Remove a law.

[9Darksoul6]

The law that says you have to obey the law.
That would make a nice paradox, and ultimately an ideal but practicable anarchist world.

 

[StormShaun]

Ability to have weapons in public, I would prefer to be safe then to be attacked and not have a weapon.

 

[novixz]

The law I would introduce would be a parenting licence. All individuals who want to have a child wiil need to pass a test that determines whether they are fit to raise children.

That can be a bit cruel.

You are right, not letting parents who cannot look after and pay for their children bring them into a poor world where they are likely to be given up for adoption and add to the myriad of social problems society faces would be a bit cruel now...

I agree with Dularn whole-heartedly, I live in a country plagued by illiteracy and children growing up in townships, 5 per family, dying young, getting diseases and going into drugs they get cheap on the street that are as much shoe-cleaner as plant, growing up to become criminals, homeless, poor and brining the economy down. This shit needs to stop.

Maybe you should start to "thin the herd" yourself a bit.....


OT: What kind of test would this be?

Jeez, why does everyone associate eugenics with genocide? That is like saying anyone who drives a VW Beetle is a hypocritical Aryan Supremist. There would be no murder, only a "you cannot have children, if you do, said children will be taken away by the government and you will have to pay a fine, if neither person in the couple can give evidence that a contraceptive was used and the pregnancy was a freak accident (after being denied permission to have children), then their ability to have children must be removed (vasectomy, Not castration).

People are also a lot more like pests than we like to admit, and our over-population does not make this better (and indeed our overpopulation of people who cannot look after themselves, the birth rate rises in poor countries and lowers in rich ones). In nature, fast breading, hardy, adaptive animals that change their environment quickly and violently are always seen as the worst pests, yet we are the epitome of all these traits.

The test:

Financial:
-qualifications and ability to get a job.
-current job.
-current savings and extra income.
-surety in case your job fails, you have to have someone willing to pay for the child if you can't.

Medical:
-No severe hereditary conditions that would, with a high degree of certainty, give the child a very miserable life.
-No Severe STDs that could be passed onto the child at birth or that it would likely have from conception.
-The mother must not have any complications that would make pregnancy or birth too dangerous for her or the baby.

Educational:
-Financial aspect, must be able to pay for the child's education, or at least get the child to state-funded education.
-Must pass a basic parenting and hazard test.

I think that is VERY reasonable, the test would have to be taken every time a new child was wanted (the medical bit could be especially open to sudden changes), and could be taken until passed. There would probably be a few more regulation laws to make this more viable, but that is the basic gist of what I would like to see.

The thinning the herd was a joke. A sick and twisted joke that if you take seriously could lead to you being somebody's toy in prison. Other than that, the test seems fairly valid.

Lol. No guesses on what kind of toy will be taken at this point... XP
And that's good, I am not into the whole China style of murder the second child, that is barbaric, but rather make sure that only the people who can afford the children have them, and very few families that can pay for their children have lots of them. Two-way problem solver. No death.

Captcha: skid row. You are kidding me right?!

Yeah that seems fair.

That's nothing, last night I started a thread asking people what their personal heaven/hell was. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.300220-Your-personal-heaven-hell#11948592

The captcha was: A good man is hard to find. And I'm just like: "...oh god Ads have emotions now."

 

[Fleeker]

Law I'd add:

I'd implement the fair tax. Mr. Huckabee get a vote on this already and get it passed.

and

I'd add a law restricting politicians from formally campaigning while in office (you are essentially campaigning every moment on the job anyway by doing it or not doing it), if I vote for you and you keep your campaign promises I'll vote for you again...but your elected for a 2, 4, or 6 year term (depending on office) not half that. Including would be penalties for not doing there job as elected officials, things like you can't run for higher office or you could even lose your ability to rerun later. Do your job, have enough integrity to keep campaign promises and you'll get reelected.

Law I'd remove:

I remove different ordinance laws, things like you can't put a fence around the garden on your property, you can't paint your house the color you want (even if its tasteful), you need a permit to build a room on your house that does not effect anything other than your own property.

 

[Dyme]

I'd erase the property rights from our constitution, because they are fucking annoying to learn.

 

[Da Orky Man]

The one allowing heterosexual marriage. Ironically, I'd allow gay marriage.

That's not irony. Does NOBODY know what irony is?

When a computer security company gets hacked. Or when a bus driver gets run over by a bus. Or when someone sticks your grenade on Reach and sends it straight back at you

 

[King Toasty]

The one allowing heterosexual marriage. Ironically, I'd allow gay marriage.

That's not irony. Does NOBODY know what irony is?

When a computer security company gets hacked. Or when a bus driver gets run over by a bus. Or when someone sticks your grenade on Reach and sends it straight back at you

None of those are irony. Neither is one thousand knives when all you need is a spoon.

No, I rony is the use of word- you know what? Bender, take it away!

[youtube.com/WY_amJ0YZrM]

 

[The Code]

I don't think this one needs to be removed, just rewritten or redefined, and that would be the law making the act of ending another person's life unlawful. In many cases, the act of feeding someone a knife or a bullet is a much cheaper and effective alternative than allowing said recipient to continue dragging down the collective human intelligence and wasting valuable resources in the process. I think Texas has something to this effect already. "He needed killin', your Honor." And if you can legitimately prove that the 'victim' is better off dead than alive, then you're off scot-free.

