PDA

View Full Version : The PERFECT Law!




Matt Collins
01-12-2011, 08:18 PM
As a Constitutional Amendment:

“No law of any kind may be passed and executed in this State to make criminal or punish as criminal any action that does not cause damage or injury to a person or property.” - Written by Timothy Baldwin (http://polymontana.com/2011/01/03/limiting-government-power-and-protecting-individual-independence/), son of Chuck Baldwin

awake
01-12-2011, 08:23 PM
Show me the victim law... good stuff.

DamianTV
01-12-2011, 08:24 PM
As much as I love the idea of this, I think everyone knows exactly how it will be undermined.

Start with Fat People.

By being fat, it costs more to everyone else because of the increase in the cost of their health care. Obamacare or otherwise, even though common sense tells everyone that this is fallacy, it is unfortunately the tactic that is used by those that would stand to financially benefit from passing laws against being fat.

Thus, it may be wise to make one revision and add one word to the Amendment. The word is DIRECTLY.

"...cause damage or injury directly to a person or property."

It hopefully eliminates The Broken Window Fallacy of blame or guilt on to those who do not bear said guilt.

Live_Free_Or_Die
01-12-2011, 08:25 PM
define damage, injury, property, and person.

there is no such thing as a perfect law because the law is comprised of symbols. Symbols are abstract concepts which have no absolute definitions.

Philhelm
01-12-2011, 08:25 PM
It should be something like:

"Freedom of action being necessary for the preservation of a free state, the right of a citizen to act, so long as damage or injury to a person or property is not committed, shall not be infringed."

roho76
01-12-2011, 08:58 PM
As a Constitutional Amendment:

“No law of any kind may be passed and executed in this State to make criminal or punish as criminal any action that does not cause damage or injury to a person or property.” - Written by Timothy Baldwin (http://polymontana.com/2011/01/03/limiting-government-power-and-protecting-individual-independence/), son of Chuck Baldwin


It should be something like:

"Freedom of action being necessary for the preservation of a free state, the right of a citizen to act, so long as damage or injury to a person or property is not committed, shall not be infringed."

Very nice guys. Now just add 3,000 more pages of unreadable legal jargon filled with back room deals, welfare for corporations, and enough loopholes to crochet a blanket and it might pass. Also you'll probably have to remove that little part about making "No laws", it's just gonna get in the way.

Philhelm
01-12-2011, 09:00 PM
Very nice guys. Now just add 3,000 more pages of unreadable legal jargon filled with back room deals, welfare for corporations, and enough loopholes to crochet a blanket and it might pass. Also you'll probably have to remove that little part about making "No laws", it's just gonna get in the way.

Why even bother with the laws and loopholes? It's not like they obey the Constitution anyway. It's more a set of guidelines, really.

Nate-ForLiberty
01-12-2011, 09:05 PM
"The U.S. Constitution and the government created by it are hereby abolished. The separate states retain their inherent power." -The perfect law

TNforPaul45
01-12-2011, 09:07 PM
As a Constitutional Amendment:

“No law of any kind may be passed and executed in this State to make criminal or punish as criminal any action that does not cause damage or injury to a person or property.” - Written by Timothy Baldwin (http://polymontana.com/2011/01/03/limiting-government-power-and-protecting-individual-independence/), son of Chuck Baldwin

THIS JUST IN 9th District federal Court just ruled that due to Social Justice statutes already ruled on by superior courts, any and all actions that are carried out cause injury and harm to others, due to the general unfairness of society and the lack of redistributive efforts.

you've just been OBAMA'ED!

Fox McCloud
01-12-2011, 09:09 PM
An amendment that invalidates the rest of the Constitution and turning us into a single law society? I'm all for it, though I think we should strive to return to mere Constitutionalism first, as a "single law society" is in the very very distant future (if ever).

Pericles
01-12-2011, 09:12 PM
Good attempt - but the concept has to be articulated of direct damage or harm - in legal terms - privity. Not an abstract notion of harm.

roho76
01-12-2011, 09:12 PM
Why even bother with the laws and loopholes? It's not like they obey the Constitution anyway. It's more a set of guidelines, really.

This is what I say. Why do they even carry on with the illusion that they care about laws. Why don't they just beat people in the streets and steal the money from their pockets. I mean, the FDA carries guns for fuchxache. Gotta kill all those vitamin takers. The government does what ever the hell it wants whenever it wants and doesn't think twice about it and if the people bark they make a retroactive law or claim national security. It's not even funny anymore.

AceNZ
01-13-2011, 03:05 AM
How would the proposed amendment impact self defense? What about fraud?

How about something like this, instead:

The only moral purpose of government is to protect individual rights. Therefore, no laws shall be passed which violate individual rights, and neither individuals nor government shall be allowed to commit fraud or to initiate the use of force.

zadrock
01-13-2011, 03:40 AM
I'm all for the decriminalization of victimless crimes and have certainly promoted the idea to some of my liberal friends, even going so far as to say drunk driving should be legal. The one response I've gotten that I couldn't answer was how to deal with things like attempted murder. If someone shoots at me with the intent to kill me, but misses, I tend to think that person should be punished in some way, even though there was no actual damage. Any thoughts?

Z

AceNZ
01-13-2011, 05:37 AM
I'm all for the decriminalization of victimless crimes and have certainly promoted the idea to some of my liberal friends, even going so far as to say drunk driving should be legal. The one response I've gotten that I couldn't answer was how to deal with things like attempted murder. If someone shoots at me with the intent to kill me, but misses, I tend to think that person should be punished in some way, even though there was no actual damage. Any thoughts?

Attempted murder is a form of threat, which is in turn a form of initiating the use of force against you -- so it should be illegal.

SilentBull
01-13-2011, 06:27 AM
Thus, it may be wise to make one revision and add one word to the Amendment. The word is DIRECTLY.

"...cause damage or injury directly to a person or property."

It hopefully eliminates The Broken Window Fallacy of blame or guilt on to those who do not bear said guilt.

Exactly what I was gonna say.

brandon
01-13-2011, 06:51 AM
Kind of a crappy law. They could still outlaw drug use, boxing, driving without a seat belt, etc etc.

PaulineDisciple
01-13-2011, 11:03 AM
How would the proposed amendment impact self defense? What about fraud?

How about something like this, instead:

The only moral purpose of government is to protect individual rights. Therefore, no laws shall be passed which violate individual rights, and neither individuals nor government shall be allowed to commit fraud or to initiate the use of force.
I like this one, I also thought that after the first ten amendments, they should have crafted an eleventh amendment that would be phrased something like this:

All other amendments to this constitution must only be used to reduce the power of the Federal government and never be used to expand it.