|
|
#1 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Storm Sanctuary!
Posts: 255
|
Are certain restrictions necessary? When I say restrictions, I mean wearing a seatbelt, ratings for video games, ratings for movies, etc. I mean if the majority of the population wore seatbelts as a habit, would we still need to have a law? I absolutely dislike laws that restrict me from doing actions that I know I could do responsibly like watching a R-rated movie alone. However, the way I see things is that if the majority of people do not tie their shoe laces and it becomes a problem, I would see why there would need to be a law passed in order for people to wear their shoe laces. Do you guys believe that this law would still need to exist if the majority of people learned to tie their shoe laces properly or drink responsibly without this law? Do you guys believe that we could just place harsher penalties for those who actually cause an injury? After all, if the teacher sees you talking, why should the entire class recieve detention? Also, do you guys believe that something like drinking responsibly could even become an action that the majority of people could eventually perform?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
FFR Player
|
Here's a question: If the majority of people wear seat belts anyway, why is there any reason to go through the process to remove the law already in place? The law is irrelevant in that situation, assuming that if the law was repealed, the number of seatbelt-wearers wouldn't change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 | |||||||
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
There is ample evidence to suggest that people not wearing a seatbelt are also more inclined to cause the injury of other people in an accident. This one isn't to save you from yourself, it is to save other people from you as well.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You're allowed to drive as fast as you want as long as you don't cause an accident? All that does is lead to more accidents. The entire purpose of legislating against things that -can- cause injury to others is to increase the chance that it -won't- Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#4 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
EDIT: Let me explain a bit more about where I believe MotF is coming from, since I can relate. Americans, especially American teenagers, have a VAST range of maturity. Even people living under nearly identical environmental conditions can be a proverbial football field away from each other in terms of maturity. The more responsible, observant, and mature teenagers are often forced to suffer under restrictions because of the large number of irresponsible, immature teenagers. The responsible group is automatically lumped in with the irresponsible group simply by virtue of age similarity, which causes resentment in the responsible population. Opinions such as MotF's are born out of this; the fact that one has to suffer for the actions of another group often causes resentment toward the ordinances and restrictions designed to "contain" the other group. I'm actually like this fairly often, as well. There are a large number of rules and restrictions that I feel are unfair and discriminatory to people of my age; that is, I feel like ageism is a growing problem, especially toward the younger generations. Even though I recognize the need for these rules and restrictions, so that certain groups can be kept in line and protected, I feel there are modifications that can be made that offer exemptions to those who prove the restriction is unnecessary toward them. Someone I know came up with an idea, though I never really explored it, to do this. I don't claim that it is a good idea, nor do I claim it is a bad one, since I haven't particularly thought about it. Essentially, a government organization would be established that would officially handle all applications for exemption. For instance, purchasing and M-rated game while under the age of 17 is illegal in my state. A younger teen (15 or so, most likely) could go through his parents, to this organization, and request the right to purchase M-rated games by showing evidence that he is able to responsibly choose which games he is able to healthily play. The organization would then issue something like a license stating that he is allowed to purchase M-rated games, which would then be presented when purchasing a game. The idea can of course be modified for other laws. The immediate problem I see with this is the scale. When you have so many people wanting to apply, how do you deal with it all? Well, the first criterion for application is a desire to do it. People who aren't as concerned with video games or who believe their parents will be willing to buy them games likely wouldn't apply. Second is the consent of your parents, so that probably eliminates a good number. I'm sure other things could be added too, for instance criminal record (anything, even a misdemeanor means ineligibility, and this is something that can be checked rapidly and easily). Still, I wonder how many people would make the cut and apply. Last edited by Relambrien; 11-26-2007 at 10:41 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Storm Sanctuary!
