The Law

The Resource for the Opinionated

The Law

One need to ask what is goal. Set of rules and regulations, aimed at organizing the life of a community in such a way as to maximize the overall freedom and enjoyment. There should be a minimum set of rules. I kind of think: what laws would I need if I were to run my own community, on desert island? Good place to start is:

The law should not be a whole set of books that occupies a complete library. It should not be obscure to the point that only specialists know how to find something.

There has to be a mechanism for laws to disappear as they age, unless renewed. Limit on total number of words in the law. Only accept new one if old one removed.

Employees must wash hands. Of course, but do you want to make that state law? Do you really want to enforce this? Same thing with law about wearing shoes and shirts in department stores. Why should the state decide that. Can't store decide. How about store by the beach. Smoking sections in restaurants and bars. If majority of people don't like smoke, would they not catch on by themselves?

Keep church and state separate. Mississipi judge had 10 commandments in courtroom and would not take them down. Governor threatened to call national guard.

If you ask officials if you can go to jail if you cut off the label from a mattress, they will laugh and say no way. But you know that somewhere, somehow some prosecutor will take it upon himself to go drag someone before the law for it.

There needs to be a mechanism to make sure that law cannot be abused for personal vendetta's and private crusades.

Problem with many laws: they are passed to catch a certain kind of extreme criminals, they end up used against pretty normal people.

Question I have, from point of view of caring for people: how do you write laws and how do you enforce them, in such a way that: 1. you achieve purpose of the law 2. you don't get people in trouble, unless absolutely necessary Ideas: Alcohol: you really only care about drunk drivers, drunk person responsible, unless forced to drink under threat of violence Drugs: similar, but realize that people on drugs may need help

Litigation: should create neutral situation, it cannot cost you money to go to court with a legitimate complaint, but it should not be a way to get rich either. Also, if you are inncocent, you should not have to be bankrupted by legal bills.

Catholic diocese: not faceless money pot, but people with families. Two little boys may not get their school. Out of principle, I am always against the deep pocket syndrome, but this is even worse. This is pure greed. It is clear that diocese does not promote sexual misconduct. Punish Cos, execute him, grill him on a small fire, feed him to crocodiles, personally I don't care. But leave the diocese out of it.

Litigation is an unproductive occupation. Must be reduced. Lawyers are the only ones who win, but that should not be a reason to keep the system as is.

If all laws could be perfectly enforced, most of us would probably be in jail for a lifetime.

A standard needs to be established for how much money is spent prosecuting certain crimes. Needs to include severity of the crime, money per person caught, and percentage caught. If this does not meeta certain threshold, kill the law.

Nortwest Airlines flight stranded in Detroit. Few people had to spend time waiting on a plane. Federal government passes law to say you can't leaave people stranded on airplanes. Thos is an example of overlegislations and overregulation. It is really the airline's problem.

It used to be simple. People knew each other they knew the judge, they had a "feeling" for the law. Now, nobody knows the law anymore. Individuals do not understand the laws. You have to hire professionals.

We need to have standard legal contracts on the Internet. Save a lot of legal cost.

Lawsuit reform: only allow damages for direct, documented, tangible, physical harm. Not like emotional pain does not exist, but slippery slope, invitation for abuse and profiteering, victim attitude.

On the one hand, the law recognizes the pain of the plaintiff, but not the pain of the accused. Even when found innocent. Not consistent.

You can usually tell how bad a law is, by how high the fines or punishment are. When punishment escalates beyond reason (way beyond the severity of the crime itself), the law is probably not enforceable and may not make a lot of sense in the first place.

A few people are stranded in a snowstorm (Northwest Airlines), new federal legislation. Overlegislation. Why should federal government come in?

I am a risk-averse person. I am scared to death of being accused of breaking a law.

The Constitution has been there for a while. But only in the sixties have people started to take it seriously.

The law is complicated. But the Constitution is simple. It actually makes sense. It is intuitive.

Crime: distinction between objective crimes (personal or property damage is inflicted, or fraud is committed) and subjective crime (which is really only a perceived sin). Murder is an objective crime. Prostitution is a subjective crime. Subjective crimes are often called victimless or consensual crimes.

I am concerned that America has too many laws creating subjective crimes, and spends way too much money enforcing them. That ends up costing the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, creates violence (i.e. objective crime) and detracts from trying to address the true problems of society.

There seems to be a trend away from making sure no innocents are convicted of a crime, towards making sure as many people as possible get convicted. It may make some people feel safer, but it does not agree with the general philosophy of democracy for all.

There is a problem when you have to hire a lawyer, just to find out if something is legal.