How many laws do we need?
Discussion
Spiritual_Beggar said:
crankedup said:
1. Disagree, saw too many bikers killed with head injuries following RTA's in the 1960's
2. Disagree, slave trade was abolished a long time ago.
4. Disagree, the Local Government should offer loans to those who qualify.
Just taken these as an example.....2. Disagree, slave trade was abolished a long time ago.
4. Disagree, the Local Government should offer loans to those who qualify.
Why do you disagree with those statements?
[snip]
If I want to ride around on a bike without a helmet....who the hell has the right to tell me otherwise (unless I'm a kid and my parents are sill responsible for me)?
Yes, advice people about risks, etc....but don't criminalise people for their stupidity! Who does it help!
judas said:
Spiritual_Beggar said:
crankedup said:
1. Disagree, saw too many bikers killed with head injuries following RTA's in the 1960's
2. Disagree, slave trade was abolished a long time ago.
4. Disagree, the Local Government should offer loans to those who qualify.
Just taken these as an example.....2. Disagree, slave trade was abolished a long time ago.
4. Disagree, the Local Government should offer loans to those who qualify.
Why do you disagree with those statements?
[snip]
If I want to ride around on a bike without a helmet....who the hell has the right to tell me otherwise (unless I'm a kid and my parents are sill responsible for me)?
Yes, advice people about risks, etc....but don't criminalise people for their stupidity! Who does it help!
Oh...wait.....
You're talking about a different arguement though, imo. That's an argueement about what our taxes 'actually' pay for. Either way....the NHS is another discussion because the whole thing is not sustainable and the service offered is getting progressively worse...not better......yet the money thrown at it keeeps going up and up!
spud989 said:
Are you really that naive?
Take your standard pit village, somewhere where the mine was responsible for most of the area's employment. What would have happened if the owners decided that all jobs were to be on a £1/hour salary. Do you think an entire community can suddenly up sticks and move.
Modern day comparison: take a 'sink estate', somewhere where unemployment is high and oppoortunities very limited. What happens if the local 6 shops (the ones you get all in a row near flats) suddenly decide that all workers' contracts are to be £1/hour. They'd either all jump straight on the dole, or they'd be forced to work and carry on because there's nothing else.
Next week from Spiritual_Beggar: why can't prostitutes pay for their drugs using other means?
Using your 'Pit town' analogy....Take your standard pit village, somewhere where the mine was responsible for most of the area's employment. What would have happened if the owners decided that all jobs were to be on a £1/hour salary. Do you think an entire community can suddenly up sticks and move.
Modern day comparison: take a 'sink estate', somewhere where unemployment is high and oppoortunities very limited. What happens if the local 6 shops (the ones you get all in a row near flats) suddenly decide that all workers' contracts are to be £1/hour. They'd either all jump straight on the dole, or they'd be forced to work and carry on because there's nothing else.
Next week from Spiritual_Beggar: why can't prostitutes pay for their drugs using other means?
If they did that, then what stops the 'workers' from saying "Fine...screw you....we're not working anymore!"
Now what's the employer going to do? Find someone else to work there for that amount? But who? Since the whole town has now decided to quit!?
Power in numbers my friend. And that was something the Pit community did very well....stick together.
It works both ways. However, now, thanks to Labour's immigration policy and our membership of the EU, this is solved by getting in 'slave labour immigration' to do the jobs. Which is why the whole immigration thing is such a big problem. British workers no longer have that power over their employer because if they quit....it's not such a big problem for the employer anymore.
Using your 'Sink Estate' analogy....
If the shops decided that then the people working there would quite happily go on the dole (they are, unfortunately, most likely on some form of benefit already), the shop shuts down because no one will work there; and gets replaced by a new 'owner'/ business. Heck, maybe one of the newly unemployed might decide to open up a shop where the old one used to be!
Are the people on the estate that affected by it all in the long term? Any effect from what you described would be short term. Unless the 'demand' for shops there isn't high enough. In which case that's an entirely different problem to the 'minimum wage one'.
You make it sound like the workers don't have a choice if an employer does this...but they do. Also, do you not see that if an employer was to do this, in a society where benfits are sooo high, it would be counterproductive for them, and quite possibly more costly!
Edited by Spiritual_Beggar on Sunday 2nd January 21:01
The power lies with employers though
We have already seen that strikes do not usually lead to the employer directly caving in and due to the society we live in its very hard to just leave a job because you are upset at something - most people have commitments
Its not really as easy as saying employees dont like the way things are, they will leave
We have already seen that strikes do not usually lead to the employer directly caving in and due to the society we live in its very hard to just leave a job because you are upset at something - most people have commitments
Its not really as easy as saying employees dont like the way things are, they will leave
Spiritual_Beggar said:
judas said:
Spiritual_Beggar said:
crankedup said:
1. Disagree, saw too many bikers killed with head injuries following RTA's in the 1960's
2. Disagree, slave trade was abolished a long time ago.
4. Disagree, the Local Government should offer loans to those who qualify.
Just taken these as an example.....2. Disagree, slave trade was abolished a long time ago.
