We Should Get Rid of 80% of the Laws on the Books

80% of the laws on the books ought to be wiped clean. Cops typically take one or two crimes and chop them up into four to six crimes.
As you might guess, I am a radical civil libertarian. I respect cops, especially if they are arresting POS rapists and serial killers. That’s what I want them to do, and they deserve all our support for that. But all these chickenshit little “crimes” they arrest people on? Hell with that.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet 20

0 thoughts on “We Should Get Rid of 80% of the Laws on the Books”

  1. Geez, thanks for saying this Robert! Agree 100% with this! and all the ‘chickenshit rules’, eg. carrying a plastic bag and picking up your dog…. do we need laws for EVERYTHING?? I know most people agree we need that one but I think most folks would do those things ANYWAY as a courtesy to others/the environment and I remember the days before such rules when people weren’t shouting at each other about calling authorities every time someone’s dog shit.
    By making so many ordinances/rules/laws we Codify everything, create silly punishments, tie up court time and make sure cops don’t have time to solve crimes/or deal with really important things, eg. missing kids (or adults), and keeping people safe in general.
    But where do Laws/ordinances go to Die?? Problem is most ordinances/ laws don’t have expiration dates, unlike even the food in our fridge. They are often never revisited and merely whipped out when useful to LE or some other warped individual.
    Wasn’t BTK a city ordinance enforcer who stalked several his victims under the guise measuring their grass height for ‘compliance’? Although he was an example of an extreme control freak, the massive proliferation of such rules demonstrates man’s need to control others around him.
    I agree with you that it’s gotten out of hand and we discuss this frequently within the family with some aunts/cousins on the other side. While I recognize the argument that society needs “rules” the over proliferation and over reliance on them has contributed to the loss of civility in our society. I mean, what would really happen if we got rid of just a few? 🙂

  2. USA should rewrite her law. I read one Chinese expert commented that USA law is so complicated because her legal Brahmins want to monopolized knowledge, create loopholes for elites and create ignorant for peasants.
    The Glass-Stegall [Steagall] act of 1933 was 37-pages.The Dodd-Frank Act, signed into law in July 2010, spans 2,300 pages.
    USA law is so complicated that anyone and corporate entity can be charged in order for lawyer to extract rent. Hence when Microsoft made a lot of monies, suddenly a bunch of lawyer showed up and accuse Microsoft of illegal business practice, threatened to shut it down, unless Microsoft pays monies.
    If we understand that USA lawyers are a bunch of mafia extorting the people, we have no difficulty understanding why USA law is so convoluted.

    1. That’s all right. We can take care of it without having a copycat Chinese instruct us on how to frame them. In the meanwhile let China think about her elitism and revanchism (Tibet, Hong Kong) and see what can they about it. Also, let China educate their denizens on how to write correct English grammar. Half of the stuff that comes from the mouth of a Chinese is incomprehensible, and their writings are equally indecipherable.

    2. 2300 pgs of rules at least creates jobs for the lawyers that wrote it but likely little clarity for the users. It ties up the US court system, or perhaps it’s the Federal reserve bank that enforces those?
      Then you’ve got the World Court and other bodies that supposedly enforce trade rules. What a mess! Perhaps the major function of such rules is to employ lawyers writing, revising and enforcing them??

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)