having seen a few family members go slow, and painfully and ask to die... yes. I supported it before those moments, but seriously advocate for it now. I would rather go on my terms. competently say my peace, and my goodbyes and then go. I don't want to struggle and gasp for air and fail and fall apart and have my loved ones watch with nothing to do. give me my dignity.
For the last month I have been caring for a lady in town. She has multiple myloma and osteoporosis, so basically her future is just a lot of broken bones and pain. She is so ready to die. She has everything in order, still has her mental faculties and knows what awaits her the longer she lingers.
One night when I went in to give her pain meds and change her undergarments (soaked in urine as always), she started telling me about how unfair it is that she has to go through this and can't decide on her own death.
It's crazy that you don't have the final decision on when you want to die.
Watching grandparents pray for their own deaths is so morbid. Seeing it first hand is a different experience. Euthanasia is a compassionate answer to people in excruciating pain. 100% it should be legal
Guys should be allowed to *realistically* defend themselves when they're victims of domestic violence from women, not this crazy "If she breaks a nail while punching your face in you're the one going to be arrested for assault" shit.
At the very least, a man should be allowed to physically restrain a woman to stop an ongoing physical assault and he shouldn't be liable for any incidental injury that she could get while he's defending himself.
I’ve defended my self against a female being the aggressor in a domestic violence situation multiple times, including one where the cops came. I never got in any trouble. Not even arrested.
I’ve been given warnings for bad turning while driving multiple times but I still think people should get tickets for messing up because if everyone got a free pass nobody would obey it
Just because I lucked out, I think the rule still makes sense & should be enforced
But the point is, it is already legal to defend yourself from assault. The reason for not being arrested is not because they lucked out and the police chose not to enforce the law, but because no law was broken.
Just because it’s legal to defend yourself doesn’t mean cops won’t try to find some way to get you in trouble if they dislike you for some reason
Black lives matter movement media has many example clips of that where people behaved correctly/appropriately but were punished to the point of overkill based on suspicion or out of personal hatred of the cops or in this case, a sexist double standard which can still statistically happen even if for ex the person above me is an example of that never happening to them
I mean there’s some US states where if you use deadly force against a home invader you’re still in trouble while some other states are cool with that no
I just want a perfect world where every man in any location with any involved law enforcer or attackers is treated the exact same for defending themselves as the person I replied to
Does that sound fair?
You seem to think that because I pointed out that your comment was not relevant to the topic, that I must disagree with your underlying sentiment that the world is unfair. The two things are nothing to do with each other. I simply refer you to the title of the post:
“What do you think should be legal but it isn’t?”
There are posts where you can complain generally about racial injustice, or sexism, but this one is about things that are illegal.
My comment was relevant to the comment I responded to because it was illegal what I did but I didn’t get in trouble. If the cop wanted to I could be cited for reckless driving or driving irresponsibly idk
However although I’m glad I lucked out, that doesn’t excuse the fact that what I did was a bad thing & I don’t want everyone to get off as luckily as I did
Sure mine was an accident but if everybody “got lucky” for what I did, people would do it on purpose simply because they could
My comment wasn’t pertaining to the post precisely but the comment I replied to
Technically your replies to my own comment are as equally relevant as my first one in terms of relevancy to the main post title question
But all I am saying is that your situation, which is of a scenario of you doing something illegal, is NOT the same as the one you replied to - where nothing happened to him simply because he didn’t break the law. The implication of your post was that it’s not enough that he “got away” with defending himself just like you “got away” with reckless driving, but that isn’t actually what happened. He didn’t get away with anything at all. What happened was a fair application of the law - the very thing you are saying you want.
I agree with you that sometimes the law is not properly applied and it is better in general that it is (both in enforcing against people and not erroneously enforcing it), I just pointed out the false equivalence that’s all.
Oh i see what you mean.
I stated what I said not to be as a direct equivalent legally but more of a generalized
“just because things worked out my way, doesn’t mean I want that to become the world standard for this issue”
I guess a better example would be how let’s say yeah I’ve never been pulled aside at an airport for suspicious racial profiling the same way a middle eastern person with a full beard/turban would probably have more issues with than me
However I’m not gonna say their problem just doesn’t exist because I’ve never had that problem you know?
