Remove a law.

[JWAN]

Id remove the ban on marijuana but then tax the living hell out of it.

 

[fibchopkin]

Patriot Act GONE, damn I'd be so happy if it was gone.

Why? That's kind of a weird one to have a thing against.

 

[Norendithas]

I would replace the law that bases how teachers get laid off. Right now it's based off of seniority, but with the replacement, it would be based off of teacher ratings.

We just changed that in my state and it seems to be benefiting us. We also require all public employees to contribute more to their retirement themselves and that's also having a positive effect. Were hiring more teachers and were keeping the ones who have high marks.

Exactly why that is the better system. =]

Over here in Indiana it's still a bill but I am sure it will pass sooner or later. The townships here have had a hell of a time with the school system like everyone else recently, and there have been lots of cuts. Many teachers have been laid off, too. It was really silly to here about all the newer teachers that were amazing teachers getting laid off rather than the teachers that had been here for 20+ years but didn't teach a thing. Luckily the great teachers I had last year didn't all get laid off. ^^

 

[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?

 

[Naal]

The one that says it's illegal to have oral sex.

 

[Kashyyk]

I'd remove the law letting universities charge £9000 and drop it back down to £3000.

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

This is a hard one.

So many stupid, unneeded, or wrong laws that need to be removed, or ones to add.

Oh, got one:
-----------------------------
Any actions other than physical, emotional, or other harm between consenting individuals is considered legal.

This includes, but is not limited to; Marriage and sex. This consent is gained by passing a federal test to determine if a person should be able to make their own choices, regardless of age. All other things that need consent will be doable this way as well.

In addition, any action that causes no harm, or is DIRECTLY caused bu harm to others, other's property, animals, sever damage to the environment, will be legal.
--------------------------------

Solves same sex marriage, polygamy with consenting people, sex with consenting minors, stupid adults being able to consent when smart minors cannot, and fictional CP being illegal all at once.

 

[Reincarnatedwolfgod]

laws not allowing gay marriage. i can't find any reason to not allow them to. well then again i am not religious or a Homophobe so i have no beliefs to justify this sort of ignorance.

(i am not say religious people are all ignorant but they capability to be and a holy book saying something along the line of "a man shall not sleep with another man" just give some of them more ammo in there crusade or at least a justification for ignorance) example the Catholic Church

i feel i don't have the right to tell people the way they are supposed to live there life and other poeple don't have the right to tell me how i should live my life. but most of all i just don't give a shit how some chooses to live there life and i see no reason why any one else or a holy book should care.

but the fact is people have to waste there to protesting this just have this right is stupid and that politicians have to arguing about this instead focusing more on real issues like the recession, wars, debt, etc. just vote yes and get this crap over with already instead debating over trivial shit

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

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

It's internet irony. They are two different things, sad to say.

It is not the same as "Strange and funny"

Irony:
The use of words and phrases other than their literal intention.
Being killed by a paramedic? Ironic.
Not allowing straight people to marry? NOT IRONY.

Bender puts it well, can't find the clip.

found it. i just typed in Google "bender defines irony"

 

[JWAN]

I would replace the law that bases how teachers get laid off. Right now it's based off of seniority, but with the replacement, it would be based off of teacher ratings.

We just changed that in my state and it seems to be benefiting us. We also require all public employees to contribute more to their retirement themselves and that's also having a positive effect. Were hiring more teachers and were keeping the ones who have high marks.

Exactly why that is the better system. =]

Over here in Indiana it's still a bill but I am sure it will pass sooner or later. The townships here have had a hell of a time with the school system like everyone else recently, and there have been lots of cuts. Many teachers have been laid off, too. It was really silly to here about all the newer teachers that were amazing teachers getting laid off rather than the teachers that had been here for 20+ years but didn't teach a thing. Luckily the great teachers I had last year didn't all get laid off. ^^

In Milwaukee the Unions decided that 15 teachers would get the ax because they didn't want to contribute 2-4% extra to their retirement. Those 15 teachers had high ratings and won state and a few of them national awards for their superior teaching abilities.
I know unions are important but they are no longer traditional unions(at least in Wisconsin) thank God we got someone in office who understands we cannot spend our way to profit. Good luck on that bill man. It will be a tooth and nail fight but trust me its totally worth it in the end. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQQFWS6-8xE&feature=youtu.be
Fight hard. Dont quit.

