This is the place to glorify the laws that most enrich your life. These can be local, state, or federal laws.
I’ll start with:
1.(federal) Raw milk can’t be sold across state lines.
2.(Virginia state)18.2-344. Fornication.
Any person, not being married, who voluntarily shall have
sexual intercourse with any other person, shall be guilty
of fornication, punishable as a Class 4 misdemeanor.
3. A local law requiring bars with more than 10% of their floor space(and an arbitrary number of patrons) available for dancing to hire off-duty police officers to man the door.
If only there was a single example in all of history of nationalism going bad. A movement calling itself the national socialist ___________ would fit the bill well-too bad there’re no examples of something like that.
They say that those who don’t study history are doomed to repeat it. Ha! Stupid sayings.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Anarchy is for fools and 12 year olds. Economic ties do not reliably prevent conflict. Case in point WWI.[/quote]
I’m with you, Brohan. Statism has reliably proven itself to be the only thing that can prevent conflict. Case in point: War of Northern Aggression, WWI, WWII, etc.
(Did you happen to post this in the wrong thread? I don’t believe there has been any mention of anarchy, or even libertarianism, in this thread. Regardless, I would appreciate information on what reliably prevents conflict between humans.)
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Obviously it’s the first amendment. How else would I get to read over and over again how oppressive America is? [/quote]
jajajajaja
I will one up ya in the simplest way - the Bill of Rights. How else could I truly grasp how oppressive America has become?
You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness. You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice, nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his lawsuit.
Exodus 23:1-2
In my opinion, perjury laws are the best theoretical law in existence.
I am also partial to Common law codification statutes, such as the Sale of Goods Act 1896.
[quote]Legalsteel wrote:
You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness. You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice, nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his lawsuit.
Exodus 23:1-2
In my opinion, perjury laws are the best theoretical law in existence.
I am also partial to Common law codification statutes, such as the Sale of Goods Act 1896. [/quote]
I agree with your whole post(truly agree…not “agree” in the same manner that I posted my “best laws” in my first post).
“You shall not fall in with the many to do evil…”-Seems like it could be slightly reworded to say, “If you do not have a right to do it, supporting the majority in doing it is wrong.”
[quote]Legalsteel wrote:
You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness. You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice, nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his lawsuit.
Exodus 23:1-2
In my opinion, perjury laws are the best theoretical law in existence.
I am also partial to Common law codification statutes, such as the Sale of Goods Act 1896. [/quote]
I agree with your whole post(truly agree…not “agree” in the same manner that I posted my “best laws” in my first post).
“You shall not fall in with the many to do evil…”-Seems like it could be slightly reworded to say, “If you do not have a right to do it, supporting the majority in doing it is wrong.”[/quote]
Thanks. However, I prefer it phrased in the negative as it allows you to use your conscience as to when you side with the majority. Perhaps a more modern legal re-wording would be:
When it is unconscionable to act or believe in a specific way by yourself, the mere fact of widespread acceptability will not render it conscionable.
Hmm, here’s a thought, the commandment operates as an early right of freedom of association. That’s pretty ahead of its time.