Passing Laws That Are Easily Bypassed

[doodle]

I’m completely on board with intelligent, well conceived laws that have a good purpose. Many are anything but that. However, I’m not sure I can walk the dog to easily bypassed therefore stupid. I can go 120mph in a residential area by applying ankle pressure to my front right foot with the greatest of ease, effortless really. In my view it should still be very illegal to do so.

That’s a great point. Murder is easily bypassed by shooting or stabbing someone with minimal hand pressure.

Perhaps I should modify my thesis that this should refer to laws relating to possession of inanimate objects. Of which there are many such laws on the books.

Ok, but doesn't this tie into the toxic Media thread? You probably believe that the gun laws (inanimate objects prohibition) are stupid and make no sense. If people were given an accurate representation of the facts and issues surrounding gun laws most would probably come to the same conclusions you do, right? Common sense? The fact is that you have large media institutions owned by a few powerful people that are trying to shape the facts to fit their preconceived ideas. You think you and a few others are going to be able to compete against multi-million dollar media conglomerates? No chance. The best we can do is try to curtail their ability to peddle fiction as fact....

[doodle]

No big surprise here I’m a middle roader right side of the spectrum. However, what I think is that fundamentally almost every person in the US seems to have forgotten what Democratic politics is about. The point is to peacefully reconcile differences and normally that means every one doesn’t get exactly what they want.

So where is that between tomfoolery and doodle for example. There aren’t a ton of examples of democracies cratering but for everyone I’ve ever read about the participants greatly regretted what happened and wished mightily for a do over. I’ve spent way too much time in cultures that are dog eat dog zero compromise and it is not an environment I’d ever want to subject my family or self to. Getting there is what we should all actually fear.

I completely agree. Tom feels that there is no role for government however so when it comes to solving issues his response is always the same libertarian boilerplate response....eliminate government. I'm not sure that is realistic. I want government to work better, not eliminate it entirely. I'm wary of government overreach as well but I'm not sure what other mechanism we have to deal with gun legislation for example. When discussing that topic with Tom he seems entirely opposed to any legislation at all. Whether is 12 year olds or mentally incapacitated individuals Tom doesn't want any government laws prohibiting their purchase of firearms. I just can't see where there is any ground for compromise where one individual completely invalidates the legitimacy of government at all.

[sophie]

Tom, if you haven't read "Ain't Nobody's Business If I Do" by Peter McWilliams, you absolutely should. The whole book is devoted to this thesis, although it enlarges the context to discuss extensively laws that make crimes out of activities that harm no one other than the perpetrator. That's really what "easily bypassed" means in this thread, I think.

The entire book boils down to one very memorable quote: "Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." That is a great yardstick for judging whether a law is justified or not. So, your example of speeding 120 mph in a residential neighborhood is easily on the side of "justified", where as laws against marijuana possession, again by this standard, are not.

[Cortopassi]

Tom, if you haven't read "Ain't Nobody's Business If I Do" by Peter McWilliams, you absolutely should. The whole book is devoted to this thesis, although it enlarges the context to discuss extensively laws that make crimes out of activities that harm no one other than the perpetrator. That's really what "easily bypassed" means in this thread, I think.

The entire book boils down to one very memorable quote: "Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." That is a great yardstick for judging whether a law is justified or not. So, your example of speeding 120 mph in a residential neighborhood is easily on the side of "justified", where as laws against marijuana possession, again by this standard, are not.

Walking a fine line here, I think?

"Your freedom to spew Covid infused vapor droplets ends where (insert finish here)....?"

I am not trying to start an argument Sophie, but that is really similar to me!

[sophie]

Tom, if you haven't read "Ain't Nobody's Business If I Do" by Peter McWilliams, you absolutely should. The whole book is devoted to this thesis, although it enlarges the context to discuss extensively laws that make crimes out of activities that harm no one other than the perpetrator. That's really what "easily bypassed" means in this thread, I think.

The entire book boils down to one very memorable quote: "Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." That is a great yardstick for judging whether a law is justified or not. So, your example of speeding 120 mph in a residential neighborhood is easily on the side of "justified", where as laws against marijuana possession, again by this standard, are not.

Walking a fine line here, I think?

"Your freedom to spew Covid infused vapor droplets ends where (insert finish here)....?"

I am not trying to start an argument Sophie, but that is really similar to me!

That's why coughing or sneezing into your elbow instead of into your face is what people do when they're being polite.

A mask just means the vapor will escape around the sides of the mask instead of directly out front. I still cough/sneeze into my elbow whether I'm wearing one or not, out of respect for other people. If the mask issue is what you're getting at. There's also the fact that mask wearing has been studied prior to COVID, and WHO's own report shows it to be at best minimally effective at limiting disease spread. So I'm not sure what your stance is here exactly.

Whether coughing on other people should be made a crime is I guess another issue. You can't legislate everything, and of course since illnesses like the flu, measles, mumps, rubella etc have existed for a long time without anyone feeling like this should be considered a crime, it's a bit difficult to justify it now. It is worth noting that HIV infected individuals who did things like make holes in condoms before use in order to purposefully infect the other person, have been charged with crimes for those actions - and I think that's perfectly justified.

[Cortopassi]

So I'm not sure what your stance is here exactly.

I don't know either, really. Other than non-mask wearing is resulting in shaming on local social media (with a ton of blowback), restaurants staying open against orders is also being shamed, with a ton of blowback.

Not wearing a mask is not technically a crime, but it might as well be at this point. It's going to be weird, hopefully, in a few months, to walk in a grocery store without a mask.
------------
You have to believe that someone with a dearly needed job, who, for example is exposed and is asked to go get tested, and comes back positive, may have some incentive to report they tested negative, to not incur any work time/$ loss, especially if they have no or mild symptoms.

I'm not saying that is right or wrong, I can certainly see both sides. But what if that results in a coworker getting a bad case and dying?

Certainly it probably happened all the time with the flu, you got older relatives sick or coworkers sick from it, and someone died as a result. Should you have been more careful? Who hasn't gone to work sick in the past? Will sniffles in the future be enough to call in sick?