If you could make ONE law for your country what would it be?

[QUOTE="mindstorm"][QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

How would you deal with the back alley abortions and the 1.4 million orphaned children that adoption agencies cannot house or feed?

Pixel-Pirate

Can the government force the church to do such things? If not, it can't really be taken into consideration.

I'd make abortions illegal.mindstorm

[QUOTE="mindstorm"][QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

How would you deal with the back alley abortions and the 1.4 million orphaned children that adoption agencies cannot house or feed?

Pixel-Pirate

Can the government force the church to do such things? If not, it can't really be taken into consideration.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="mindstorm"] I'm not saying it would be as easy as instating a single law. The government would have to do some work to correct some of this. Also, the church should take the responsibility of helping take care of the children and women who have difficulty raising children. Just cause fixing the problem of abortion will be hard doesn't mean its not worth it. If it means anything, I have every intention of adopting some children myself. markop2003

Can the government force the church to do such things? If not, it can't really be taken into consideration.

The government can't endorse a specific religion.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]i would take a note from hammurabi's book and not add any laws but make every law punishable by death. many laws would be quickly removed increasing freedoms and there would be no need for jails. surrealnumber5

That's a terrible idea. Running a red light = death penalty? Stealing groceries to feed the family = death? :|

A capitalist society cannot function if theft is not a crime.

What you do not seem to understand is that some level of regulation is necessary, and regulation is impractical with an all-or-nothing response. There is no ability to moderate. It is absurd to create a public roads system without some level of regulation to ensure security-there are enough people already who drive stupidly that you must agree that with no level of regulation, the public roads system would quickly degenerate. So then, what is to be regulated? Surely at minimum there must be a divison of the road, one lane per direction, to protect drivers from collisions. So what, is driving in the wrong lane now deserving of the same punishment as murder? Surely you cannot think something so ridiculous as that.

The idea that there should not be different levels of punishment is just idiotic. I'm sorry, it just is. There are different undesirable events and desired regulations within society that simply cannot be rationally implemented with a "death penalty for all criminals" system.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="mindstorm"] I'm not saying it would be as easy as instating a single law. The government would have to do some work to correct some of this. Also, the church should take the responsibility of helping take care of the children and women who have difficulty raising children. Just cause fixing the problem of abortion will be hard doesn't mean its not worth it. If it means anything, I have every intention of adopting some children myself. mindstorm

Can the government force the church to do such things? If not, it can't really be taken into consideration.

No offense but I lost faith in churches doing the right thing out of the good of their heart when certain churches started threatening to stop helping the homeless and others if their demands weren't met.

[QUOTE="mindstorm"][QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

Can the government force the church to do such things? If not, it can't really be taken into consideration.

Pixel-Pirate

No offense but I lost faith in churches doing the right thing out of the good of their heart when certain churches started threatening to stop helping the homeless and others if their demands weren't met.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

That's a terrible idea. Running a red light = death penalty? Stealing groceries to feed the family = death? :|

chessmaster1989

A capitalist society cannot function if theft is not a crime.

What you do not seem to understand is that some level of regulation is necessary, and regulation is impractical with an all-or-nothing response. There is no ability to moderate. It is absurd to create a public roads system without some level of regulation to ensure security-there are enough people already who drive stupidly that you must agree that with no level of regulation, the public roads system would quickly degenerate. So then, what is to be regulated? Surely at minimum there must be a divison of the road, one lane per direction, to protect drivers from collisions. So what, is driving in the wrong lane now deserving of the same punishment as murder? Surely you cannot think something so ridiculous as that.

The idea that there should not be different levels of punishment is just idiotic. I'm sorry, it just is. There are different undesirable events and desired regulations within society that simply cannot be rationally implemented with a "death penalty for all criminals" system.

Institute a tax that funnels directly to me, say taxing 1% of all profits for every american making over 250k?

I would ban alcohol and cigarettes.ghoklebutter

Erm...you know that didn't work the first time, right?

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] dont make those a crime then and if you say " well one is theft that should be a crime" then the person should die. double standards would also be a crime if i were no already letting society decide what is and is not a crimesurrealnumber5

A capitalist society cannot function if theft is not a crime.

What you do not seem to understand is that some level of regulation is necessary, and regulation is impractical with an all-or-nothing response. There is no ability to moderate. It is absurd to create a public roads system without some level of regulation to ensure security-there are enough people already who drive stupidly that you must agree that with no level of regulation, the public roads system would quickly degenerate. So then, what is to be regulated? Surely at minimum there must be a divison of the road, one lane per direction, to protect drivers from collisions. So what, is driving in the wrong lane now deserving of the same punishment as murder? Surely you cannot think something so ridiculous as that.

