Things that are illegal, that you don't have problem with
- Thread starter Blindswordmaster
- Start date
Jaywalking. I'd rather jaywalk when there's a gap in traffic than wait for 20 minutes in the fucking rain at a crosswalk just because nobody who's driving a car is willing to stop for 10 seconds to let somebody cross the street (which I'm pretty sure is a law in NY, one that nobody ever follows...).
I could not care any less if people choose to use marijuana, so long as they don't puff it in my face. However, I do believe that certain people who cannot afford the lowered mental capacity should be allowed to even drink ha ha! If pure, the leaf is a lot better than a cig/tar cocktail.
The seat belt law has its good intentions, but the problem that I see is that (where I live) police that ticket for these laws, speeding in trap zones, and crossing over other frivolous laws are pretty much not doing their jobs. Congrats on catching someone going 5 over when the speed limit randomly changes from 35 to 25 on a hill or spotting some guy without a seat belt. Meanwhile, the rest of us are getting cut off by maniacs drunk off of their bluetooths.
I also dissent against the drivers license policy in the U.S. They just give these things to damn near anybody when it's a bloody privilege. The amount of clueless drivers astounds me, but I am even further perplexed as to how in the hell they were given a license. It's not like cars have bumper-car padding; these people are driving thousands of pounds of death once they hit the gas.
The seat belt law has its good intentions, but the problem that I see is that (where I live) police that ticket for these laws, speeding in trap zones, and crossing over other frivolous laws are pretty much not doing their jobs. Congrats on catching someone going 5 over when the speed limit randomly changes from 35 to 25 on a hill or spotting some guy without a seat belt. Meanwhile, the rest of us are getting cut off by maniacs drunk off of their bluetooths.
I also dissent against the drivers license policy in the U.S. They just give these things to damn near anybody when it's a bloody privilege. The amount of clueless drivers astounds me, but I am even further perplexed as to how in the hell they were given a license. It's not like cars have bumper-car padding; these people are driving thousands of pounds of death once they hit the gas.
Than I can steal your sofa, right? Its not unique at all.AdmiralMemo said:
Throughout this thread, I've seen some pretty dumb things...
1. Theft of intellectual property should be legal, either because 'I have a better business model than the music industry,' or 'Its not like their making money off of it anymore.' Such things may very well be true, but the fact is: its not yours. If I had a 100 dollar bill in my desk drawer for 20 years, never used it, and you took it, I'm still going to break your knee caps. And if I did it to you, I'd expect the same.
2. All drugs should be legal, because we have the right to kill ourselves if we wish. For one, you actually DON'T have the right to kill yourself (As far as the law is concerned), and two, you are a fool if you think ketamine, a powerful drug that can cause problems with sight, balance, and time perception, will hurt only the user.
And don't start with the 'safer than smoking/booze' argument, as both are kept legal due to tradition rather than merit, rendering the whole argument mute.
3. Public nudity? Think about it. Real hard. You'll take it back.
As for my contribution to the thread... I see no reason why prostitution should be illegal. I'd never use such a service myself, due to my upbringing, but I see no reason as to why my morality should be forced onto others.
I agree with all of those. People don't seem to understand that banning things with high demand like this doesn't do shit. I'm also a firm believer that the government should not be able to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own body. I'd also like to add, and I'm surprised no one has mentioned this before, open container laws. I live in the US, I can't walk down the street with an open beer? WTF?Telanos said:At the risk of being controversial here, or being labeled a socialist (ooooh, knee jerk fear reaction from people who haven't looked at democracy close enough to get the joke) the following things should be legal but taxed and/or regulated:
All drugs
Drugs are readily available if you look hard enough anyway, legalisation would (hopefully) have the following positive effects:
1) Assured quality and control rules
2) Cheaper product available on the open market effectively destroying the expensive, underground distribution systems. No more drug mules.
3) Increase in government tax revenue to be used for the good of all. Possibly lower income taxes as a result.
