It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why do we need any new laws. . . ever

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Because the CEOs, billionaires, and oligarchs would turn us into a economic slaves. I don't understand why anarchy is so popular.

There are two kind of laws the government creates. One type is designed to protect consumer, increase worker's rights, 13th Amendment, and improve the general welfare. And then there's the second type that is designed to destroy competition, destroy free-markets, and create cartels and monopolies that make the median worker's wage a poverty wage.

We have a one party centralized communist government in this country but the problem is the communism we have is NOT in the worker's favor. What we have is corporate communism.




posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Except in reality the bulk of the "regulations" are all designed to keep little guys from getting going / have any real shot at competing with the big dogs (which the Democrat's and Republican's are both stooges for).





posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreSound




1. I'm not sure how gun laws disprove the first point. The protection of the right to bare arms is a law, but any laws made around the sale of particular weapons, or checks into an individual are there to protect the general citizenry.

Personally I think that all guns should be illegal, but that's a different argument!


"Shall not be infringed" being the contradiction to laws that in effect, infringe. Also it's worth mentioning that laws don't protect, the are used to apply justice to the offense of said laws. Otherwise no one would break laws based on the protections.




2. The legal profession and the legal system are two different entities. I'm arguing that it is our civic responsibility to live by the law, but democratic duty to constantly examine and challenge laws that have become ideologically opposed to the views of the day.

I am an idealist, but pragmatic enough to realise that in practise money, power and influence can corrupt and pervert the law and justice system; but that does not mean that we should abandon a system that is core to who we are as a democratic nation or society.


As it applies to the bold portion, do we need laws to be civil? I suppose this is an age old argument based upon many subjective viewpoints but isn't that part of being a free nation? (no matter how far from it we may be.)

Also, I can't speak for the OP, I don't think anyone is saying to abandon the system. Only ceasing new laws and the over-bloated bureaucracy that acts in a profitable interests over any notion of civility.




3. ....


Yes it is silly and hyperbolic however it reinforced my point that laws don't equal civility.




4. It is highly relevant to the OP post as it gets to the root of why we create new laws. If we did not have the ability to re-shape, adapt and change we would either have a country either trying to abide by laws written hundred of years ago, or be living under dictorial rule with whom ever is in charge would be free to create any laws the wish.


You're talking about a notion that is hundreds of years old compared to the actuality of what is in the now regarding laws that are on the books and being created, again, not to benefit the people or civility but to the ones who have and stand to make the most profit.



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: DBCowboy

Because the CEOs, billionaires, and oligarchs would turn us into a economic slaves. I don't understand why anarchy is so popular.




The socialist douche-nozzles will do the same and you'll cheer then on so your post is a fail.



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 09:26 PM
link   
The thread made me curious so I looked up some new laws being passed.

One is for raising fines on unregulated radio stations. 20k a day. Their reason is it just might interfere with an emergency broadcast. I partially agree with the reasoning but in my opinion, they are going about it wrong. They should make it so a fledgling radio station can register affordably. Only big corporations can afford it as it is.

The rest I had seen were even more worthless.



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Just sayin...the douche bags of the world, are feeling threatened by the insurgence of douche nozzles!

We need a law to protect the bags from being over taken by the nozzles!



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 09:31 PM
link   

edit on 13-3-2019 by BlueJacket because: dbl, but worth sayin twice



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 09:31 PM
link   

edit on 13-3-2019 by BlueJacket because: triple threat! worth saying thrice!



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

As I stated I consider myself to be a pragmatic idealist. I have not said that I don't think that there are unnecessary laws being created, but the OP states that no new laws should be created. The reason I think that this statement was idiotic that it deals in absolutes and it is this that I take umbridge with.

A large part of the problem with modern politics is that too many people's positions are absolute and that is not healthy for civil progress.

I do believe that history is important for progression, and the realisation that the great law framers created a system that is contadictedly both rigid and fluid is to understand the genius of the system, and what sets appart progressive democratic societies giving a much higher quality of life.

There will always be those who try to exploit a system for their own game, and thus is another reason that system needs to be both rigid and flexible at the same time - the ability to adapt to the circumstances of the day. Unfortunately we are at a point that the system needs to adapt again to counteract some of the money and greed you talk about.

I appreciate your responses which are civil and well thought out - it has been quite a while since I've felt that a proper debate was being had here - particularly in the mudpit



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

We don't. Making new laws is just how the government reinforces their control over us.

If any government had our best interest at heart they would take most of the laws away and cut the remaining laws down to there simplest forms.



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: DBCowboy

We don't. Making new laws is just how the government reinforces their control over us.

If any government had our best interest at heart they would take most of the laws away and cut the remaining laws down to there simplest forms.


I have noticed this for many years as well. The Congress and Senate working together to pass laws that protect their own interests, while harming the interests of liberty.

It is actually quite maddening.



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy




Couldn't we get rid of most of Washington if we decided that we had enough "laws"?


Yes. But you and I and the rest of this country have lives that are to easy.

We wont risk losing our jobs, house, cars, food, in order to create real change.

Until the day comes that most americans don't have access to phones, food, and movie tickets , this country will continue on the path that it is on.



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: scraedtosleep




posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Not a single choice for potus in 2020 wants to change that.

This is a lost time for the USA.



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreSound




As I stated I consider myself to be a pragmatic idealist. I have not said that I don't think that there are unnecessary laws being created, but the OP states that no new laws should be created. The reason I think that this statement was idiotic that it deals in absolutes and it is this that I take umbridge with.


Again, can't speak for the OP, but it is my assumption that the intent is to cease new laws. Not reformatting old, already on the book laws, thus reducing resources dedicated to it.




I do believe that history is important for progression, and the realisation that the great law framers created a system that is contadictedly both rigid and fluid is to understand the genius of the system, and what sets appart progressive democratic societies giving a much higher quality of life.


Do you think the founding fathers planned on the government being this big, let alone bloated?



I appreciate your responses which are civil and well thought out - it has been quite a while since I've felt that a proper debate was being had here - particularly in the mudpit


Likewise.



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 09:49 PM
link   
As long as Democrats keep changing the definitions of victims and groups, the laws will keep getting changed to keep their scams going 😎



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 09:55 PM
link   
My mother in her simple Okie wisdom used to say that for every new law Congress passes they should take 2 old ones off the books. That stuck with me over the years and used correctly would be a damn fine idea. She got a lot of her thinking from Will Rogers.
edit on 13-3-2019 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: DBCowboy

We don't. Making new laws is just how the government reinforces their control over us.

If any government had our best interest at heart they would take most of the laws away and cut the remaining laws down to there simplest forms.


I have noticed this for many years as well. The Congress and Senate working together to pass laws that protect their own interests, while harming the interests of liberty.

It is actually quite maddening.


We have allowed the federal government to gain more power than was intended by the founders of this country.

It has now become a snowball racing down hill.



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
As long as Democrats keep changing the definitions of victims and groups, the laws will keep getting changed to keep their scams going 😎


As long as people keep pushing division both sides will continue to gain more power over us.



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

The only laws we should be passing are ones to repeal this over-coded system. The next question is how we protect the population without forcing taxes upon the people to afford the cost of investigating, prosecuting and incarcerating them. I am figuratively kicking myself in the nuts.




top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join