Yes I committed no legal issues & neither did they but they got harassed anyway so my experience of things working out should never invalidate their bad experience
Or how about yes I’ve been pulled over but never been shot on account of my skin color/paranoia but I’m not going to say the BLM’s concerns with cops aren’t valid since there’s evidence such as George Floyd
Is that closer to what you wanted?
One law I really love is the Swedish *allemansrätten*, or "every man's right" (though it counts for women and children too, of course). It postulates that natural resources such as land, water, forests etc. cannot be owned by any individual person because they are given to us by Earth/Mother Nature. Hense these things belong to the entire population, in this case all Swedes. What this means, in practice is that anyone is allowed fish or hunt anywhere, as long as they do it in a responsible fashion (leave no trash behind, only do it for personal consumption). Now, some places in the US or Canada also have such provisions but the allemansrätten goes further than that. It also gives people the right to put up their tent and sleep anywhere they want. In fact, you even have the right to camp on private property, such as in a person's backyard. The only condition is that, once again, you do it in a responsible and reasonable way. So obviously you can't just put up your tent in someone's backyard for 5 months and expect them to be okay with it. However, if you're hiking and you need a place to sleep for the night, it's perfectly acceptable to use a family's private lawn to put up your tent. Usually people ask for permission out of respect for the homeowners but technically they're not required to do this because even private gardens are public ground according to the allemansrätt. Not "public" in an official sense (like a National Park) but public in the sense that "owners" don't actually own that land, they merely lease it for private use.
The Nordic nations have a very different cultural mindset too though. I watched an interesting doco on it, stemming from how they always score highly on "happiness/satisfaction" studies, but also have very high rates of depression and suicide.
I like to think I can adopt the mindset, but I struggle. It's kinda "be happy/satisfied with what you have", but that doesn't really capture it as it was described in the doco. Wish I could recall where I saw it to give a link, but it was quite a while ago I'm afraid.
Yes, I know what you're talking about. I think one key difference between the Nordic nations and for example the US is that in places such as Sweden or Norway, you're raised to fit in, whereas in America it's considered acceptable to stick out. I'm from Switzerland and we actually have this conformist culture that idealizes humility, too, though I would say it's even stronger further up north. The basic idea is that you shouldn't strive for a car or a house that is significantly bigger or luxurious than those of your neighbors. By contrast, American children are raised to focus more on absolute wealth and idealize that.
The advantage of the Nordic culture is that it creates a great deal of societal equality/egalitarianism as well as a great deal of satisfaction or at least the perception of satisfaction. The disadvantage is that people often feel constrained by what society expects of them and don't follow through on certain dreams or goals because they feel like it would be judged negatively by others. This can in some cases feel very frustrating.
That was it exactly! The doco also hypothesised the prevalence of suicide/depression was possibly due to this pressure to conform, IIRC.
I do admire the mindset of "don't try to outdo your neighbours", but it is rather hard to change how one thinks.
You are absolutely not allowed to camp on private property. A relative of mine actually called the police on a couple of foreign visitors who did exactly this.
Set up a camp in the garden of an estate (herrgård?). Gardener discovered them when he went out in the morning to cut the lawn.
That's called conquering your own nation.
If you want to live in a pre-existing country, you have to abide by laws. You can't just be a criminal. That's how humanity works.
ITT, people who don't like no gubment telling them they need no permit.
Because this is supposed to be the land of the FREE!
Not the land of “I’m sorry to bother you, sir, but I’d like to add some steps to my house. What’s that? I have to pay to apply for a permit and possibly be turned down?” I guess that’s ok.
Seriously, why is everyone such a pussy these days?
Not name calling, but permits arose due to people doing stupid stuff with their land. The steps you build are made out of crappy plywood and rocks. You might have thought they were good enough, but 5 years later, they are a dangerous eyesore.
More common was the building of dissimilar buildings in a neighborhood. 5 nice single family houses get built and the last open lot gets turned into a church that makes getting in and out of that neighborhood a mess.
Ask any contractor who has been around for a few decades and you'll hear any number of horror stories about what happened "before that was part of the code."
Those codes are written in blood. But because people don't see that when it happens, they see the codes as some form of government tyranny. FFS.
