How many laws do we need?
Discussion
If you doubt that legislation has gone too far consider these points:
- How many laws can you think of that have made a significant improvement to your life in your lifetime?
- How many times in your life have you thought "It's great that they've legislated on that issue!"
- How many times in your life have you thought "What idiot wasted time on that rule!"
- do you know how many laws they have created in the last 20, 30 or 40 years? (clue : lots)
- If the law had not changed since, for arguments sake, 1970, would your life be much different?
- guess who paid for it
tank slapper said:
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.
Put simply whilst I like the sound of classic Liberalism that you argue, I don't feel that it is pragmatic, although I respect your opinion and I trust this is mutual. In any case with the introduction of the 'Big Society' it will be fascinating to see how well it works.
cymtriks said:
If you doubt that legislation has gone too far consider these points:
Some laws have no effect on me, that doesn't mean they were not created for a reason! I think a lot of laws were created to punish people for doing something 'new', just because I dont partake in those behaviours doesn't mean I don;t want others punished for the same thing.- How many laws can you think of that have made a significant improvement to your life in your lifetime?
- How many times in your life have you thought "It's great that they've legislated on that issue!"
- How many times in your life have you thought "What idiot wasted time on that rule!"
- do you know how many laws they have created in the last 20, 30 or 40 years? (clue : lots)
- If the law had not changed since, for arguments sake, 1970, would your life be much different?
- guess who paid for it
There are good and bad laws depending on the person.
The one thing I will say is that the law needs cleaning up, there are a lot of valid and linked laws that could could do with being condensed down into 1 piece of legislation rather than being spread over lots. At the moment some aras are very complex to understand
Ozzie Osmond said:
purplepolarbear said:
14. It should be legal to wear a t-shirt in a public place saying "f..k the police" (spelt out in full).
Number 14 seems to have fallen at the first hurdle!And you missed out the big one. How come two blokes can get married, gay adoption is allowed, I can have as many mistresses as I like, I can father children by as many women as I like....
.... but I'm only allowed one wife?
are you retarded, most blokes learn after the first one!
one is more than enough!
Nobody consciously acts legally. We all act morally. The difference between the two can be calculated.Mojooo said:
I am sure the minimum wage argument debate can (and no doubt has) have an entire thread of its own.
Although people may not work for £1 an hour I think they may stoop to £3 - which in my view is unacceptable.
If we didn't have benefits or a minimum wage law then I think we would have lots of people working for such low wages.
I think the point of the minimum wage tradnscends free market economics and comes down to a moral thing.
The other issue is that the current minimum wage is bareley enough to have a reasonable quality of life for some people (i.e those that live alone) - some argue it should be even higher!
I live in Thailand where £1 an hour would be quite a tidy wage. In rural areas the average unskilled wage is about £4 a day. But nearly everyone works, and in most cases quite a bit harder than the average minimum wage worker in the UK, in my experience.Although people may not work for £1 an hour I think they may stoop to £3 - which in my view is unacceptable.
If we didn't have benefits or a minimum wage law then I think we would have lots of people working for such low wages.
I think the point of the minimum wage tradnscends free market economics and comes down to a moral thing.
The other issue is that the current minimum wage is bareley enough to have a reasonable quality of life for some people (i.e those that live alone) - some argue it should be even higher!
The thing is because labour is so cheap everything is cheap. Getting a cooked meal will cost you about 60p. A room will cost about £40 a month, so it probably pays to share, and don't expect too much, but many, many people with a steady wage live on about £100 a month, and live what they would call an ok life, because the alternative is picking up casual work where you can and not really knowing where your next meal is coming from.
That said, no one starves here. You have a network of family and community that will help, but because it's personal they are in a position to help properly. Not just giving them money, but making sure they're not spending it on whisky, making sure they are working when they can, and generally making sure they are not behaving in the way that so many benefits claimants in England behave.
What you call a "reasonable" quality of life is actually very expensive in ways you may well not have even thought of - a cooker with an oven, hot running water, chairs, a proper bed. Many working Thai families do without all these things because they're unnecessary luxuries. Never mind going to a bar and spending £20 on drink one or two nights a week or running a car entirely for yourself. These things are very extravagant, and the idea that a single person can't live a "reasonable" life on ~£200 a week is ridiculous. What he can't do is live a £400 a week life in an expensive country.
As for the original post - I'd like to see 2 basic laws
1) You are not to use force against someone unless they initiate it.
2) You are not to damage or steal anyone's property.
Of course the courts would have a busy time establishing exactly where the boundaries lie, but the courts are pretty busy anyway with everyone getting hauled up for driving while picking their nose, and then suing the police for the trauma of it all at the moment anyway.