Wait... am I reading this right? You think random civilians should be allowed to kill anyone they want just because they believe that person isn't useful to society or doesn't meet their personal standards? To be blunt there's a word for that: evil.

First of all, 'evil' is kind of subjective, and not all that applicable in this instance. What I'm saying is that if you can prove in a court of law that society as a whole is better off with this person dead, then no charges should be held against you one at the trigger.

For example: Let's say that a young man, around 25 years of age, is fed a fresh serving of lead salad. The standard knee-jerk reaction would be "Oh no! This poor man was so maliciously murdered!" That is until additional facts about the victim come to light, namely that he was addicted to meth, cocaine, alcohol, and heroine, was a rampant pedophile, and would regularly abuse his wife and four year old daughter in various ways. Are you still so adamant about punishing the 'killer' for eliminating this piece of trash from this world, now that you know what the 'victim' really was?

 

[amadhatter]

I'd like for duels to the death to be legal. Thunderdome would be great, too.

 

[Nouw]

I remove the law of playing/buying/supplying restricted games being illegal.

I live in NZ if you're wondering.

 

[JoJo]

I don't think this one needs to be removed, just rewritten or redefined, and that would be the law making the act of ending another person's life unlawful. In many cases, the act of feeding someone a knife or a bullet is a much cheaper and effective alternative than allowing said recipient to continue dragging down the collective human intelligence and wasting valuable resources in the process. I think Texas has something to this effect already. "He needed killin', your Honor." And if you can legitimately prove that the 'victim' is better off dead than alive, then you're off scot-free.

Wait... am I reading this right? You think random civilians should be allowed to kill anyone they want just because they believe that person isn't useful to society or doesn't meet their personal standards? To be blunt there's a word for that: evil.

First of all, 'evil' is kind of subjective, and not all that applicable in this instance. What I'm saying is that if you can prove in a court of law that society as a whole is better off with this person dead, then no charges should be held against you one at the trigger.

For example: Let's say that a young man, around 25 years of age, is fed a fresh serving of lead salad. The standard knee-jerk reaction would be "Oh no! This poor man was so maliciously murdered!" That is until additional facts about the victim come to light, namely that he was addicted to meth, cocaine, alcohol, and heroine, was a rampant pedophile, and would regularly abuse his wife and four year old daughter in various ways. Are you still so adamant about punishing the 'killer' for eliminating this piece of trash from this world, now that you know what the 'victim' really was?

Yes, I would still punish the killer fully. If it could be proven that the victim was indeed a bad person and breaking the law in the various ways you describe, then he would be taken to court and found guilty and put in prison for a long time. That's the reason we have the law. Your idea doesn't work because it puts the very harsh penalty of death on before any proof can be found of guiltiness and if the killer turns out to be wrong, then their life will be destroyed too as they'll be imprisoned for a long time. In our current system, punishment is only applied after supporting evidence is found so innocent people don't get hurt. I'm struggling to see any advantages to your idea, just seems like an excuse to go on a killing spree, and how far does "better off" go? Do the unemployed, seriously disabled and orphaned children, all of which cannot currently contribute to society, get the chop too?

 

[wootsniper]

I'd remove the laws of physics

 

[vxicepickxv]

I won't modify a law, but I would reverse a Supreme Court Ruling. That ruling is that Corporations(legal entities) are persons, thus I would take away nothing by preventing legal entities from having free speech.

 

[wootsniper]

The one allowing heterosexual marriage. Ironically, I'd allow gay marriage.

That's not irony. Does NOBODY know what irony is?

When a computer security company gets hacked. Or when a bus driver gets run over by a bus. Or when someone sticks your grenade on Reach and sends it straight back at you

only a select few people in the world get irony. The rest think they do. And that's ironic. Possibly

http://www.cracked.com/funny-1085-irony/

 

[vxicepickxv]

I'd remove the laws of physics

I don't know if that's a good idea.

 

[Savber]

I will redefine the First Amendment to be allow ALL religious expression to be equally exposed and shared in the public arena. No more bans on religious symbols in the public and no more so-called divide between the church and public arena.

A man should be free to express his religious beliefs in the public arena as long as it does not physically HARM anyone or coerces another individual to listen.

I'm tired of a judicial system that keeps banning expression of religious symbols in the public square. Instead, they should ACCOMMODATE all beliefs.


There... how's that for radical?

 

[vxicepickxv]

I will redefine the First Amendment to be allow ALL religious expression to be equally exposed and shared in the public arena. No more bans on religious symbols in the public and no more so-called divide between the church and public arena.

A man should be free to express his religious beliefs in the public arena as long as it does not physically HARM anyone or coerces another individual to listen.

I'm tired of a judicial system that keeps banning expression of religious symbols in the public square. Instead, they should ACCOMMODATE all beliefs.


There... how's that for radical?

So, I can see you're anti Scientology too.

The biggest issue I see with it though is what about those of us with a lack of belief?

 

[lovestomooch]

MURDER!!! kill everyone... even you *points at you*