Why don't we repeal old laws?

a reply to: randomtangentsrme

This got me thinking.

(always a dangerous thing)


What are the minimum amount of laws we can have on the books and still function as a society?



1. Killing. Illegal.
2. Theft. Illegal.


Anything else?

a reply to: snowspirit

Funny that, as if in the UK, if you do clean the pavement (sidewalk) outside your property of snow/ice/slush, you then become liable if anybody slips or falls there, so legally speaking you are better not to - sod civic spirit

Similarly if you are at a red traffic light and you move across the 'stop' line to let emergency vehicles with sirens/lights on you can still get a traffic violation - so again as above.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Trouble is you need to regulate against the excesses of capitalism or we will return to slum landlords, slave wages etc

Sexual / physical assault.

Can i drive my car at 100mph past the local kids school ?

Can i play my music at full volume at 3am out in the street?

Yes most people wouldn't anyway - laws were generally brought in to deal with the 1% of wankers who don't care about anything but themselves.

a reply to: johnb

then law #3.

Infringement. Any infringement upon an individual(s) by another individual is illegal.

a reply to: randomtangentsrme

I'm sure glad you asked this question. The obvious answer is that bad laws are not repealed because career bureaucrats need laws to assure their employment and advancement.

More poor laws are passed than good laws passed.

The more laws on the books, the more the bureaucracies thrive.

Trump and Friends are working on it....they are 1/2 way there now.

originally posted by: snowspirit
Found a few for here up north as well
The law itself doesn't even honour some of these

19. In Calgary, if released from prison, it is required that you are given a handgun with bullets and a horse, so you can ride out of town.

www.discovercanadianlawyers.ca...

Not to self go to Calgary and steal a candy bar(free horse gun and ammo! What a country)

a reply to: DBCowboy

To my knowledge 282 is the fewest found from a functioning society.
en.wikipedia.org...

However, I could be incorrect, as I am not a scholar of history like some of our members.

originally posted by: dawnstar
does she still live in a village, or has that village grown into a major population center.
her right might be revoked on that technicality.

Still a village in a rural area. Times change though and a lot of Townies with cash now dilute village communities. A few years back some a newcomer complained to the Council about someone's chickens were making too much noise - threw in lawyers and all that crap. Who would have thought that you'd have cockerels in the country? Sad thing is that the newcomer won. That's not unique, whole rural customs are changing to adapt to a new breed of selfish, anti-community newcomer.

I won't bore you with a current situation in my village where a young, rich couple out of London have closed a footpath across their land - did it the day they moved in and were completely aware it existed when they bought the land. There's a fight that's been going on for two years - we'll win in the end, but it's just a pain. You should not have to fight for generational rights.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
a reply to: dug88

I agree USA is odd about nudity. But follow the laws or risk issues.

Skinny dipping is OK in my county outside of city limits, but you are not allowed to have sex with your wife in front of your house naked.

Which begs to ask the question... it you are wearing socks and a ski mask, is that considered naked?

OK... that came from a 3am fireside drunken discussion...

But I did buy a ski mask a few weeks later.

That's disgusting.

What kind of animal would keep their socks on?

a reply to: PaddyInf

To each their own.
I am not a fan of socks. But who are we to deny others. . .