The idea that there should not be different levels of punishment is just idiotic. I'm sorry, it just is. There are different undesirable events and desired regulations within society that simply cannot be rationally implemented with a "death penalty for all criminals" system.

That's just wrong. Capital punishment has not been shown as an effective deterent of murder-related crimes, so I can't see a valid argument for being a deterrent of theft. Not to mention I am morally opposed to the death penalty.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

A capitalist society cannot function if theft is not a crime.

What you do not seem to understand is that some level of regulation is necessary, and regulation is impractical with an all-or-nothing response. There is no ability to moderate. It is absurd to create a public roads system without some level of regulation to ensure security-there are enough people already who drive stupidly that you must agree that with no level of regulation, the public roads system would quickly degenerate. So then, what is to be regulated? Surely at minimum there must be a divison of the road, one lane per direction, to protect drivers from collisions. So what, is driving in the wrong lane now deserving of the same punishment as murder? Surely you cannot think something so ridiculous as that.

The idea that there should not be different levels of punishment is just idiotic. I'm sorry, it just is. There are different undesirable events and desired regulations within society that simply cannot be rationally implemented with a "death penalty for all criminals" system.

chessmaster1989

That's just wrong. Capital punishment has not been shown as an effective deterent of murder-related crimes, so I can't see a valid argument for being a deterrent of theft. Not to mention I am morally opposed to the death penalty.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

A capitalist society cannot function if theft is not a crime.

What you do not seem to understand is that some level of regulation is necessary, and regulation is impractical with an all-or-nothing response. There is no ability to moderate. It is absurd to create a public roads system without some level of regulation to ensure security-there are enough people already who drive stupidly that you must agree that with no level of regulation, the public roads system would quickly degenerate. So then, what is to be regulated? Surely at minimum there must be a divison of the road, one lane per direction, to protect drivers from collisions. So what, is driving in the wrong lane now deserving of the same punishment as murder? Surely you cannot think something so ridiculous as that.

The idea that there should not be different levels of punishment is just idiotic. I'm sorry, it just is. There are different undesirable events and desired regulations within society that simply cannot be rationally implemented with a "death penalty for all criminals" system.

chessmaster1989

That's just wrong. Capital punishment has not been shown as an effective deterent of murder-related crimes, so I can't see a valid argument for being a deterrent of theft. Not to mention I am morally opposed to the death penalty.

And even most supporters of the death penalty wouldn't advocate it for theft.

All the following products (American Flags and automobiles) from the following countries (Japan, China, South Korea, and India) will have a 1000 percent tariff until further notice.

Ban tobacco. Going on the false assumption that that is logistically possible. :P

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] then theft is a crime and those who steal should be put to death, dont tell me what you think i dont understand. theft would be gone as would corruption druggies could pop what ever they want in their body because no one is going to want to kill another for what they do the them selves. it would be a society where people would be free to do what ever they want unless it harms others. the break down of a free society would be met with death, making that person a future non-issue. surrealnumber5

That's just wrong. Capital punishment has not been shown as an effective deterent of murder-related crimes, so I can't see a valid argument for being a deterrent of theft. Not to mention I am morally opposed to the death penalty.

It does not necessarily, though you have neglected to address the rest of my post, which is relevant. Is it because you recognize your bolded statement is wrong?

[QUOTE="pis3rch"][QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

For some reason I don't think buying them from a drugged out dealer who likely doesn't know anything about mushrooms is any safer than picking them yourself.

Pixel-Pirate

I wasn't under the impression all dealers grew such things themselves. If they did, organized crime rings would not be making money from them.

I personally find it stupid to do any potentially deadly substance to try and get high. From draino to Mushrooms to deadly nightshade (that one still grabs me.)

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="pis3rch"] You obviously have a certain opinion of drug culture that is probably not going to change, but I will say that no matter how "drugged out" your dealer is, he isn't going to grow poisonous mushrooms from the spores of a hallucinogenic species. Stanley09

I wasn't under the impression all dealers grew such things themselves. If they did, organized crime rings would not be making money from them.

I personally find it stupid to do any potentially deadly substance to try and get high. From draino to Mushrooms to deadly nightshade (that one still grabs me.)

Assuming you have such knowledge and never need to call the police or fire department or paramedics for anything.

[QUOTE="Stanley09"][QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

I wasn't under the impression all dealers grew such things themselves. If they did, organized crime rings would not be making money from them.

