Some laws protect us from people who are ready at any point to make a bad decision that will negatively impact your life! Laws such as driving under the influence of alcohol are much needed. Few will argue that that law is not necessary.
However, how many other laws are currently on the books in various states that go well beyond the boundary of protecting you from another?s foolish action? Certain intrusive laws which are meant to protect you from you!
Do you have any such laws on the books in your state? What are they, and how do you feel that it takes away your rights as a tax paying citizen?
It seems that politicians eager to please a screaming minority constantly enact laws that seem to take more and more freedom away from us. In short, what laws should be abolished?
WE had a local business run out by the city, because the city felt the taxes it could collect if the property was developed into appartments or strip malls would be more revenue than the existing company which was in it’s 3rd generation of family ownership.
They also condemned around 20 houses and tore them down in the same area.
4 years later it’s flat open dirt with weeds and no one is looking to develope it.
When I lived in TN, we still had the “rule of thumb” law on the books. For those that don’t know, this is an ACTUAL law that says that you can beat your wife with a stick- as long as it is no bigger in circumferance than your thumb. It would make the papers every so often in some “outdated laws that are still on the books” articles.
Also, the state of GA passed a law 2 years ago making it illegal to answer your door in the nude (don’t ask me why there was such a problem with this that it made it to legislation). In the same session, they introduced a bill requiring any establishment that serves tea to offer “sweet tea”.—your tax dollars at work.
I also remember reading about a known drug dealer in Louisiana that was about to have his case thrown out of court for lack of probable cause, but an obscure law forbidding motor vehicles on the street which he was pulled over was found by the prosecution (apparently from the horse and buggy days). He was found guilty.
[quote]Chewman wrote:
I’d also shoot for repeal of “Eminent Domain”
WE had a local business run out by the city, because the city felt the taxes it could collect if the property was developed into appartments or strip malls would be more revenue than the existing company which was in it’s 3rd generation of family ownership.
They also condemned around 20 houses and tore them down in the same area.
4 years later it’s flat open dirt with weeds and no one is looking to develope it.[/quote]
This is a tough one, because, really, the government needs its eminent domain power in order to effectuate real public-interest projects such as highways and whatnot. However, in practice, the power is much abused – especially the recent cases involving use of the eminent domain power in favor of PRIVATE projects. I think that’s the ultimate abuse of government power (at least the ultimate abuse outside the criminal context) – using the power of the government to favor one party in what should be a private transaction.
I would favor a Constitutional amendment on this subject, directly applicable to state and local governments, requiring public interest and market-level compensation. Obviously, the details would need to be worked out, but I think that would be a minimum.
[quote]mica617 wrote:
I also remember reading about a known drug dealer in Louisiana that was about to have his case thrown out of court for lack of probable cause, but an obscure law forbidding motor vehicles on the street which he was pulled over was found by the prosecution (apparently from the horse and buggy days). He was found guilty. [/quote]
This is why Congress and local legislative assemblies should be FORCED to do periodic reviews of ALL existing laws (not the Constitution, just laws), with the requirement that any law that they don’t repeal, they must submit to the people for re-ratification. There should be no “obscure laws.” Christ, we’ve had enough time to figure out that obscure or forgotten laws are bad things. Just look at the reign of Tiberius.
First I would set a universal age of consent or adulthood. When you turn 18 or 21 or whatever arbitrary age we set you should be able to vote, buy guns, both handguns and long guns, drink alcohol, drive (but not drunk) and do drugs, which should also be legal.
I would probably abolish public intox laws.
I think drugs should either be illegal or not, none of this picking and choosing bullshit. Alcohol is an extremely distructive drug and it’s legal because it’s usual and familiar. Same deal with nicotine. If those two are legal the rest should be too.
I would eliminate censorship on all media formats. Allow the free market to dictate how much profanity they’ll tolerate…
I would eliminate speed limits. I would also eliminate mandatory insurance laws.
Laws about sodomy should be eliminated on principal but as they are difficult to enforce (Mulder and Scully never break down my door when I’m getting a bj…) I guess they’re okay. I only ever hear about them being used as extra charges on child exploitation or abuse cases.
Thats just off the top of my head, and that’s excluding policy issues like eliminating farm subsidies and what have you. I think these are all pretty basic libertarian principles.
Generally, I agree with the comments of others. I still think we need some of those laws, but many of them could be eliminated.
Personally, I’m not as concerned about bad codified law (laws passed by legislatures), I’m concerned about the common law created by judges, regulatory laws, and other things which don’t have to go through a voting body.
