Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Step 1 for Reforming the Governments of the USA! The law of natural consequences.

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   
This came up as part of the discussion in another thread, but I thought it deseved its own thread.

The issue is laws and regulations that government has passed to protect us from ourselves. For example,

1. Laws where you cannot ride your bike on the freeway.
2. Regulations to put warning stickers on things like lawn mowers.
3. Trying to limit how big the flame is on your gas grill.

Please give more examples, if you think of them.

Anyway, my point is that we need to remove some of these government laws and their costs and replace them with the laws of natural consequences which are free.

So say you burn your face off with your flame throwing grill. Natural consequence.
OR
You cut your freaking hand off because you stuck it in a running lawnmower. Natural consequence.
Or
You ride your bike in the fast lane of the freeway and you get steam rolled by a semi. Natural consequence.

Plus, I bet you money if these people live through their natural consequence they won't make the same mistake again.



[edit on 6-3-2010 by Mr Sunchine]




posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   
I'll add to this:

All drug laws.

Seat belt laws.

Those walk/don't walk signs on traffic lights. If there is a car coming, that's a good enough sign to NOT WALK!

The county I live in just passed an ordinance requiring both hands to be on the handle bars of your bicycle whenever in motion.

Unaddressed was how to signal a turn when on a bicycle, as it is law to signal your turns.



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Oaktree
 


Great post.. gave you a star. So what genius came up with the two hands law on a bike and what was the goal?

What if you are being stung by a bee?

So basically they made it illegal to ride a bike unless you are going in a straight line. Classic government in action.



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   
I always thought the bicycle helmet law was a Complete Joke . I can see it working for motorcycle drivers , but bicycles ? Come on , talk about anal retentive fears , geez.........



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Sunchine
 


I think it would be in society's best interest to remove the warning labels from EVERY product for a while. Stop the mandatory seatbelt, motorcycle/bike helmet for a while, too. Ehhh..... We can go without lifejackets and floaties for a bit, too, whoever so chooses.

We can remove the "Beware of Dog" signs as well, without consequence to people whos' property is broken in on.


Natural consequence is our breeding stock will ensure better future generations, capable of interacting with the world around them with enough common sense and self-preservation.




posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Zanti Misfit
 


Yeah I never understood that either. I have never made my kids wear them. I think if you cannot make it through life riding a bike without a helmet maybe it is not good for our species for you to make it the age of procreation.



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Sunchine
 


Hey, just for fun I would also like to remove all consequences for potential jay-walkers.

Allow them to cross the road wherever they like, and whenever they like. Hell, imagine how happy the populous would be if they no longer had to obey those cross-walk signals.



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by LostNemesis

Yeah i agree. If people want to wear them then so be it, but if they don't then let them do as they wish,and if they get hurt it is their problem.
 



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by LostNemesis
 


What some people seem to Forget is that there was a time in the Past when some of these Absurd Laws did not Exist . How did people Survive without them back then ? Answer , the Did............



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by LostNemesis
 


Yeah I already cross wherever I want. That is just stupid. What am I supposed to do walk to the corner where the line is and then walk all the way back down just to get exactly on the other side of the street where I started. We all know that the closest way between two points is a straight line.



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Sunchine
 


Exactly.... I think that it's not something to be proud of, having a population that is so ready to sue someone else over their own stupidity.

Example:
Woman spills coffee on herself, sues McDonald's.....



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Zanti Misfit
 


So true. People were better off back then than they are now. They were free and think of all the money our society would save without all the useless signs and signals and the cost of labor to maintain them.



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Sunchine
 



1. Laws where you cannot ride your bike on the freeway.


Ummm...but this has consequences as well for those driving on the freeway in terms of their property and safety. It's not just about the bike rider. You've taken it from personal responsibility into the realm of selfish lack of consideration for others.

Then, of course, there's the socialist aspect of even having freeways in the first place.



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by LostNemesis
 


Totally. Everybody knows coffee is hot, and anybody who has had coffee even once from McDonalds realises that they heat it in a nuclear reactor. God, there coffee is hot. I once spilled one in my lap and liked to burnt my ding dong off. Did I sue? Hell no, because I should have known better than to drive a car going over railroad tracks while holding a cup of coffee. Luckily my manhood survived or I would a victim of natural consequences. Guess what, I like my pork stick and so I dont ever drink coffee while driving anymore.



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Hey, I think you may have come up with the solution to a great many problems.

I hate to be so callous, oh well, yes I do.

Unemployment, solved.

The idiocy rating of our country, solved.

Voters electing people that do not have our best interests at heart, solved.

I could go on, but someone will get pissed and really jump all over me.

Any and all laws where there is no victim. REMOVE THEM ALL.

C'mon peeps, you believe in natural selection and evolution correct?

You are critical thinkers right?

Give me a logical and reasonable explanation for the warning label on toothpick boxes.

I dare you.




posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 




Ummm...but this has consequences as well for those driving on the freeway in terms of their property and safety. It's not just about the bike rider. You've taken it from personal responsibility into the realm of selfish lack of consideration for others


Agreed. The solution is to make it possible to sue the idiot or his next of kin for damages caused by his irresponsible actions. Plus no stopping traffic if he dies, just wait for rain. Just like a dead cat on the road. A real world lesson right in the middle of the street.



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


Sounds like people who choose to drive on the freeway should watch where they're going.

Add to that, if someone comes flying out in front of them on a bicycle.... I don't think such an incident is the drivers' fault. Their insurance should cover all repairs.



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 09:03 PM
link   
I would like to see a society where property owners can deal with burglars/thieves/trespassers however they like.

Old-school American style of defending ones' property comes to mind.



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


Ah , Warning Lables on Toothpick Boxes are needed because a Toothpick in say the hands of a Suicidal Mad Man, could be used to cause selfinduced Blindness and or possible Death due to infection ? Lawyers don't seem to mind some of these Laws though , I wonder why ? ........



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


This whole argument is full of semantic equivocation. There should be standards that have to be met for product safety.

Should I expect something potentially dangerous, like a gas grill, to be made to be made to be as safe and reliable as possible? Yes. Need to regulate flame level to an uselessly low level? No. If you want no risk of burn, stay away from grills altogether.

Warning on toothpick box? Obivously some hedging there against liability. Don't jam them in your eyeballs. Wood splinters + eyeballs = bad.

There is a distinction that should be made. It is between one, where the variables are reasonably well known and a decision is possible and two, hidden, shoddy manufacturing and design resulting in a dangerous product doesn't allow the individual an opportunity for the use of common sense in the matter.

One is like jumping off a cliff where one should know it causes severe health problems; the other is like having a hidden sink hole collapse underneath you.





new topics




 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join