I personally find it stupid to do any potentially deadly substance to try and get high. From draino to Mushrooms to deadly nightshade (that one still grabs me.)

Pixel-Pirate

Assuming you have such knowledge and never need to call the police or fire department or paramedics for anything.

If there is something the American people don't like about a law or anything, everyone can cast a vote if it would stay or not.

Expand the Arizona Immigration bill to the entire country.Stevo_the_gamer

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="Stanley09"] Or you can just grow them yourself which is safe and easy...Stanley09

Assuming you have such knowledge and never need to call the police or fire department or paramedics for anything.

....Robbery, domestic disturbance, fire, heart attack, injury, and countless other reasons?

[QUOTE="Stanley09"][QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

Assuming you have such knowledge and never need to call the police or fire department or paramedics for anything.

Pixel-Pirate

....Robbery, domestic disturbance, fire, heart attack, injury, and countless other reasons?

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]Expand the Arizona Immigration bill to the entire country.Snipes_2

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]Expand the Arizona Immigration bill to the entire country.SeanDog123

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="Stanley09"] All the knowledge can be easily found online...and why on earth would you need to call them?Stanley09

....Robbery, domestic disturbance, fire, heart attack, injury, and countless other reasons?

I'm not saying someone would want to steal them. Are they legal, however?

Also alcohol is quite safe in small doses.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

That's just wrong. Capital punishment has not been shown as an effective deterent of murder-related crimes, so I can't see a valid argument for being a deterrent of theft. Not to mention I am morally opposed to the death penalty.

chessmaster1989

It does not necessarily, though you have neglected to address the rest of my post, which is relevant. Is it because you recognize your bolded statement is wrong?

[QUOTE="Stanley09"][QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

....Robbery, domestic disturbance, fire, heart attack, injury, and countless other reasons?

Pixel-Pirate

I'm not saying someone would want to steal them. Are they legal, however?

Also alcohol is quite safe in small doses.

All religious leaders are banned from entering politics.

Seperation of church and state needs to be expanded.

Make weed legal. lol

dont be a jerk

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] i dont see how your morality comes to play in my hypothetical surrealnumber5

It does not necessarily, though you have neglected to address the rest of my post, which is relevant. Is it because you recognize your bolded statement is wrong?

But even where the death penalty is used, the death penalty has not been shown to deter capital offences more than other harsh punishment forms (such as life imprisonment without parol). This you still have not addressed.

Anyway, I doubt I'm going to say anything that's going to influence your support of your hypothetical system. I think it's absurd and I can say for sure I'm grateful our society has not been so foolish and ignorant as to it. And I would not hesitate to leave a society that implemented it. A society is based on two ideas: freedom and security. Your society far too greatly sacrifices the latter in favor of the former, in a completely undesirable manner. You too should be grateful it is not implemented.

So, go on believing what you will, in my humble opinion your system (as well as unfettered capitalism) are both as absurd and unrealistic as Marx's communism.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

It does not necessarily, though you have neglected to address the rest of my post, which is relevant. Is it because you recognize your bolded statement is wrong?

chessmaster1989

But even where the death penalty is used, the death penalty has not been shown to deter capital offences more than other harsh punishment forms (such as life imprisonment without parol). This you still have not addressed.

Anyway, I doubt I'm going to say anything that's going to influence your support of your hypothetical system. I think it's absurd and I can say for sure I'm grateful our society has not been so foolish and ignorant as to it. And I would not hesitate to leave a society that implemented it. A society is based on two ideas: freedom and security. Your society far too greatly sacrifices the latter in favor of the former, in a completely undesirable manner. You too should be grateful it is not implemented.

So, go on believing what you will, in my humble opinion your system (as well as unfettered capitalism) are both as absurd and unrealistic as Marx's communism.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] if the penalty is guaranteed death i am sure fewer people would be willing to commit acts against society, and if society does not deem them infractions then they dont need to be penalized surrealnumber5

But even where the death penalty is used, the death penalty has not been shown to deter capital offences more than other harsh punishment forms (such as life imprisonment without parol). This you still have not addressed.

Anyway, I doubt I'm going to say anything that's going to influence your support of your hypothetical system. I think it's absurd and I can say for sure I'm grateful our society has not been so foolish and ignorant as to it. And I would not hesitate to leave a society that implemented it. A society is based on two ideas: freedom and security. Your society far too greatly sacrifices the latter in favor of the former, in a completely undesirable manner. You too should be grateful it is not implemented.

So, go on believing what you will, in my humble opinion your system (as well as unfettered capitalism) are both as absurd and unrealistic as Marx's communism.