I'm also in Australia and deal with the government a lot for business. I also get into a fair amount of "trouble" with the law, because the whole place is run by control freaks who think that being a citizen means that the state owns you.

My theory on why this is happening is a combination of:

1) Australia is still a colony in all but name. Our government is a colonial administration charged with keeping the rabble in line while the resources of the nation are extracted.

If you don't believe me, then kindly explain why the Queen of England can fire our entire government if she feels like it.

2) public servants are control freak psychopaths who are more concerned with the appearance of running a country, than actually running a country.

They therefore meddle in the private affairs of citizens to justify having a job.

3) The power structure of the country (rich and connected people at the top, everyone else at the bottom) requires a set of laws that are so complicated that anyone can be charged with almost anything, any time, while the rich can buy their way out of trouble.

Our legal system is, imo, a giant coin operated injustice machine. If you have the money, don't worry about it, do what you like. If you don't have the money, just going to court is enough to ruin you.

You have to remember that different nations have different origins, that resonate through their legal systems.

The US fought a rebellion and won, which is why there is a Bill of Rights that protects the citizen from the government.

Australia was founded as a convict colony/banana plantation, and so our legal system is pretty much "the Lord of the colony does whatever he likes, and everyone else gets flogged until they do what they're told".

Then, added to the mix is the idea of neofeudalistic economics, where the rich of the country affect the law in order to preserve their own profits. Instead of Lords and Ladies, we have Companies and CEOs.

Sensible ideas are not implemented because they mess with someones money.

For example, marijuana is great medicine, and should be legalized as it has been in other nations. Instead it stays on the banned list because:

Drug companies will never stand for it to be legalized and threaten their multi billion dollar business.

Prisons/police will not stand for it to be legalized because enforcement provedes employment and profit.

Politicians will not stand for it because using the issue to get votes from fearful or deceived people gets them elected.

Lawyers will not stand for it because they will be deprived of business.

Accountants/banks will not stand for it because it generates huge sums of money for them.

Industrialists/farmers will not stand for it because the crop is too efficient.

Even biker gangs/drug dealers wont stand for it because it is a main source of revenue.

In short, the reason we have lots of BS laws is because they all contribute to a system where people with influence get paid and have power - all the way from the bottom to the top. The people who could change things and be sensible are the ones who benefit from it staying as it is, or getting worse.

Expecting things to be run sensibly by a bunch of selfish psychopaths is like asking that a rabid dog doesn't bite you. Of course it'll bite you - that's what rabid dogs do. Reason doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.

If I were the head of the country, I would fire 80% of the government and throw out 95% of the laws, if only for one reason alone: The law should be simple enough that everyone understands it.

If only lawyers understand the law, then it should only apply to lawyers.

I'm going to stop typing because I'm starting to get mad. I want to punch all these bastards trying to run my life in the face.

 

[Duxwing]

I'm also in Australia and deal with the government a lot for business. I also get into a fair amount of "trouble" with the law, because the whole place is run by control freaks who think that being a citizen means that the state owns you.

My theory on why this is happening is a combination of:

1) Australia is still a colony in all but name. Our government is a colonial administration charged with keeping the rabble in line while the resources of the nation are extracted.

If you don't believe me, then kindly explain why the Queen of England can fire our entire government if she feels like it.

2) public servants are control freak psychopaths who are more concerned with the appearance of running a country, than actually running a country.

They therefore meddle in the private affairs of citizens to justify having a job.

3) The power structure of the country (rich and connected people at the top, everyone else at the bottom) requires a set of laws that are so complicated that anyone can be charged with almost anything, any time, while the rich can buy their way out of trouble.

Our legal system is, imo, a giant coin operated injustice machine. If you have the money, don't worry about it, do what you like. If you don't have the money, just going to court is enough to ruin you.

You have to remember that different nations have different origins, that resonate through their legal systems.

The US fought a rebellion and won, which is why there is a Bill of Rights that protects the citizen from the government.

Australia was founded as a convict colony/banana plantation, and so our legal system is pretty much "the Lord of the colony does whatever he likes, and everyone else gets flogged until they do what they're told".

Then, added to the mix is the idea of neofeudalistic economics, where the rich of the country affect the law in order to preserve their own profits. Instead of Lords and Ladies, we have Companies and CEOs.

Sensible ideas are not implemented because they mess with someones money.

For example, marijuana is great medicine, and should be legalized as it has been in other nations. Instead it stays on the banned list because:

Drug companies will never stand for it to be legalized and threaten their multi billion dollar business.

Prisons/police will not stand for it to be legalized because enforcement provedes employment and profit.

Politicians will not stand for it because using the issue to get votes from fearful or deceived people gets them elected.

Lawyers will not stand for it because they will be deprived of business.

Accountants/banks will not stand for it because it generates huge sums of money for them.

Industrialists/farmers will not stand for it because the crop is too efficient.

Even biker gangs/drug dealers wont stand for it because it is a main source of revenue.

In short, the reason we have lots of BS laws is because they all contribute to a system where people with influence get paid and have power - all the way from the bottom to the top. The people who could change things and be sensible are the ones who benefit from it staying as it is, or getting worse.