For example, I pretty much don’t trust anything coming under “substantive due process,” including Roe v. Wade (or other “reproductive rights”). Other suspect subjects include the current move against religious symbols, the use of twisted doctrines to invalidate laws passed by Congress (most recently, the Solomon Amendment, which has to do with military recruiter access to campuses, was struck down as a violation of free speech), and the prohibition on “pure morals legislation.” I also have a beef with some interstate taxation issues (and have actually published two articles on the issue), but that’s way too in depth to go into here.
The laws we must be worried about the most do not come from Congress or your state legislatures. Those laws can be repealed or modified. The biggest threat to your freedom comes from judges who invalidate laws because they disagree with them, and then justify those positions on the doctrine of the day. For example, for over 200 years, “cruel and unusual punishment” did not mean you could not sentence people under the arbitrary age of 18 to death. Suddenly one day later, a few judges from the top 1% of the top 1% decide that it is wrong and there is nothing you can do about it. Agree with capital punishment or not, that decision should be left up to America, not the ivory tower.
I totally agree on the executing minors issues. Perhaps that should apply to minors convicted of federal crimes in federal courts but as far as persons convicted on state charges in state courts, that’s a states rights issue. If I were a Governor I would be pissed and raising hell about this.
Also, in regards to mandatory auto insurance laws I concede that I haven’t been in an accident with an uninsured driver. I do believe though, that by not requiring drivers to be insured, it will encourage compeition in the insurance industry.
Also as a side note, I know in the state of Iowa you don’t need insurance per se, but need to prove you are good for 55,000 USD or some such amount, obviously in the case of an accident. That’s how the state staute reads, whether that flies when you got stopped by the Hi-Po’s I don’t know.
Anyway, I just think the state doesn’t need to baby sit us. We should be culpable for our own actions. If you are are irresponsible and drive without insurance and hurt someone, they should be able to acquire your assets through civil legal actions. I mean, if you’re dead I think the insurance issue is moot, and if you’re injured grievously getting the money for legal bills/punitive damages is important but not immediate, unless you don’t have health insurance yourself which brings us full cirlce in the individual responsibility issue.
I am not unsympathetic to the situation (uninsured auto accident) and I realize that many of these libertarian causes are not realistic or feasible in our current situation. In other words, I realize how big a cluster it would be to flip a switch and suddenly find ourselves in Libertopia. I also know it’s not going to happen.
It’s likelyl none of the laws I would repeal/change will ever change, but I threw them out there because I believe the closer we nudge our government towards an anarcho-capatalist free market ideal, the better.
Re-legalize cannabis, mushrooms, cocaine, opium. Allow folks to grow their own up to a certain amount, require licensing beyond that, and to sell, like alcohol.
Allow prostitution, mandatory regular check-ups, required “safety gear”, etc.
Remove sodomy laws, ones against anal/oral sex or sex between same-sex couples. Who I have sex with or how I have sex with a consenting adult is of no concern to anyone else.
Seat-belt laws for adults. You’re aware of the risks, and you don’t use it, your own damn fault. Same for helmet laws. If you are shown to be able to handle the bike or car proficiently, then by all means, knock yourself out.
The law preventing students from getting financial aid if they have been convicted of ANY drug offense. You can commit armed robbery and still get federal aid, but not if you smoked a joint back in high school? Ridiculous.
Asset forfeiture without being convicted of a crime. This has been abused like crazy by police departments all over the country, and it’s pretty difficult to get the property back, even if you’re acquitted of the crime in question.
I know there are others, but these are what occur to me now.
All laws prohibiting someones actions that do not physically and directly harm other individuals should be eliminated. In other words it should not be illegal for me to do something because it is offensive to people. This includes public nudity, blaring my music at all hours of the night, public drunkennes, drug use, etc.
[quote]Chewman wrote:
How about Prostitution as long as it’s in a house, and not on the street.
State Gov’s could regulate medical checks, cleanliness of the house, etc
Drug test the girls and get them rehab if they are addicts.
Would be safer than the streetwalkers out there today.[/quote]
Agree. A lot of more liberal countries already have this law. It would reduce disease.
America could repeal the ridiculous ephedra ban.
Laws against sodomy are surely outdated.
Laws which enable people to possess firearms for reasons other that hunting or for farmwork should be changed. The constitutional right to bear arms was written for a different, more rugged time. Now the negative impact of these weapons far outweighs their effect on personal safety.
[quote]deanosumo wrote:
Laws which enable people to possess firearms for reasons other that hunting or for farmwork should be changed. The constitutional right to bear arms was written for a different, more rugged time. Now the negative impact of these weapons far outweighs their effect on personal safety.
[/quote]