Posts: 255
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 | |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
Oh I'm sorry, you failed algebra, you aren't allowed to drive a car anymore? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Dec 2005
Age: 30
Posts: 240
|
intelligence isn't necessarily the way to go though.
after all... many serial killers were quite smart. it wouldn't be wise to give smart kids the right to a fire arm. (not to suggest that they would become killers) i know that is not what you meant by what you said, but it is a point to notice. what sort of question/s or situation/s could possibly be used to determine maturity? Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dalmasca
Age: 32
Posts: 60
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
It isn't even the case that set laws need to exist to keep people from misbehaving. To me, the laws need to exist to give proper legitimacy to the action of punishing the people who do misbehave.
When you have a clear, preexisting system of rules and consequences, you can appeal to the old statement that "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" Anybody can sit down with a copy of their area's criminal code and read it all if they are so inclined. The ability for law to maintain public order rests in the knowledge that it can and will be applied consistantly and fairly in ways people already know about. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
Drinking responsibly....I would like to argue on that point. I do not think that society will be able to govern themselves properly in ways such as drinking responsibily. I think this because we seem to have manifested a beleif that if it is our choice to do something - nobody can tell us how much of it we can do. For example, young kids drinking may result in people complaining - the kids would then retaliate by saying that it is up to them how drunk they get. Do you see my point? I believe the laws are set up for everyone's piece of mind - perhaps some need to get re adjusted here and there - but i beleive the law system is quite a good one.
__________________
Reality is what you make it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
That's the reason laws like "It is illegal to tie a giraffe to a pole" still exist; there's no reason to remove them since they have no effect either way, provided that the judicial system has even a microscopic shred of sense. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
There's also a fine distinction between a law being "On the books" and a law being "Under active enforcement"
The only way to actually remove a law from being "on the books" would be to pass a new law striking the old one from the records, which would require printing of new copies of the criminal and legal codes, which would have to be reacquired by everyone in the professions requiring them to have ready access to an accurate set of laws. It would be much easier to simply compile and make available a list of all laws on the books that are no longer subject to enforcement. For all you potential lawyers in the future, there's a great project for you: Go over all the laws of your state, compile a list of those that ought to no longer apply, and make an appeal to your state supreme court to officially remove those laws from enforcement. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Some are for certain purposes, but it's worth stressing that there are different ways of imposing restrictions. Voluntary restrictions will always be preferable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
With one interpretation, you are volunteering for all restrictions by electing to remain a citizen of the state in question. While it is certainly the case that you might elect to live in the place that has the least laws you find distasteful, since simply living there is tacit agreement to follow the rules, you can be said to be volunteering for those restrictions in exchange for the benefits of citizenship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 | |
|
FFR Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Memphis, TN
Age: 29
Posts: 699
|
I disagree with most of what is said by the original poster, however. The grounds of the seatbelt I tend to agree with. Though it is quite pointless to remove the law at this point.
The thing that gets me with this, though. Is you have a city like Memphis, where crime is extremely heavy, people speed like crazy, wrecks are hourly depending on the intersection, and schools are no safer than an alleyway in the middle of the night. So what do the cops do? They do seatbelt checks on random streets. To me that's pointless. If you wanna save lives that's one thing. But odds are your gonna save more lives if you are watching the schools more carefully, you are pulling over the speeding cars, and doing what you can to stop crime. Not checking to see if someone is wearing a seatbelt or not and then giving a small ticket to "make him learn his lesson". Not like he won't take it off as soon as he pulls away anyway.
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by MystictheHedgehog; 12-5-2007 at 04:27 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 | |
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Well, it's true if one of these things is true:
The government came about 100% legitimately You are under no restrictions stopping you leaving if you want to You have what you consider to be an appropriate level of say in how the laws work I'm not sure what you mean by "100% legitimately" I assume you are trying to mean "With 100% popular support"? Because while no elected leader currently got in unanimously, plenty have gotten in quite legitimately by the laws of the land. |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Maryland
Age: 31
Posts: 17
|
Restrictions are necessary so people learn morals and become more cautious about what might be hazardous to their health or life. If there were no restrictions ever we would probably still be cavemen.
lol |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 | ||
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
#20 | |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|