Expecting things to be run sensibly by a bunch of selfish psychopaths is like asking that a rabid dog doesn't bite you. Of course it'll bite you - that's what rabid dogs do. Reason doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.

If I were the head of the country, I would fire 80% of the government and throw out 95% of the laws, if only for one reason alone: The law should be simple enough that everyone understands it.

If only lawyers understand the law, then it should only apply to lawyers.

I'm going to stop typing because I'm starting to get mad. I want to punch all these bastards trying to run my life in the face.

Then come to the US. I think that you'd like it here.

-Duxwing

 

[Solitaire U.]

I must admit that I am somewhat surprised that some people don't seem to agree with the concept of;

"Do as you will as long as you don't infringe upon the rights of others".

Personally I can't see where anything I'm suggesting would infringe upon the rights of others.

Ok, have it your way.

I hate dogs, so keep your fucking dog behind locked doors, lest you infringe upon my right to live in a dog-free environment.

 

[Solitaire U.]

rant

Heh, welcome to humanity. What makes you believe it's any different anywhere else?

 

[SpaceYeti]

For example, marijuana is great medicine, and should be legalized as it has been in other nations. Instead it stays on the banned list because:

Drug companies will never stand for it to be legalized and threaten their multi billion dollar business.

Yes, sure, because selling marijuana isn't something they could do! I hate hearing crap about the evils of big pharmacology. I've heard this before, and I've also heard that they don't investigate cures for things because they'd rather get money over time from something that reduces symptoms... because curing stuff apparently means you no longer profit! Do you have any idea the fame and renown within the scientific community someone gets when they cure a disease?! Claims like this is downright silly. "Drug companies don't want marijuana legalized because, for some stupid reason, they certainly couldn't sell it themselves for profit! Der-he-herp!"

 

[Thurlor]

@Solitaire U.

I wasn't refering to anything quite as subjective as feelings. Does a person even have a right to not be subjected to things they hate? I hate many things. But I'd never tell others they can't do those things.

Do you really think an emotional response is enough to justify dictating someone else's actions?

 

[Duxwing]

@Solitaire U.

I wasn't refering to anything quite as subjective as feelings. Does a person even have a right to not be subjected to things they hate? I hate many things. But I'd never tell others they can't do those things.

Do you really think an emotional response is enough to justify dictating someone else's actions?

*draws a pistol from his belt and cocks back the hammer* Now what do you feel? *aims it between your eyes* Roleplay, now; get into character. You feel fear, don't you? Fear of death and of pain. But by your logic, these are invalid reasons to tell that other person to put the gun down

-Duxwing

 

[Thurlor]

If you want to equate a truly subjective fear like hate with the nearly world-wide fear of imminent death, fine.

 

[Thurlor]

Sorry, you have a valid point.

I would have to say that some emotions are nearly universal (I dislike that term), whilst others are very subjective. Fear of death, fear of bodily harm, etc, vs hate, offense, dislike, etc.

 

[Thurlor]

Do you want that other person to put the gun down because you fear death or because you don't want them to shoot you?

 

[Duxwing]

Sorry, you have a valid point.

I would have to say that some emotions are nearly universal (I dislike that term), whilst others are very subjective. Fear of death, fear of bodily harm, etc, vs hate, offense, dislike, etc.

So we sort the nigh-universal ones from the more subject-peculiar ones and declare the former to comprise the Natural Law of Man. Good, so now that we acknowledge that certain very commonly felt feelings--and not inherent rights--belie society's law, we can recognize that the government exists to protect the net interest of the people and as such will, at best, be results-oriented. This nature causes style drives Sofial Contract Theory, and therein we see the trade off between freedom and security that explains the "a rotational of individual rights.

-Duxwing

PS The hour is late; forgive me if I sound incoherent.

 

[Thurlor]

I understand that in RL there is a "trade off between freedom and security".

The problem for me is that I believe there shouldn't be such a trade off. I've yet to demonstrate a way such a system could be feasible though.

I suppose I support a Permissive Society.

 

[walfin]

@Walfin

Target Shooting is a valid reason to own any gun.

But I maintain my pov that a reason is irrelevant.

I am well aware that the purpose of a car is transportation but it can be used to kill. In fact I would go so far as to say I can kill more people in less time with a car solely because no-one considers it a weapon.

You can do target shooting with air rifles which are partially legal to own in Australia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_gun_laws#Australia

The bulletproof vests question is an interesting one, though. To what degree can you protect yourself against the state? Is it right for the state to prohibit citizens from protecting themselves against it? Is it right for the state to compel even a robber to render him/herself vulnerable to grievous hurt by a bullet? You can't hurt anyone with a bulletproof vest. Banning bulletproof vests effectively allows the possibility of unaccountable police brutality - not only do they have a monopoly on arms, the arms are guaranteed to be lethal. It also disincentivises the development of better non-lethal weaponry (e.g. tasers which can penetrate bulletproof vests).

 

[Thurlor]

@walfin

I'm willing to acknowledge that others value security more than freedom.

Are you saying that guns should be regulated because they should only be used for the purpose of shooting people/animals or that that is the only reason people have guns?

Are there people who collect guns but never shoot them? Granted they'd have little 'need' to carry them in public, but maybe they are wanting to show off a prized piece in their collection.

Is the only use a tool can have that for which it was designed?