4. Disagree, the Local Government should offer loans to those who qualify.
Why do you disagree with those statements?
[snip]
If I want to ride around on a bike without a helmet....who the hell has the right to tell me otherwise (unless I'm a kid and my parents are sill responsible for me)?
Yes, advice people about risks, etc....but don't criminalise people for their stupidity! Who does it help!
Oh...wait.....
You're talking about a different arguement though, imo. That's an argueement about what our taxes 'actually' pay for. Either way....the NHS is another discussion because the whole thing is not sustainable and the service offered is getting progressively worse...not better......yet the money thrown at it keeeps going up and up!
ETA: I'm a biker BTW. The thought of riding without a helmet quite frankly gives me the screaming heebiejeebies
Edited by judas on Sunday 2nd January 21:16
purplepolarbear said:
5. It should be legal for two men to have anal sex.
12. It should be legal to walk around a public place naked.
13. It should be legal to stage a bare knuckle boxing match.
16. It should be legal to pay another person for sex.
19. It should be legal to eat the meat of a dog.
20. It should be legal to drive a Ssangyong Rodius in a public place
Have you considered professional help? 12. It should be legal to walk around a public place naked.
13. It should be legal to stage a bare knuckle boxing match.
16. It should be legal to pay another person for sex.
19. It should be legal to eat the meat of a dog.
20. It should be legal to drive a Ssangyong Rodius in a public place
Mojooo said:
The power lies with employers though
We have already seen that strikes do not usually lead to the employer directly caving in and due to the society we live in its very hard to just leave a job because you are upset at something - most people have commitments
Its not really as easy as saying employees dont like the way things are, they will leave
Ah....the strikes are different.We have already seen that strikes do not usually lead to the employer directly caving in and due to the society we live in its very hard to just leave a job because you are upset at something - most people have commitments
Its not really as easy as saying employees dont like the way things are, they will leave
What if they 'quit' though?
The emnployer then has to 'replace' the whole workforce. That's gona cost some!!! Not to mention the 'downtime' having to train the 'entire' staff again!
The emplyer would be effectively shooting themselves in the foot by making such a change!
The scandinavians (& Swiss) manage to survive these problems without making it a 'law'. How do they get by without a 'minimum wage law'? Or how does there economy differ from ours that allows theem to get by without one?
judas said:
Yes, the funding of the NHS is a different argument, but whether you agree with it or not, the helmet laws were in reality all about reducing the financial impact of motorbike accidents. Oh, and I'd quite happily take the same stance with alcohol and tobacco related illnesses. I'm all for letting people do what they like provided a) it doesn't adversely affect other people, and b) you wholly accept *all* the consequences of your actions. But at the end of the day some poor bugger has to pick up what's left of your brains after you crash...
ETA: I'm a biker BTW. The thought of riding without a helmet quite frankly gives me the screaming heebiejeebies
I don't disagree, but if that's the case we then get back into another arguement;ETA: I'm a biker BTW. The thought of riding without a helmet quite frankly gives me the screaming heebiejeebies
Edited by judas on Sunday 2nd January 21:16
Should we have 'personal insurance' to play sports or do anything in life with inherent risks?
Fact is, IF it wasn't illegal to ride a bike without a heelmet......how many people WOULD actually do it, knowing the risks (just because an ambulance might save your....that's not to say you won't brain damaged, etc)?
I believe that number would be small. As would the 'Cost' to the NHS in the grand scheme of things. I think a lot more money gets pissed up the wall on redundant NHS admin, than would be required to treat all the injuries from 'just' the people who suffered injuries as a result of not wearing a helmet.
Do we 'really' need to go through the expense and time of making into 'Law' what in essence is a personal choice...and common sense at that!
grumbledoak said:
Why do you think our law should be based on the concept of "you can..."?
Surely it should be based on harm and the concept that "you can't...".
Indeed. Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I understand it, English law is based on freedom to do anything that's not specifically forbidden, which is one of the good things about it. Some other countries the whole basis of law is that everything is forbidden unless specifically allowed by law - a tyrannical state of affairs if ever there was one!Surely it should be based on harm and the concept that "you can't...".