I thinkl the basic problem with the anti-minimum wage argument is that (a) cheap workers in an expensive economy are effectively having their jobs subsidized by the higher paid, and (b) cheap labour encourages inefficiency.
For example: if a childcare worker costs £25k a year, market forces will tend to encourages creches over private nannies, compared with a situation where the same worker costs £10k a year. From an economic pov, creches are more efficient since more children can be minded by fewer staff. The higher paid workers are also easier to extract taxes from.
For example: if a childcare worker costs £25k a year, market forces will tend to encourages creches over private nannies, compared with a situation where the same worker costs £10k a year. From an economic pov, creches are more efficient since more children can be minded by fewer staff. The higher paid workers are also easier to extract taxes from.
HundredthIdiot said:
I thinkl the basic problem with the anti-minimum wage argument is that (a) cheap workers in an expensive economy are effectively having their jobs subsidized by the higher paid, and (b) cheap labour encourages inefficiency.
For example: if a childcare worker costs £25k a year, market forces will tend to encourages creches over private nannies, compared with a situation where the same worker costs £10k a year. From an economic pov, creches are more efficient since more children can be minded by fewer staff. The higher paid workers are also easier to extract taxes from.
How do you define "efficiency"? That is true if it is simple productivity per man-hour. However if it's optimal use of resources then that definition would only apply if man hours were more scarce than other available inputs. In an economy with unemployment then that is not the case.For example: if a childcare worker costs £25k a year, market forces will tend to encourages creches over private nannies, compared with a situation where the same worker costs £10k a year. From an economic pov, creches are more efficient since more children can be minded by fewer staff. The higher paid workers are also easier to extract taxes from.
AJS- said:
HundredthIdiot said:
I thinkl the basic problem with the anti-minimum wage argument is that (a) cheap workers in an expensive economy are effectively having their jobs subsidized by the higher paid, and (b) cheap labour encourages inefficiency.
For example: if a childcare worker costs £25k a year, market forces will tend to encourages creches over private nannies, compared with a situation where the same worker costs £10k a year. From an economic pov, creches are more efficient since more children can be minded by fewer staff. The higher paid workers are also easier to extract taxes from.
How do you define "efficiency"? That is true if it is simple productivity per man-hour. However if it's optimal use of resources then that definition would only apply if man hours were more scarce than other available inputs. In an economy with unemployment then that is not the case.For example: if a childcare worker costs £25k a year, market forces will tend to encourages creches over private nannies, compared with a situation where the same worker costs £10k a year. From an economic pov, creches are more efficient since more children can be minded by fewer staff. The higher paid workers are also easier to extract taxes from.
I think what I'm saying is that cheap workers "cost" the country more than their wages reflect, since they use a bunch of shared infrastructure (roads, NHS, pension entitlements etc) which cost substantially more than they could ever pay in tax.
So "fixing" the unemployment problem by having the private sector hoover them up as unskilled labour is a false solution.
The correct solution is to employ people doing stuff which our advanced infrastructure makes relatively cheaper, i.e. do more of what we're best at.
I have no idea how to achieve that.
ts around and we need laws to ensure they play by the rules and contribute to society.grumbledoak said:
Making things legal or illegal does not materially affect people's decision to do or not do. As our alcohol/drug prohibition laws have amply demonstrated.
Well thats rubbish.Some people do everything they can to stay within the law.
It all depends on what the law means for them.
You don't need laws; you need a single legal theory, interpreted by the consensus of opinion between 5 elected sages standing for a term of 10 years and whose remuneration and future station are elevated to such a level as to make then incorruptible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
HundredthIdiot said:
AJS- said:
HundredthIdiot said:
I thinkl the basic problem with the anti-minimum wage argument is that (a) cheap workers in an expensive economy are effectively having their jobs subsidized by the higher paid, and (b) cheap labour encourages inefficiency.
For example: if a childcare worker costs £25k a year, market forces will tend to encourages creches over private nannies, compared with a situation where the same worker costs £10k a year. From an economic pov, creches are more efficient since more children can be minded by fewer staff. The higher paid workers are also easier to extract taxes from.
How do you define "efficiency"? That is true if it is simple productivity per man-hour. However if it's optimal use of resources then that definition would only apply if man hours were more scarce than other available inputs. In an economy with unemployment then that is not the case.For example: if a childcare worker costs £25k a year, market forces will tend to encourages creches over private nannies, compared with a situation where the same worker costs £10k a year. From an economic pov, creches are more efficient since more children can be minded by fewer staff. The higher paid workers are also easier to extract taxes from.