Prostitution:
Repeat items 1 and 3 above
1) Illeagal sex trafficking would be greatly harmed as sex trade investigators would be able to concentrate only on involentary prostitution (slavery, kiddies).
2) Government regulated brothels would instigate health checks, reducing the chances of accidental STD infection.
Genetic Research
This particular issue is a tough one. I would dearly like to see the results of drugs destroying genetic diseases and assisting against other forms of disease. Immortality for humans is probably a bad idea. Genetic weapons for the military, also a bad idea.
Things that should be legal, but not regulated by the government or any religious body:
Abortion
Women have the right to decide what happens with their body. This is perfectly legal in a lot of countries, including my own.
Euthenasia
The right to death has historically been the right of anyone in any society. It's only in the last few hundred years that choosing for an otherwise incapacitated and hurting loved one to die is a bad thing. This is clearly subject to personal circumstances but should not be dismissed out of hand as murder.
I'd also like to point out to those saying piracy is hurting the movie biz, that both the number of movies being made each year as well as yearly revenue is increasing so...I guess it's not destroying the movie business so much. Also, maybe if more of the movies weren't so shitty they'd make more money, I find it rare that a movie is good enough that I'd be willing to pay $20+ for it.
Edit: I'd also like to add digital piracy in general. I don't know if I'd go as far as to say it should be completely legal but I think the dollar amounts involved in these lawsuits are ridiculous for the crime. $250,000 per infringement was put on the books before the digital age when those being prosecuted for infringement would largely be either large corporations ripping of IP of other companies or large scale copying of vhs tapes and such for distribution. It's ridiculous to apply these amounts to private citizens who have downloaded a few songs or movies.
To quote Larry Lessig: "Can common sense recognize the absurdity in a world where the maximum fine for downloading two songs off the Internet is more than the fine for a doctor's negligently butchering a patient?...Our law is an awful system for defending rights. It is an embarrassment to our tradition. And the consequence of our law as it is, is that those with the power can use the law to quash any rights they oppose." --Lawrence Lessig
Even in the middle of summer on a hot day, you dance for a few hours and are covered in sweat. Go outside. All of a sudden you wonder why your lips are blue and your freezing cold and shaking. No drugs required, you will get the pneums or something if not hypothermia.TheYellowCellPhone said:
You sweat to cool down, but after that you respect how good a job it can do.
...What?!NameIsRobertPaulson said:
I can't compete with this, I give up.
I'm going to crawl into a corner and cry myself to sleep now, thank you.
Blindswordmaster said:
No, because it's not a matter of resources so much as how the US legal system works, especially in a criminal sense.
It's like this, when desicians are made by a corperation or other large bureaucracy they get fed through a lot of differant stages and teams of people. Or at least the paperwork involving them does. What's more, as soon as a corperation in paticular is accused of anything, the first thing they do is destroy as much of the paper trail as possible.
Let's say a CEO makes a desician, ultimatly it comes down to one person, but he ultimatly feeds whatever he does through a number of other layers of bureaucracy and creates a paper trail with like 30 names on it, with rubber stamps and confirmation, and whatever else.
Come a criminal trial, you need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the CEO was the one that made a given desician. He's going to have destroyed any parts of the paper trail leading to him, and instead point fingers at various commitees, lower management levels, and other people and all of the paperwork he created and say that it was someone else in the organization besides him. With pieces missing you can follow the trail of evidence in circles, something obviously happened, but nobody can be proved to have authorized it in paticular. Eventually if things are really pushed the CEO might turn in one of his subordinates and say it was the fault of say Executive Assistant Smithers, while he
himself gets away clean. This is a sort of simplistic (and very basic example) but this is why when watching TV dramas someone finding a memo or whatever that can prove that a CEO actually knew about something or gave the first order before it trickled down is a big deal. It's all about accountability, and finding enough evidence to actually convict someone.