Everyone remember The Times' list of Stupid UK laws;
1. It is illegal to die in the Houses of Parliament (27 per cent)
2. It is an act of treason to place a postage stamp bearing the British monarch upside-down (7 per cent)
3. In Liverpool, it is illegal for a woman to be topless except as a clerk in a tropical fish store (6 per cent)
4. Mince pies cannot be eaten on Christmas Day (5 per cent)
5. In Scotland, if someone knocks on your door and requires the use of your toilet, you must let them enter (4 per cent)
6. In the UK, a pregnant woman can legally relieve herself anywhere she wants, including in a policeman's helmet (4 per cent)
7. The head of any dead whale found on the British coast automatically becomes the property of the King, and the tail of the Queen (3.5 per cent)
8. It is illegal not to tell the tax man anything you do not want him to know, but legal not to tell him information you do not mind him knowing (3 per cent)
9. It is illegal to enter the Houses of Parliament in a suit of armour (3 per cent)
10. In the city of York it is legal to murder a Scotsman within the ancient city walls, but only if he is carrying a bow and arrow (2 per cent)
All still in effect!
Who broke No.4? Come on...own up!!!
What gett's me is;
We constantly hear about 'new' laws being added....but never ones beeing rescinded. Like most things our Governments have done over the years......everything (ESPECIALLY the tax system) is overly complicated! No wonder why there is so much wastage!
1. It is illegal to die in the Houses of Parliament (27 per cent)
2. It is an act of treason to place a postage stamp bearing the British monarch upside-down (7 per cent)
3. In Liverpool, it is illegal for a woman to be topless except as a clerk in a tropical fish store (6 per cent)
4. Mince pies cannot be eaten on Christmas Day (5 per cent)
5. In Scotland, if someone knocks on your door and requires the use of your toilet, you must let them enter (4 per cent)
6. In the UK, a pregnant woman can legally relieve herself anywhere she wants, including in a policeman's helmet (4 per cent)
7. The head of any dead whale found on the British coast automatically becomes the property of the King, and the tail of the Queen (3.5 per cent)
8. It is illegal not to tell the tax man anything you do not want him to know, but legal not to tell him information you do not mind him knowing (3 per cent)
9. It is illegal to enter the Houses of Parliament in a suit of armour (3 per cent)
10. In the city of York it is legal to murder a Scotsman within the ancient city walls, but only if he is carrying a bow and arrow (2 per cent)
All still in effect!
Who broke No.4? Come on...own up!!!
What gett's me is;
We constantly hear about 'new' laws being added....but never ones beeing rescinded. Like most things our Governments have done over the years......everything (ESPECIALLY the tax system) is overly complicated! No wonder why there is so much wastage!
Edited by Spiritual_Beggar on Sunday 2nd January 21:34
New laws are having to be created all the time because people are doing things they shouldnt be
I doubt most on here are against making clamping illegal - but why did the law come into effect? Because some people cannot be trusted to play 'fair' which their charges and practices. That said, presumably, those on here that believe in freedom to do whatever you want support the right of landowners to 'fine' people £500 for illegally parking on their land.
I doubt most on here are against making clamping illegal - but why did the law come into effect? Because some people cannot be trusted to play 'fair' which their charges and practices. That said, presumably, those on here that believe in freedom to do whatever you want support the right of landowners to 'fine' people £500 for illegally parking on their land.
Minimum wage was not one of Labours best moments, looks good on paper, doesnt help anyone long term, especially those who it was intended to. The staggered age banding means retail/service use the youngest employees they can, also it has resulted in many firms using agency staff, so an average working joe cant even get a guaranteed weeks work!.
judas said:
Mojooo said:
New laws are having to be created all the time because people are doing things they shouldnt be
I'd add to that, under Labour lots of new laws were created to stop people doing things the Labour party didn't approve of...I'm sure the Conservatives will make something illegal on the basis that they don't like it before the next election.
t aren't they?EDLT said:
judas said:
Mojooo said:
New laws are having to be created all the time because people are doing things they shouldnt be
I'd add to that, under Labour lots of new laws were created to stop people doing things the Labour party didn't approve of...I'm sure the Conservatives will make something illegal on the basis that they don't like it before the next election.
judas said:
EDLT said:
judas said:
Mojooo said:
New laws are having to be created all the time because people are doing things they shouldnt be
I'd add to that, under Labour lots of new laws were created to stop people doing things the Labour party didn't approve of...I'm sure the Conservatives will make something illegal on the basis that they don't like it before the next election.
Where a group of people are doing something illegal so instead of stopping them they introduce some more laws.
Like car insurance where it is no illegal to own a car which isn't insured unless it is on a SORN. Introduced because loads of people were driving on the road without insurance which was already illegal. But now having a taxed car in your garage without insurance is now also illegal.
Thats really stopped the folk driving on the roads without insurance.
Feckwits
B3njamin said:
Dangerous2 said:
1 law.
do whatever you want as long as you don't harm other people.
As lovely as that sounds, the statement always strikes as being vacuous.do whatever you want as long as you don't harm other people.
If you restate it slightly
You shall not initiate force or fraud against another person’s life, liberty or property.
then it is the fundamental principle of libertarianism.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff