jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (11 posts)

What law in your country do you find the most intrusive of your personal liberti

  1. RealityTalk profile image61
    RealityTalkposted 4 years ago

    What law in your country do you find the most intrusive of your personal liberties

    The U.S.A. is known as a country of laws.  And the U.S.A. has more laws on the books than any human being could know, read and or understand.  And yet, every U.S. citizen is required to know the law.  There is little room to negotiate ignorance of a law when the enforcers slap you with a violation thereof.  The U.S.A. is not alone in the world.  Laws are on record and enforced in countries throughout the world.
    My question to you is as written above.
    I am anxious to hear from people all over the world.


  2. ChristinS profile image95
    ChristinSposted 4 years ago

    Honestly, here in the US, it isn't really the major government laws I find so intrusive, but smaller "laws" like city ordinances and other stuff that seems to delve into stupidity.  I lived in a subdivision for awhile where they got really obnoxious with people about every little thing. You couldn't have sheds, you couldn't paint your home a new color without approval etc. The "Lake Board" was like the gestapo and I have never lived in a subdivision since nor will I.  I think the stuff that really makes me feel infringed is the nitpicky stuff like that. Otherwise, being in the US I think we have it a lot better than many other countries.  I am free to be who I am as long as I don't infringe on the rights of others. There are laws here that infringe on rights certainly - especially in some states where they are pushing hard to work around Roe v Wade and the like, but for the most part where I am, I don't feel overly infringed upon.

    1. RealityTalk profile image61
      RealityTalkposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you for your comment.  I live in a subdivision, so I understand your frustration there.  As far as laws of other countries, the question asked is not a competition of whose laws are better.  That I leave for another question.

  3. CraftytotheCore profile image82
    CraftytotheCoreposted 4 years ago

    I think laws are good when they are in place for public safety.

    There is a law or laws that combined, infringe upon the rights of others.  I don't feel this law is justified.  I have no idea when it was created.  I think it is shown with prejudice against those it is used to victimize.

    The law allows anyone to call the police and report false emergencies on the basis that they are checking up on the welfare of another person.  As long as the caller states in good faith they feel someone else is endangered, the police have to investigate.  So in other words, if person A calls the police and says they would like the police to go out to the home of person B and see if they are ok for ANY reason that person A states, as long as they say it's for person B's safety and welfare...the police will show up at person B's door and demand proof that person B is ok.

    This is a mockery of our legal system to justify someone else's sick and perverse need to control and harass another human being.

    Unless person B can prove that person A did this in bad faith or maliciousness, person A can do it over and over again without recourse by person B.  (This happened to a friend of mine repeatedly for years until I got involved.  With my legal background, I was finally able to put a stop to it.  Person A got away with it though because nothing was done about it.  It just finally stopped when Person A realized they met their match when I stepped in the ring.)

    1. RealityTalk profile image61
      RealityTalkposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I hope person B appreciated your involvement.  It does appear that government cries public safety way too often as an excuse to circumvent our personal liberties.  To have & exercise personal liberties there is always a risk.

  4. profile image0
    mbuggiehposted 4 years ago

    Laws defining marriage in terms of some imagined Judeo-Christian heterosexual privilege and sexual morality.

    1. RealityTalk profile image61
      RealityTalkposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I'm not an advocate of same-sex marriages, but I agree that marriage is no business of governmental legislation or adjudication. Nor do I believe government has any business controlling morality between consenting adults.

  5. AMAZING THINKER profile image61
    AMAZING THINKERposted 4 years ago

    In India candidates don't need to be literate to take part in elections and until last month it didn't matter if a candidate has a criminal record, people are paid by candidates to vote for them in elections, politicians are worth millions, It's a mess.

    1. RealityTalk profile image61
      RealityTalkposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you for an insightful comment.  I know nothing of Indian politics, so it is interesting to hear your take on it.  I am interested in more, if you are willing to share.  Possibly even a Hub?

    2. AMAZING THINKER profile image61
      AMAZING THINKERposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Sure, I will inform you when I write the Hub.
      Thanks for the idea!

  6. Globetrekkermel profile image77
    Globetrekkermelposted 4 years ago

    I was in the Philippines recently where I grew up until I was in my 20's. I have dual citizenship - a holder of passports both from the Philippines and the USA. I wanted to renew my Philippine passport so I can go around Southeast Asia without getting visas for each country. I was shocked when the Philippine  Department of Foreign Affairs office in my  local town asked me to produce my birth certificate in order for me to renew my Philippine passport. Wow! what for? I already have a Philippine passport , I just need renewal of it. I was frustrated , I just dropped the whole thing.