NationStates Jolt Archive

As put forth by EC in another thread...
Should everything be illegal unless shown that there is a need for its legality, or should the initial presumption be legality...
Should everything be illegal unless proven that it should be legal, or should the presumption be for freedom?

Personally, I choose a free society where people do not have to justify every action to an overlord. If you can demonstrate clear harm to others, then you may have a case for prohibiting certain behavior, but you have no right to declare things illegal just because you do not like them.

Personally I think that the presumption should be legality...

As put forth by EC in another thread...
Should everything be illegal unless shown that there is a need for its legality, or should the initial presumption be legality...


Personally I think that the presumption should be legality...

Ditto.

Everything should be illegal except Scrabble and whole wheat linguini. And scrapbooking, as long as you're not using scissors.

Everything should be illegal except Scrabble and whole wheat linguini. And scrapbooking, as long as you're not using scissors.

Really, what's so damn special about Scrabble? :mad:

As put forth by EC in another thread...
Should everything be illegal unless shown that there is a need for its legality, or should the initial presumption be legality...


Personally I think that the presumption should be legality...
Ummm... Ya. That's like, the whole underpinning of my ethical view.

Really, what's so damn special about Scrabble? :mad:

It's much more wholesome than Monopoly, which was the other choice in consideration. And it's quicker to play. Who really has six hours to sit around and collect money for no reason? The queen of England?

It's much more wholesome than Monopoly, which was the other choice in consideration. And it's quicker to play. Who really has six hours to sit around and collect money for no reason? The queen of England?

LOL

Legality. Otherwise it would be hell making a law book, since you would have to include everything imaginable. Then you can outlaw things as you go along if you missed something to be outlawed.

Then again I would like everyone to play Scrabble...

I'd guess it's easier to work from everything being illegal, then again if everything was legal...hmm i don't know, that's an odd way to think.

As put forth by EC in another thread...
Should everything be illegal unless shown that there is a need for its legality, or should the initial presumption be legality...


Personally I think that the presumption should be legality...

Agreed

As put forth by EC in another thread...
Should everything be illegal unless shown that there is a need for its legality, or should the initial presumption be legality...


Personally I think that the presumption should be legality...

Indeed. Trying to do it the other way around would be completely unwieldy (not to mention ridiculous).

Amazing that pretty much everyone agrees with this in principle, nearly universally, yet the moment you put it in context of something they find personally icky, the ideal is instantly replaced with a fascist mindset.

Amazing that pretty much everyone agrees with this in principle, nearly universally, yet the moment you put it in context of something they find personally icky, the ideal is instantly replaced with a fascist mindset.

Yes, it is isn't it.

Amazing that pretty much everyone agrees with this in principle, nearly universally, yet the moment you put it in context of something they find personally icky, the ideal is instantly replaced with a fascist mindset.

I think it's because they won't take it to the next logical step.

If the default is legality (as it is in pretty much every human system), the onus is always on those who wish something to be illegal to justify it. There are quite a few people who want to be able to say, "Well, it's already illegal, so I can just skip that justification step."

Generally most things should be legal.

Generally most things should be legal.
What, exactly, is the determining factor of legality?
Do you consider there to be any onus on those who want to prohibit certain things for justification or activities or is it simply "I don't like it, therefore it should be illegal"? If some justification is needed (as should be for any rule of law, rather than by whim of the politician), what is the necessary minimum benchmark for illegality?

I think pink tube tops are ghastly, therefore they are henceforth illegal as an offense against my aesthetic senses. I find homophobic comments highly offensive, therefore anyone who speaks such a comment should be throw in prison. Where is the line?

Or perhaps you take the view that you are prohibited from undertaking any activity unless you can point to a specific statute granting permission to perform such activity?

I draw the line at showing direct and demonstrable harm against others to declare something illegal - until such time as damages can be clearly shown, everything is presumed unregulated by the public interest.

I'd guess it's easier to work from everything being illegal, then again if everything was legal...hmm i don't know, that's an odd way to think.

I guess it makes sense that everything starts as illegal, especially since it's better to err on the side of caution and not spit into the wind...also i guess there are probably more things that would eventually be considered illegal than legal, so it is easier to narrow down what should be allowed..

the way we do it now is trial and error i think(mostly error) and every new never-before-committed action is reviewed and then made legal or illegal.

I can see one argument for switching the system around - provided you start with a framework that outlines basic legality, a strong system of rights then what we're saying is that the general trend of society is to become more free.

Right now, it feels like since governments are elected to make laws, they feel they have to in order to justify their salaries. Hence we have the nanny states we see in advanced western societies - although whether you'd call, say, China a form of ultimate nanny state or simply a totalitarian regime is, I guess, up for debate.

I could see a system where we have a good basic constitution, basic freedoms, and then elect a layered series of judges every so often to determine how far that freedom extends.

Unless it is a physical trespass of another person's scarce physical resources, i.e. property, it should be legal. This, of course, means that pirating intellectual "property," libel, slander, prostitution, consumption of narcotics, possession of firearms and destructive devices, blackmailing, etc. should be legal.

It doesn't make much sense to have illegal as a default; because then doing something or neglecting to do it are both illegal if there isn't a law governing it.
Overall, I'd say that unless common sense clearly tells you you ought to, or ought not to, do something, the assumption should be that it's legal.

As put forth by EC in another thread...
Should everything be illegal unless shown that there is a need for its legality, or should the initial presumption be legality...


Personally I think that the presumption should be legality...

In States with Rule of Law, all acts are legal unless specifically decreed illegal by law (and acts cannot be declared retroactively as criminal behaviour).
In States without Rule of Law, the law is the whim of the ruler. So why bother?

Do we really need to fund the legislature while it legalises breathing, eating, drinking, celluar mitosis, reflection of light, growth, excretion, and at least 50 metric Fuck Tons of things of that nature?

I guess it makes sense that everything starts as illegal, especially since it's better to err on the side of caution and not spit into the wind...also i guess there are probably more things that would eventually be considered illegal than legal, so it is easier to narrow down what should be allowed..

the way we do it now is trial and error i think(mostly error) and every new never-before-committed action is reviewed and then made legal or illegal.

Ok, breathing is illegal, since there is no law allowing it.

You die.

Ok, breathing is illegal, since there is no law allowing it.

You die.

Dying is illegal.

"Was nicht verboten ist, ist erlaubt." Old wisdom from Germany meaning "What isn't forbidden, is allowed."

Dying is illegal.

Ok, so you die. Then you go to jail.

Ok, so you die. Then you go to jail.

Going to jail is probably illegal too. We'll have to give your corpse the death penalty.