Too Many Laws

[D5CAV]

As Tacitus said, "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."

As I've said before, much of the rage undeservedly meted out to police officers, 99% of whom are decent people, is due to two things:
1. The actions of 1% of police officers who should be in jail
2. The actions of 1% of the political and financial elite (e.g. the Hildabeest) who should be in jail

As long as that 1% are protected by "the system", the rage will grow, and eventually explode.

The police, unfortunately, are tasked with enforcing a multitude of laws, some of which are worthless laws, like tail-light infractions, cell-phone infractions, and cigarette infractions.

Some of these stops result in bad things happening:

Eric Garner died for the crime of selling cigarettes without collecting NYC sales tax.

Philando Castile died for the crime of having a broken tail light.

I was stopped once for the "crime" of talking on my cell phone. I showed po-po that my cell phone was turned off. Po-po had me turn it on and show her that my last call was the night before. I think she was upset that she couldn't get her ticket, so the po-po kept me for half an hour, ran my plates and did a check for outstanding warrants. With slightly different backgrounds and temperment, this could easily have gone a bad way.

This is a well-written essay on the issue: https://mises.org/blog/too-many-laws-wh ... s-escalate

Dealing with violent crime constitutes only a small minority of what police deal with on a daily basis. For example, in 2014, out of 11,205,833 arrests made nationwide (in the US), 498,666 arrests were for violent crimes and 1,553,980 arrests were for property crime.

This is the heart of the problem. Just over 10% of arrests are for property crimes. Just over 3% of arrests are for violent crimes. The other arrests, and other numerous fines, tickets and stops by police, just serve to anger the 99% who go about their daily lives not bothering other people.

Even 20 years ago, if you were a law-abiding citizen, most of your interactions with the police were positive. Now, almost every interaction is confrontational.

By Peel's rules of policing, effective policing requires the cooperation of the population. By the time the police lose people like me, they have already lost the majority of the population.

[Precision]

In other words, 80% of law enforcement is to hassle citizens into paying taxes that are arbitrary in application. Policing by revenue enhancement and subjugation by taxation.

Sounds about right to me. As it sounds like a recipe for violence.

[g-man]

Decriminalizing things which have no victim would be a good start. Looking at the taillight example, you don't get a summons or a fine if you've got a taillight out when you go in for your annual inspection, you just have to fix it before the car will pass. So why, if one of the bulbs dies during the period between inspections, is there now a 'traffic penalty' and court summons attached? I can understand requiring someone to correct a problem with their vehicle. But charging them court fees when they go in to prove they've fixed the issue amounts to random taxation, based solely on chance.

Of course here I'm pontificating to the chapel singers, and the State has given up on following basic logic, so it's useless to argue there.

[randy]

Three Felonies A Day

Have only read excerpts, but the concept has been discussed by Kevin over at The Smallest Minority, including the observation (don't remember the source) that one way to control a population is to create so many "crimes" that the state can simply arrest a "criminal" when they want to, avoiding the image of a "lawless" state.

[MarkD]

Three Felonies A Day

Have only read excerpts, but the concept has been discussed by Kevin over at The Smallest Minority, including the observation (don't remember the source) that one way to control a population is to create so many "crimes" that the state can simply arrest a "criminal" when they want to, avoiding the image of a "lawless" state.

My favorite along those lines was a fisherman who got hit with a felony for having a fish in his possession that was an endangered species. Which was visually identical to a fish that wasn't endangered and was legal for him to possess. The only way to tell the two species apart was via DNA test. So how the fuck is a guy in a boat supposed to make that determination and throw back the endangered species while keeping the non-endangered species? In addition to which, if it's so identical to another species that it takes a DNA test to tell them apart, who the Hell CARES?

[PawPaw]

God covered it all in 10 commandments.

Personally, I'd like to see every odd-numbered year reserved as a "repeal" year in the various legislatures and Congress. We would certainly get more done.

[Precision]

God covered it all in 10 commandments.

Personally, I'd like to see every odd-numbered year reserved as a "repeal" year in the various legislatures and Congress. We would certainly get more done.

I'd vote for that. But seeing as I am a good conservative and would only vote once, it would never pass.

[George guy]

I would like all fines and seized assets to be automatically dumped into a pool to be redistributed as tax credits, and something like Frank Herbert's Bureau of Sabotage, and a pony.

[D5CAV]

God covered it all in 10 commandments.

Personally, I'd like to see every odd-numbered year reserved as a "repeal" year in the various legislatures and Congress. We would certainly get more done.

Yup

Remember the Clinton AWB? Unlike the Bush AWB, it expired after 10 years, and the anti's could not raise enough votes to reinstate it.

If I ever get to write a Constitution, every law will expire after 10 years. When lawyer friends start to stammer that I should exclude laws against robbery and murder, I answer if the lawmakers can't be bothered to vote to re-instate laws against murder, then it should be incumbent on their constituents to exercise that non-crime against them.

I'd also have in that constitution that lawmakers excluding themselves from laws is a capital offense.

[First Shirt]

I like the way you think!

It wouldn't do for me to be president. My first official act would be to call the head of every bureau, agency, and department together, and give them 48 hours to show me, in the Constitution, where the justification is for their particular function. At the end of 48 hours, anybody who couldn't find it would find themselves (and their flunkies) needing to update their resume. And anywho who quoted the Commerce Clause would be thrown out a window, hopefully from at least the second floor.

It would take maybe two weeks before a good assassin ended my attempt to restore a semblance of order. But it would be fun while it lasted!!!

And any legislation that didn't have a sunset clause would be automatically vetoed. And the U.N. would have 10 days to vacate the premises, and all property held by U.N. personnel would be held until all fines and charges (parking tickets, etc.) were paid in full.

Did I miss anything?