 

[Brandon237]

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.

 

[RatRace123]

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.

Seriously, that's really, really evil and really, reeeeaaaaalllly disturbing. That's not even darwinism or anything like that, that's just; god that makes my skin crawl.

OT: The law against public nudity, let people run naked through the streets if they want to, it'd sure make daily commutes more amusing.

 

[OrenjiJusu]

Id institue a law that if anyone shows signs of hipster/chav/ponce-y behavious you are allowed to smack them upside the head.

But thats just me.

Edit: add to that homophobia and racism outside of comedic act.

 

[General BrEeZy]

hah if they have to tax them then hahaha for them! they deserve to lose more money to an addiction that kills them if you ask me.

 

[Cavouku]

Oh geez, one's a bit... restrictive, ain't it?

Screw the rules, I'm going in with a list.

1. I'd probably remove most self-destructive prohibitions. Now, I do not like drugs, and I usually don't get along well with drug users, it's just me, I have a very big personal value of sobriety, tend to dislike most forms of hedonism, and it gets applied to most cases. But... I have to agree that self destruction is the choice of the user. Same as bicycle helmets, fireworks, etc. Let it be, let the herd thin out, I'm sorry, but our species needs it. I know it must suck to be someone who has these kinds of accidents or habits, and maybe they're not really stupid or anything, but... I'm sorry, the world was never very nice about such things.

2. Legalize lethal injections. I mostly mean this for prisoners, specifically for ones serving life sentences. I know that they're not always 100% proven guilty, but I imagine a fair amount are pretty damn set, and there's no reason to let their life drag on like that. Yeah, it's more of a punishment to let them live, but... jeez, I don't think we should do something just for the schadenfreude of it. I think this could also apply for people with terminal illnesses, or in an incurable vegetative state, with some form of consensus from the family. This one would need a really strong definition to be an actual law, though.

3. I agree whole heartedly about the parenting license. See, in this area, there was a woman who kept getting pregnant, but she was not in the mental condition to be raising a child, and the government kept having to put them up for adoption, she didn't even want them anyways. Eventually, the doctors actually... I think they tied her tubes, I don't know. There was a huge legal fit thrown, and I don't know if that can be undone, but something got done about it. Interesting enough, a mentally challenged couple also had a kid around here, and they were raising it rather well last I heard. See, it's a really hard thing to determine, and the conditions might be hard to define, but... there are some people that are just going to raise detrimental kids, or they'll die young, or something else bad will happen, just because of this or that reason. It... I think the rights of the child should come before the rights of the parents. We should be offering protection to those who need it most.

4. Now, I think here in Canada I could beat a man within an inch of his life for entering my home, dunno, never tested it, but if that's not allowed in other places, I'm against it. I think you have full right to punish someone for entering your domain without permission. Bar killing them, or permanently disabling them, maybe, you should have full right to break out the gun, or bat, and get a little bit confrontational. I'm pretty sure a shot in the kneecap heels eventually.

And... maybe I'll edit if I come up with things. I'm not really for prostitution, so I don't want to say that. I can understand the desire to tax it, and that if done right, it doesn't do much damage, but... sex is another thing I can get high and mighty about, but I won't here.

EDIT:

5. I'm pretty sure gay people can get married here in Nova Scotia, but I certainly would like it to be a universal thing. I feel that the churches should have some say on whom they allow, I understand that it's a big thing for them, and besides, you can get married in other places. I never wanted to get married in a church anyways, I always thought a park would be really nice.

But yeah, more as I think of them I suppose.

 

[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.

 

[Z of the Na'vi]

Gravity.

[small]Think of the possibilities.[/small]

 

[liquidsolid]

Legalize Marijuana because why the hell not? I would remove the Federal law in the United States making Marijuana a Schedule I drug.

 

[katsumoto03]

Well since Canada already has Gay Marrige, legalize all drugs.

 

[jpoon]

Marijuana is now federally legal. There goes the failed "war on drugs"! Yay!!

 

[Kroxile]

I'd remove seatbelt laws. If I wanna sacrifice my safety for my own comfort then I should be allowed to!