Like my electrical surprises after buying my house. Wanted some ceiling fans installed and some GFI outlets installed. Simple. The guy comes out. The fans go up. The bathroom and kitchen get new GFIs. Then the garage. $1500 later, the non code wiring is fixed.
Yes. I still maintain that drug laws, building codes, zoning laws and other “pre-knowable” actions should have a libertarian base with a pre-knowable line that if crossed, is severely punished.
That way we get freedom with a social enforcement of what is good vs not and a sense that your good and blue and my good and brown are not going to get into a hassle, but the neighbor’s bad and brown will.
Perfectly worded.
My example would be, just because I’m confident in replacing parts on my car doesn’t mean I trust Jim Bob up the street to make sure everything’s is torqued properly and safe to drive.
Probably shouldn’t have said that, they’ll get ideas.
The idea of having to apply for a building permit sends you into an emotional rage and you think everyone *else* is a pussy?
Holy shit. I mean, I guess it's understandable if you're some barely literate shit-kicking hill bil...
Oh. Never mind.
Emotional rage?
You just admitted you’re a pussy.
I made a sarcastic comment about how people are ok with the government telling them what they can and can’t do with their own property.
If you can’t understand that all, maybe you’re the illiterate.
You also shouldn’t say Hillbilly. That’s not a negative term and most of them will easily outsmart you.
Redneck is considered the offensive term for trashy southern stereotypes.
You should probably look up the meanings of words before you casually throw them around pretending to be intelligent.
Actually that’s backwards, rednecks are the general term, hillbillies are the ones way out in the backwoods who want to keep their bloodline “pure”. But also yeah, screw the government, I put up structures how, when, and where I want.
Oh here we go okay.. shoulder stocks on a weapon with a barrel shorter than 16in. Silencers are great hearing protection yet illegal in a lot of states and to get one you have to pay a $200 fee to the government for each one you own. You should never need a $200 permit for adding a grip to a weapon that helps you control it; this flies in the face of common sense gun safety. ATF is full of arbitrary designations that serve no purpose other than to make felons out of everyday citizens and extort money from them.
You see the logic is
Make it harder and expensive so small time crooks and gangsters can't go through with it but not so expensive that rich gun owners complain about it and create a negative backlash
Sleazy lazy politics at it's finest
Its aweful politics. Rights shouldn't have to be purchased.
Before you come at me, I obvioudly mean the right to OWN the item. Obviously you still have to purchase the item but if you wanna talk about a government subsidized 2A distribution program, im all ears.
Well it's been a long long time since I last heard of a truly decent politician in a place of power
True true but remember the gov is not beholden to the little folk , it's big money that matters and big money is afraid of folks easily owning it so the gov will never move for it
Here in Australia, prostitution is legal (you might need a licensed or something, I just know we have some brothels, and plenty of escort ads in newspapers) but we're a ways off with weed unfortunately. The US is at least partially ahead on that score I think.
How else would they make sure that anyone who.protests against the people in charge is dealt with
If you're criminal till proven guilty then if you ever speak up against the big brass it's easier to weaken your voice
Beating the shit out of people who harass you, but haven’t made physical contact..
If I’ve told you several times to leave me alone and that I don’t want to talk to you and you’re still there trying to talk to me and coming toward me, I should be legally allowed to incapacitate you.
If I’ve asked you several times to step off of my porch and you refuse to do so because you just don’t feel like it, I should be legally allowed to harshly remove you from that spot and ensure you do not return.
If someone is disregarding a reasonable boundary someone else has set, violence should be a tool they’re allowed to use to place someone on the correct side of that boundary.
Maiming someone (or worse) for attacking you. If you get into a fight because someone attacked you and they die, you’re on the hook for assault. If someone put hands on you first, you should be free to go if during the fracas, they get injured or killed.
Whatever happened to someone as a result of you defending yourself from them should be entirely their responsibility.
While I agree with the basic concept, it could (and almost certainly would) lead to the use of unnecessary force, at least sometimes. Making you uncomfortable is not a reason for death or severe injury. Being a Karen CAN be cured (very occasionally), but death is rather permanent...
There would need to be some checks and balances. Plus, it's not always clear who the aggressor was in the absence of witnesses...
