What new law would you make?

[MigL]

You make a comment which is directly aimed at my previous post, INow.
Accusing me of going out of my way to offend people, while being a snowflake; then, when called on it, your response is feigned innocence, and "Dafuk ?".

If you ( or Phi ) have opinions about my behavior, stick to them.
I'm NOT a snowflake and not easily offended.
Pretending that you don't know what I mean is childish.

I have gotten, and expect, better from you.

[iNow]

For someone claiming not to be a snowflake, you sure are acting super triggered right now. Whatever

[MigL]

I'm not offended; I'm pissed off.

[Phi for All]

12 hours ago, MigL said:

Don't go getting all upset.
( note that I don't call your opinions 'crap', but I did think your first line was a group of laws)
I simply pointed out that 'proposing' a law means specifying the repercussions of breaking that law.

Yours was just a convenient example, but others, in this thread, have already proposed other 'laws'; all without specifying the consequences of non-abidance.
Laws are supposed to make society more civil and equitable.
What will enforcing that law do ?

12 hours ago, MigL said:

I believe Phi can speak for himself, if he was offended.
( and if he was, I apologize, that was not my intent )
Is that where this forum is headed ?
opposing views are not tolerated because they may offend ?
Kind of takes the fun out of discussion, does it not ?

Get off your high horse, INow.
My right to an opinion supersedes, and trumps, your right not to be offended.
( are you the science Forums thought police ? )

Notice how little time you spend on what I actually said about my law wrt the thread in general, and how much time you spend doing damage control because you wanted to strawman me with Trump references and arguments I never made? 

My whole point was that I would like to see what Americans could do if they didn't have a private army of "justice seekers" trying to put them in jail for profit. I think we could make our whole society better if we weren't housing 25% of the world's prisoners on a business growth model. How about you respond to that?

 

[swansont]

13 hours ago, MigL said:

Don't go getting all upset.
( note that I don't call your opinions 'crap', but I did think your first line was a group of laws)
I simply pointed out that 'proposing' a law means specifying the repercussions of breaking that law.

Yours was just a convenient example, but others, in this thread, have already proposed other 'laws'; all without specifying the consequences of non-abidance.

!

Moderator Note

Since nobody had done this, including the OP, it seems disingenuous to call out Phi for such an omission, especially since some of the things he described in his first sentence reflect laws already on the books. Thus for those, how violators are treated is known.

And it's the OP that generally sets the tone and scope of the discussion. If you want to start a thread where discussion of enforcement is a requirement, go right ahead.

 

[AUDI R6]

Helping another person will give you money from the state.

[MigL]

Had to double check; I did read the OP right.

Apparently some think we are discussing POLICIES, not LAWS.
The OP clearly states LAW.
And the definition of LAW is...
''the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties'

So, I'm obviously in the right thread. Those who wish to discuss policies, without enforcement by penalties, should start another thread.

Maybe if I didn't keep getting unfairly attacked, Phi, I wouldn't have to do 'damage control' . even though I'm right.
And I wouldn't be getting pissed off !

[dimreepr]

11 hours ago, MigL said:

The OP clearly states LAW.

I also said "(for a bit of fun)"

11 hours ago, MigL said:

Maybe if I didn't keep getting unfairly attacked, Phi, I wouldn't have to do 'damage control' . even though I'm right.

About what? 

You've yet to provide any content.

[swansont]

12 hours ago, MigL said:

Had to double check; I did read the OP right.

Apparently some think we are discussing POLICIES, not LAWS.
The OP clearly states LAW.
And the definition of LAW is...
''the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties'

So, I'm obviously in the right thread. Those who wish to discuss policies, without enforcement by penalties, should start another thread.

Maybe if I didn't keep getting unfairly attacked, Phi, I wouldn't have to do 'damage control' . even though I'm right.
And I wouldn't be getting pissed off !

!

Moderator Note

May enforce ≠ must enforce.

And you don't get to enforce (or ignore) the rules of this forum. Further hijacks will be removed.