No amount of resources is going to be able to change that, the only way to do it would be to remove all protection of trade secrets and the like and have the goverment going through the business of companies constantly. That's not likely to happen due to civil liberties concerns and the like. One of the problems with the US system is our high degree of personal freedom makes law enforcement extremely difficult, especially in cases of white collar crime, since finding usable evidence by the rules that can prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt is nearly impossible.
I don't articulate it well, but this is more or less why white collar crime is such a giant mess.
In comparison due to differant rules and standards of evidence in the case of wrong doing against a person a company as a whole can be found liable. In the end it doesn't nessicarly matter who specifically is to blame, if it can be proven the organization as a whole was involved.
I never said theft should be legal.AccursedTheory said:
If the musician is charging for the song in any way, you should pay for it to get it. I was simply stating there is another way to go about it, and it's probably a better solution to the piracy problem, which is simply not going away at all.AccursedTheory said:
It's really all about your goal. If you love something, you're going to pay for it, almost no matter the cost. If the music lover loves Band A, they will pay for a CD for Band A if Band A charges for it, and if Band A does not charge for it, but asks for donations, the music lover will most probably donate to them. If Band A loves making music, they're not going to care whether they make a killing on their CD or not. So, making the CD for at cost, or just above cost would make sense for them. The main problem is that there are too many of Band B out there: the musician who is in the music industry to make money, not to make music. To them, their music is just another product to be sold, and they'll charge ridiculous amounts for it, though still under an amount that would drive people away. Those people, to me, are not real musicians. They are businessmen, entrepreneurs, etc. Not that that's wrong, but it seems kind of antithetical to the idea of what music should be.
The same goes for books, games, and all other forms of entertainment. I believe the best quality entertainment is made by those who love the craft, rather than those who love to make money.
So, in summary, pirating music (and games, etc.) is wrong, but the problem doesn't lie completely at the end of the consumer.
Weed. I don't personally do it, but I don't have a problem with others doing it, and I acually prefer that others smoke this instead of legal cigarettes (Because of the smell in the air and stuffs).
Can't really think of anything illegal that I don't have problems with, but I can think of plenty of perfectly legal things I take issue about.
Trivial lawsuits (just get legal representation to negotiate, don't waste court resources)
Extravagant pursuit of profit (when you're earning enough to support multiple families indefinitely but aren't, especially when other employees are struggling to pay utility and grocery bills, there's something wrong with the situation)
Allowing the election or continuance of public representatives with demonstrated biggotry or disregard for those they represent
Buying and selling other peoples' debts (much less making a financial system dependant on it)
Telephone solicitation (if people were interested, they'd be seeking out the business, especially given the abundant availability of telephone indexes such as phone books and the internet)
Seen a somewhat decent point, however, made on the case of emulation. Publishers could create a good number of jobs and a lot of profit by having teams dedicated to making downloadable content from old titles still licensed by them. Might even ease up the insane drives to rush game developers, cock block innovation in the industry, or release cookie cutter mods as full games. Pretty easy to combat an illegal business model by usurping their idea with the added benefits of trusted sources, a secure financial agreement, and people dedicated to ensuring a functional product.
Trivial lawsuits (just get legal representation to negotiate, don't waste court resources)
Extravagant pursuit of profit (when you're earning enough to support multiple families indefinitely but aren't, especially when other employees are struggling to pay utility and grocery bills, there's something wrong with the situation)
Allowing the election or continuance of public representatives with demonstrated biggotry or disregard for those they represent
Buying and selling other peoples' debts (much less making a financial system dependant on it)
Telephone solicitation (if people were interested, they'd be seeking out the business, especially given the abundant availability of telephone indexes such as phone books and the internet)
Seen a somewhat decent point, however, made on the case of emulation. Publishers could create a good number of jobs and a lot of profit by having teams dedicated to making downloadable content from old titles still licensed by them. Might even ease up the insane drives to rush game developers, cock block innovation in the industry, or release cookie cutter mods as full games. Pretty easy to combat an illegal business model by usurping their idea with the added benefits of trusted sources, a secure financial agreement, and people dedicated to ensuring a functional product.