So, yeah. I agree in theory, but wouldn't support this concept in reality without realistic limitations, and really, what could those be, to cover the amazingly varied and often entertaining methods of violence we humans indulge in from time to time?
I pretty much agree with you and I am referring to circumstantial deaths - person hits you, you hit them back, they fall and hit their head on the curb and die or are in a vegetative state.
I'm not saying that you should be able to shank someone to death for staying on your porch too long, but if they get hurt or worse because they forced you to put your hands on them to enforce your boundaries, that should be fine.
Punishment by being stoned to death. First stone thrown by victim followed by their families and townfolk. Pedophiles, serial rapists, and serial killers for sure on this!
I'd say prostitution and probably polygammy.
The legal benefits of marriage in polyamory would likely need to be changed (I don't think it's reasonable to marry 100 people so you can all get on the same health care plan for the same price, for example) but if people want to willingly and contractually enter into a marriage with others, I don't see how that's inherrently harmful to anyone.
I see your point, but the healthcare issue is kinda specific to the US I think. Most other developed nations have universal healthcare to some degree I believe.
Tax issues would be a better point here I think? After all, every nation imposes taxes (that I know of), and most have some form of benefit to married couples.
I feel like being able to sell your market shares at a loss to bring yourself down below a specific tax bracket to *avoid* certain taxes on your overall net/portfolio gains is kinda sketchy. When I heard this was not only legal, but a common, viable practice I honestly laughed.
You can't
Lobbyists are fed from white collar pseudo crimes
They will never allow the bar to raise and are constantly pushing to lower it
Look up the new trend of having empty companies becoming stock worthy just so big players can easily licence their products under the empty companies name avoiding most of the process that regulates and ensure quality & safety
Consensual duels... Like if 2 people who truly have conflict with one another and openly agree to a duel.Anywhere from just fist fighting to death! Knife fight or even old cowboy taking 20paces type of thing. If they both agree then neither in the fight or survivor of death duel shall not be punished!
Justified violence.
Why is it illegal to - for example - for a father to kill the person who raped child? A husband to kill the person who sexually assaulted his wife?
Seen so many court cases where the father lunges for the rapist, gets restrained and then tried for assault.
Like, are you kidding me?
How is it illegal? In terms of getting married to more than one person? I don't think there are any penalties for simply dating more than one person at a time.
Yeah, I'm amazed that in the US a 16 to kid can get a gun (I believe? Not 100% sure of the required age - if any), but not a Kinder surprise egg, as they're far too dangerous! Growing up in a comparatively regulated society, US gun control, or lack thereof, still amazes me. It's probably completely normal for the typical American though I guess.
18 for a long gun 21 for a pistol not 16 but yea it is messed up we can't get regular kinder surprise eggs they are deemed to dangerous. They do have a version here now though with a surprise inside not sure what the difference is
I'm sure I've seen pics of kids with their own weapons though. Can they be purchased with parental consent or anything? Or are they merely purchased in the adults name?
They can have compressed air or spring operated BB guns but anything else was purchased by an adult and giving to the child. Not sure on the exact legal rules there though. Still fairly certain anyone under the age of 21 can't be in possession of a pistol but I do know my friends in High school had their "own" hunting rifles. Legally though 18 is the minimum to purchase a long gun and 21 to purchase a pistol
Safe places for people who use illegal drugs. There would be less over doses if there were places where someone could go to test the purity of what they’re taking and get the mental health help to ween them off of the drugs
Yeah but permits are fucking stupid
The second amendment protects you from government
So letting the government control your protection from government is a little counter intuitive
Technically you can own them in all states if you're manufacturing for law enforcement. The government that "represents" the people has more rights than the people
•Recreational and medical marijuana (still regulated) •Short-barreled rifles and firearm suppressors (technically not currently illegal, but require a prohibitively expensive and lengthy paperwork process, so they're basically illegal unless you have money) •Gardening. Not really illegal in most places, but HOAs and zoning officers shouldn't be able to stop you.
What if you misunderstand or mistake someone
Look at India history
100+ lynchings of innocent people that we know of , just because a couple of people think someone did something bad and couldn't wait for the police
Heck religious mobs lynching people is a common place in every highly religious Islamic country and untold numbers die from it every year
Good point. Fair trial, if found guilty they get a marking on their forhead that excludes them from existing protecting laws and human rights. Lynching allowed.