I think what I'm saying is that cheap workers "cost" the country more than their wages reflect, since they use a bunch of shared infrastructure (roads, NHS, pension entitlements etc) which cost substantially more than they could ever pay in tax.
So "fixing" the unemployment problem by having the private sector hoover them up as unskilled labour is a false solution.
The correct solution is to employ people doing stuff which our advanced infrastructure makes relatively cheaper, i.e. do more of what we're best at.
I have no idea how to achieve that.
It's not false, it's just pragmatic, and the idea is that as all labour is hired then the wages have to go up, hence efficiency in terms of productivity per man hour will rise as automation comes relatively cheaper. Automating things while labour is relatively cheap is something like tipping away a tank full of petrol because you found a petrol station that sells it 1p/litre cheaper.
purplepolarbear said:
On this forum many of us think that we need fewer laws and that the state should intervene less in people's lives.
This got me thinking where do you think the line should be drawn, and which of the following statements would you agree with (assuming all involved are over 18 and consent) and which of these activities do you think the state should prohibit or regulate and why? - for the record I wouldn't do any of them
1. It should be legal to ride a motorcycle without a helmet.
2. It should be legal to employ someone on £1 per hour.
3. It should be legal to smoke cannabis.
4. It should be legal to lend someone £100 at 1000% interest, repayable over a year.
5. It should be legal for two men to have anal sex.
6. It should be legal to say "no blacks" when advertising for a job.
7. It should be legal to employ someone with a contract that does not pay sick pay, holiday pay and can be terminated without notice.
8. It should be legal to hunt foxes with hounds.
9. It should be legal to stage a dog fight.
10. It should be legal (for someone with no medical/pharmaceutical qualifications) to sell someone a drug that is currently prescription only.
11. It should be legal to possess an automatic rifle.
12. It should be legal to walk around a public place naked.
13. It should be legal to stage a bare knuckle boxing match.
14. It should be legal to wear a t-shirt in a public place saying "f..k the police" (spelt out in full).
16. It should be legal to pay another person for sex.
17. It should be legal for the owner of a private cafe to allow customers to smoke in it.
18. It should be legal to wear a t shirt saying "islam is evil".
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
I think all should be legal. Every single one. This got me thinking where do you think the line should be drawn, and which of the following statements would you agree with (assuming all involved are over 18 and consent) and which of these activities do you think the state should prohibit or regulate and why? - for the record I wouldn't do any of them
1. It should be legal to ride a motorcycle without a helmet.
2. It should be legal to employ someone on £1 per hour.
3. It should be legal to smoke cannabis.
4. It should be legal to lend someone £100 at 1000% interest, repayable over a year.
5. It should be legal for two men to have anal sex.
6. It should be legal to say "no blacks" when advertising for a job.
7. It should be legal to employ someone with a contract that does not pay sick pay, holiday pay and can be terminated without notice.
8. It should be legal to hunt foxes with hounds.
9. It should be legal to stage a dog fight.
10. It should be legal (for someone with no medical/pharmaceutical qualifications) to sell someone a drug that is currently prescription only.
11. It should be legal to possess an automatic rifle.
12. It should be legal to walk around a public place naked.
13. It should be legal to stage a bare knuckle boxing match.
14. It should be legal to wear a t-shirt in a public place saying "f..k the police" (spelt out in full).
16. It should be legal to pay another person for sex.
17. It should be legal for the owner of a private cafe to allow customers to smoke in it.
18. It should be legal to wear a t shirt saying "islam is evil".
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
Edit... pragmatically speaking, the ones I would be most willing to compromise on are 6,7,9, 10 (in the case of antibiotics only) and 20.
Edited by Somewhatfoolish on Wednesday 5th January 07:21
Somewhatfoolish said:
purplepolarbear said:
6. It should be legal to say "no blacks" when advertising for a job.
I think all should be legal. Every single one. Edit... pragmatically speaking, the ones I would be most willing to compromise on are 6,7,9, 10 (in the case of antibiotics only) and 20.
edited 'cause I screwed up the quotes
Edited by Einion Yrth on Wednesday 5th January 07:33
Einion Yrth said:
Somewhatfoolish said:
purplepolarbear said:
6. It should be legal to say "no blacks" when advertising for a job.
I think all should be legal. Every single one. Edit... pragmatically speaking, the ones I would be most willing to compromise on are 6,7,9, 10 (in the case of antibiotics only) and 20.
edited 'cause I screwed up the quotes
Edited by Einion Yrth on Wednesday 5th January 07:33
You seem to be confusing 'rubbish' with 'simple observable fact'. Or even 'history'.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff