jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (31 posts)

Is it better to have more rules/laws in a given club, city,state, country or few

  1. tirelesstraveler profile image82
    tirelesstravelerposted 4 years ago

    Is it better to have more rules/laws in a given club, city,state, country or fewer laws?

    Do laws protect us or create problems?

  2. profile image52
    tbHistorianposted 4 years ago

    Jesus only prescribed 10 laws that truly depict the correct living requirements necessary for a peaceful world.
    Lawyers and politicians require the additional law above those so that they can continuously sustain their position of control and management.
    Governments routinely proclaim new policy and law as they strive to invoke tyranny upon the people.
    The fewer the laws, the better for the individual.

    1. Rod Marsden profile image73
      Rod Marsdenposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Yes. Do let us keep church and state separated. If you really are an historian then do check out the French revolution and from it why the French today prefer to keep church and state separate.

    2. profile image52
      tbHistorianposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      That is the problem with government today, they had a nice short 10 law list and then decided that it was not good enough for their evil designed ways. So, the evil ones then declared them separate from the evil laws that were needed so - Evil grows.

    3. tirelesstraveler profile image82
      tirelesstravelerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Certainly makes for less paper work.

    4. Rod Marsden profile image73
      Rod Marsdenposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Okay. tbHistorian doesn't know how the Church supported the ruling classes despite the fact that the peasants were living in filth and starving and the king seemed to be powerless to act. Mixing religion with politics - now that's evil or can be.

    5. profile image52
      tbHistorianposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The greatest nation in the world was created through Judeo Christian beliefs that the individual is the ruler of their own destiny and environment. best thing that could happen today is to eliminate politics and return to Judeo Christian principles

    6. Rod Marsden profile image73
      Rod Marsdenposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Depends on which country you're talking about tbHistorian. The USA was founded on no taxation without representation. Modern Britain on the Magna Carta - no one above the law . France - separation of state from religion. Religion had been misused.

    7. profile image52
      tbHistorianposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The USA was created by Judeo Christians as a republican form of government based on civil liberties reserved to the individual. The separation of church and state is required so that the USA government does not create a church or deny it by law.

    8. RBJ33 profile image60
      RBJ33posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Forgive me tb, but I can't follow you - you are all over the place and I don't know what you are advocating, or what your point is.

    9. Rod Marsden profile image73
      Rod Marsdenposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Now tbHistorian  you are for the separation of religion from state? And you are now also for the individual? Next you'll be saying the Magna Carta was a good thing.

    10. profile image52
      tbHistorianposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      the reason you think I am all over the place is that you just want to argue. I do not attempt to redefine the U.S. Constitution as others do. The words speak for themselves.  There is no separation of church&state only a restriction on no law for

    11. Rod Marsden profile image73
      Rod Marsdenposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Okay. tbHistorian doesn't want to redefine the U.S. Constitution. Anyway it has already been done by better men in the amendments to it.  Again tbHistorian seems to want religion in his politics.

    12. profile image52
      tbHistorianposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Again Rod Marsden interprets incorrectly
      I do not want politics to demand or deny religion
      I do not want politics to remove religion from public places
      I do not want politics to make any policy or law about religion
      I demand freedom from unrighteous

    13. Rod Marsden profile image73
      Rod Marsdenposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Freedom from unrighteousness? Religion can be unrighteous enough. How about absolute rule by king because God says so or the Spanish Inquisition? We are better off separating state from religion.

    14. tirelesstraveler profile image82
      tirelesstravelerposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Curious, I thought the French ran all the Christians out before the revolution.  That is indeed separating church and state. But not where this is supposed to be going  I apologize.

  3. RBJ33 profile image60
    RBJ33posted 4 years ago

    The answer is both. We do need laws, and some are good, and some aren't.  I don't know the answer for what the correct number is, but we do have some that are unnecessary, and foolish.  All the special interests seem to influence the law makers more than is comfortable. We do need the good ones though.

    We get what we deserve.  Because of the overwhelming apathy in this country we will always get laws, and rules, and regulations we don't like.  It's supposed to be "Government for the people, by the people."  We've let the "by the people" part go.

    Hey tb, lets keep church and state separated.  The very last thing we need is to bring religion into the Government - gives me a headache just thinking about it!

    1. Rod Marsden profile image73
      Rod Marsdenposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with you that it is best to keep religion out of government. Over the last few years the French have been fighting to do just that - leave it out.

    2. profile image52
      tbHistorianposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      In the USA - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
      This does not mean that individuals cannot display religious articles, wording, or personal bibles on government property.

    3. Rod Marsden profile image73
      Rod Marsdenposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Sure tbHistorian individuals can display religious articles, etc on government property but not in France. I believe the French have a good point.

    4. tirelesstraveler profile image82
      tirelesstravelerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I have been really slow here, it just occurred to me why I thought your answer was unsettling. How can a yes or no question be both?  Do we need more laws or fewer? I do agree we need some laws.

    5. profile image52
      tbHistorianposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Again Rod Marsden is incorrect.  The Arc de Triomphe in Paris has 2 Christian crosses depicted upon it.  It also contains several verses from the Christian Bible inside the building. also, French government buildings are adorned with cross windows

    6. Rod Marsden profile image73
      Rod Marsdenposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I never said the French people were not religious or Christian. They simply don't want to mix religion with government. You can have all the Christian symbols you want on the outside or projecting outward. I believe that is fair enough.

  4. Rod Marsden profile image73
    Rod Marsdenposted 4 years ago

    This is like asking how long is a piece of string. When it comes to rules/laws it does depend on prevailing circumstances. Generally speaking there is less personal liberty and more rules/laws when people feel they are under attack. This happened in Britain and in Australia during the 2nd World War.

    If you worked in industry in Britain during this time you could be arrested for blabbing about your work in public. Loose lips sink ships and all that. In Australia conscription was first introduced and the people were not asked this time to vote it in. During the First World War Australians were asked and Australians knocked it back. Not many people however argued against conscription (the draft) being introduced in the 1940s at a time when the country looked like it was about to be invaded by the Japanese.

    Right now there is fighting and death on the streets of Sydney and new rules and regulations are being proposed to put an end to it. Penalties have been raised for king hitting someone in an effort to get people, even when on drugs and alcohol, to think before they act violently.

    It is hard to say if new laws protect us or create new problems until they are introduced. After they are introduced there is a devil of a time getting rid of them.

    Prohibition against alcohol drinking in the USA was bad though in the early weeks of its introduction it seemed to be a good amendment to the U.S. constitution. It did however quickly result in rampant crime throughout the USA for well over a decade. Illegal alcohol became big business. Generally honest people as well as gangsters went into the illegal liquor trade. It divided country from city. In some places it divided Catholic (wet) from Protestant (dry). People went blind from drinking poorly made liquor because they couldn't get the better made stuff. Cleaning out the saloons that were destroying families was a great idea but the prohibitionists went too far in trying to control people and in the end lost. See Burns' documentary on Prohibition.

    1. RBJ33 profile image60
      RBJ33posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      We are a society of reaction rather than action.  Wait till it happens and then try to fix it.

    2. Rod Marsden profile image73
      Rod Marsdenposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I think you are right RBJ33. There is also over-reacting.

  5. tirelesstraveler profile image82
    tirelesstravelerposted 4 years ago

    This all started while I was at the park this morning.  A law in our town limits ambulances to 5 miles over the speed limit.   There was an accident at the intersection down the hill. The ambulance came roaring up to the scene after coming across town (about a two miles) with siren blaring.  It took about 4 minutes for it to speed up from where ever it had been hanging out.   You  hear the sirens blaring all the time.  It is annoying. Four minutes of loud noise is a long time, not to mention if someone needs help.

    1. Rod Marsden profile image73
      Rod Marsdenposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      A strange law. There would of had to of been a reason for it.

  6. CWanamaker profile image97
    CWanamakerposted 4 years ago

    Both.  What we need is a common sense, balance approach to law making that protects the citizens.  Its not quite that simple but you get the idea.

    1. tirelesstraveler profile image82
      tirelesstravelerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I like  balance, but I don't see any.  Last year the CA legislature passed 800 laws,  the governor signed most into law.  I walk in the park without a sack to pick up my dogs business I have broken the posted law. There are dispensers all over.

    2. CWanamaker profile image97
      CWanamakerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Agreed.  There is no balance.  The amount of laws we have to comply with and the amount of red tape you have to deal with to get anything done is just crazy.

 
working