 

[Sensei]

On 7/15/2019 at 2:15 AM, MigL said:

Yours was just a convenient example, but others, in this thread, have already proposed other 'laws'; all without specifying the consequences of non-abidance.

...disappointment of the creator of the Universe...

 

Well, previously I said (extended version of ten commandments):

11) Be smart and intelligent

then

12) Don't disappoint me

 

Intelligent life forms don't hurt other life forms (without absolute necessity), don't destroy environment in which they live in.. They do understand entire world and Universe they live in.. cooperate with it.. instead of trying to abuse, destroy it.. essential in it is understanding of the entire quantum physics, chemistry, organics chemistry, biology, biotechnology, informatics etc. etc.

..some call it love.. without truly understanding what it means..

 

Some see cockroach or spider and want to squeeze him or her..

Some see tree and want to cut it, to build house..

Some see tree and want it to be alive to keep it converting carbon dioxide to oxygen..

 

Edited July 16, 2019 by Sensei

[dimreepr]

55 minutes ago, Sensei said:

...disappointment of the creator of the Universe...

 

Well, previously I said (extended version of ten commandments):

11) Be smart and intelligent

then

12) Don't disappoint me

..some call it love.. without truly understanding what it means..

I'm not sure if you're being serious or satirical, but that (bolded) nails it; I hope for the best...

But I do know my hate law would help.

[Sensei]

39 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I'm not sure if you're being serious or satirical, but that (bolded) nails it; I hope for the best...

Regardless of interpretation of my previous words, if somebody loves his or her family now, and love the future generations of family, should bother for environment, in which they will live in..

Many people's attitude is "after us, flood can come, whatever"...

One bad decision made now, can influence many generations in the next thousands of years. And cause multi-millions of casualties in the future.. Responsibility is in the hands of people now making decisions.

 

Edited July 16, 2019 by Sensei

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Sensei said:

One bad decision made now, can influence many generations in the next thousands of years. And cause multi-millions of casualties in the future..

We'll only know that, then...

[Phi for All]

14 hours ago, MigL said:

Maybe if I didn't keep getting unfairly attacked, Phi, I wouldn't have to do 'damage control' . even though I'm right.
And I wouldn't be getting pissed off !

MigL, I proposed a single law where we guarantee a minimum subsistence level for all citizens to remove most of the reason people commit crimes. You bashed me for not including provisions for those who "broke" my law, but is it really applicable? How is someone going to break my law, which is similar to a Universal Basic Income? If they don't need/want the money, I don't see the need to put them in jail or fine them or lecture them for it. If I had proposed Social Security, would I need extra laws for those who didn't want to participate?

The rest of your attack seemed aimed at trolling me, asking if I'm one of Trump's advisors, insisting I'd be heaping more hardship on citizens, all clearly arguments that show, yet again, that you've completely misinterpreted what I've said. It used to frustrate me because I thought I wasn't expressing myself with clarity and precision, but I've come to learn you have a certain amount of willful obfuscationism in your discussion style that is drawn to strawman arguments and not quite "getting it". You like to poke people who don't share your worldview rather than try to understand it. While I can appreciate that you often find yourself in ideological opposition with progressive thinking, I also think you EXPECT to be in opposition so often that it causes you to pre-judge what others write, making it seem like you didn't read it in the first place.

And I still haven't heard a word about a US where the need to steal to feed your family is greatly reduced. That's the part I found interesting enough to post about.

[MigL]

And you're still playing the victim...

I've already explained that I thought your first line was a set of laws that you proposed; and I apologized for my misunderstanding.
Your UBI is a policy that gets voted into place. In my mind; a law has consequence for non-abidance; otherwise, it's a suggestion.
As to why you would take my joke about you being a D Trump advisor so badly, I really didn't think that would be an issue, given your well-known feelings for the man.
The fact that you pretend to be 'hurt' by my joking, reminds me of the time you called me a 'TRUMPet' ( even though you know how I feel about the man ).

I don't recall going 'crying to mommy' after that incident.
Then again, I've never subscribed to 'victimhood".

And by all means, Swansont, go ahead and split off this 'hijack', even though I'm just responding to other's 'hijacks'.

[AUDI R6]

On 7/16/2019 at 2:03 AM, MigL said:

Had to double check; I did read the OP right.

Apparently some think we are discussing POLICIES, not LAWS.
The OP clearly states LAW.
And the definition of LAW is...
''the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties'

So, I'm obviously in the right thread. Those who wish to discuss policies, without enforcement by penalties, should start another thread.

Maybe if I didn't keep getting unfairly attacked, Phi, I wouldn't have to do 'damage control' . even though I'm right.
And I wouldn't be getting pissed off !

Well you know I am reffering to a law , not a policy . Cut the crap ok?

[Ken Fabian]

Quite seriously - I would introduce an incrementally rising carbon price on fossil fuels, that apply at the mine-head to the sellers (rather than end users). If you import them then that tax will be already included. It would start modestly but rise inexorably, perhaps at 10-15% per year, so there is time to see it coming and time for investment strategies to change but without enduring 'get out of emissions free' amnesties and exceptions.

Dimreepr - not sure what the matched funds for opposition lobbying thing is about - if I could make a law that would be it.

[dimreepr]

12 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

Quite seriously - I would introduce an incrementally rising carbon price on fossil fuels, that apply at the mine-head to the sellers (rather than end users). If you import them then that tax will be already included. It would start modestly but rise inexorably, perhaps at 10-15% per year, so there is time to see it coming and time for investment strategies to change but without enduring 'get out of emissions free' amnesties and exceptions.

Dimreepr - not sure what the matched funds for opposition lobbying thing is about - if I could make a law that would be it.

Thanks for attempting to drag this thread back on topic; if only there was some sort of rule about that, oh wait...

[koti]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Thanks for attempting to drag this thread back on topic; if only there was some sort of rule about that, oh wait...

I think I played a role in that, I apologise.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, koti said:

I think I played a role in that, I apologise.

Thanks.

[Alex_Krycek]

All major corporations must spend 10% of their annual net profits to improve the environment. 

Edited July 18, 2019 by Alex_Krycek

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

All major corporations must spend 10% of their annual net profits to improve the environment. 

How about 1% of revenues? Harder to hide market share than profits and multi-National Corporations pretty much control where their profits show up...to the lowest bidder in terms of taxes.

[dimreepr]

11 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

How about 1% of revenues? Harder to hide market share than profits and multi-National Corporations pretty much control where their profits show up...to the lowest bidder in terms of taxes.

Good idea, maybe we base all taxes on the same model.

[Alex_Krycek]

18 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

How about 1% of revenues? Harder to hide market share than profits and multi-National Corporations pretty much control where their profits show up...to the lowest bidder in terms of taxes. 

Sounds good to me.

[Sensei]

15 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

All major corporations must spend 10% of their annual net profits to improve the environment.  

Improvement of the environment must be in the head of people, not ordered by law...

Then it will only work...

If we have two cars of two companies X and Y.. X is burning fossil fuel, Y is electric (and we have solar panels on the roof of our house already (must have!!) ).. then we choose product of company Y.. Simple. Then company making car will adjust to users need or vanish from the market bankrupting.

Another pressure can be from owners of stocks of company. Current companies are so big they have very diverse ownership. i.e. financial owners want to keep less than 5% of shares at max, for easy get out of investment, just in case (above 5% there must be issued public statement "we X, just sold/bought stocks of company Y, and now below/above 5%" etc. so everybody are informed, depends on local country stock market regulations). If owners of these funds which own company will decide they (through fund) don't support companies which have bad attitude toward environment, they (fund) can force management, or change management, to support pro-ecological attitude..

 

 

38 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Good idea, maybe we base all taxes on the same model. 

You don't get much from economy.. do you.. 10% of profit tax for environment, or 1% of revenue for environment.. That doesn't matter. It will just increase worldwide or local prices of their products. So actually the end pay taxer will be buyer of product of company, not company by itself. It does not work the way you think it works! Damn.

It's kinda the way D.T. thinks! He thinks "let's increase duty for Chinese products". Who is paying these duties? Not Chinese, certainly. But Americans having to pay more for the same product in the shop.