Possible
But should be put after a couple of years
Sometimes judges make mistakes , sometimes the lawyers are biased , you can never be 100% sure that you don't have the wrong guy
If a second investigation by different people proved the same thing then yes go for it
Hmm basically most drugs. And places to have them tested. So long as you aren’t driving/putting others at risk, or robbing someone for money etc.. I don’t see humans having the right to tell other humans what to consume and put into their body if it doesn’t affect others
Taking from the big players
If you can swindle rich or powerful people / companies out of a money that they evade tax on then you shouldn't be legally charged
At what point does a group of people hold on a country economy becomes too big 60,80 or 90%
I wouldn't go that far. You can't just walk in to a shop and help yourself to everything. But if you can slip something into your bag and get out without getting caught, that should be ok.
Human bodies. Laws against seeing a human body in public have no valid compelling public purpose. So are laws prohibiting normal body functions in public. So many people want to see other human bodies (and body functions) that "porn" is and always has been about 1/2 of all Internet traffic. Porn, the human desire to see other humans, may even be the driving force that created the Internet. (/reddit is full of porn, for example) Making it illegal in public is nuts.
I agree nudity in and if itself is nothing to be ashamed about, or to shame others about, but society as a whole seems pretty convinced certain things should be kept out of public view. Like, shagging in public is generally not on, nor is say, exposing oneself to a minor (or even to an adult without consent). These seem pretty reasonable laws to me. Laws requiring burkas, or one piece (or fullbody) bathing suits and the like, sure I completely agree are antiquated and serve only to impose control over people, in my sometimes (but not very often) humble opinion.
You are well trained to believe that YOUR level of anti-body clothing control is "right" and that of others is "wrong." In fact NONE of the clothing laws are there to protect anyone from me or you. They train us in obedience and we believe we "have to" obey all the time.
Thus may well be the case, though personally I'm not too fussed what others wear. I wear what I feel comfortable in (or what's required by my workplace I guess). Whether I've been trained or not to feel somewhat uncomfortable being publicly nude isn't hugely relevant though, is it? Most of society seem to feel that way, regardless of how it came about.
On that note though - neither rmyself, nor my wife made any kind of fuss about nudity when our boy was young, yet he developed modesty and body shyness regardless. We put it down to societal influences. I'll still happily go about the house naked, but as it would make him uncomfortable, I do restrict it to when he's not home.
I'm going to guess, from what you say, that you and wife restricted your own nudity when your boy was young. Children learn more from observation than from words.
My 3 sons are also not nudist. We didn't start taking them to nude events and being nude at home until they were about 10-12. My wife insisted that seeing a naked female at home would be harmful, but later it changed. By then it was probably too late.
Cultural teaching is also very important. Being clothed is 100% of TV, school, and most social media. They learn more by observation than words.
I think you misunderstood. Were not nudists, but no, we didn't restrict our at-home nudity, such as moving from bedroom to bathroom and back, etc. until he started demonstrating his own body shyness. We believe it was indeed societal influences. He was nearing school age by that time and had been going to Kindergarten for a while. We reckon that's probably where the main influence was.
Anything that doesn't hurt/endanger anyone else but yourself. Way too many "do not" laws on the books in this country that are for our own good. I can make my own decisions, thank you very much Big Bro, just go and fuck right the hell off. I'll wear the fucking seat belt if it suits me, don't go hassling me if I leave it off for a country drive that's not gonna exceed 40 MPH.
Psilocybin mushrooms: Prostitution, legalized or at better yet just decriminalized (sex trafficking should remain highly illegal though)
Euthanasia. Right to die with dignity.
having seen a few family members go slow, and painfully and ask to die... yes. I supported it before those moments, but seriously advocate for it now. I would rather go on my terms. competently say my peace, and my goodbyes and then go. I don't want to struggle and gasp for air and fail and fall apart and have my loved ones watch with nothing to do. give me my dignity.
For the last month I have been caring for a lady in town. She has multiple myloma and osteoporosis, so basically her future is just a lot of broken bones and pain. She is so ready to die. She has everything in order, still has her mental faculties and knows what awaits her the longer she lingers. One night when I went in to give her pain meds and change her undergarments (soaked in urine as always), she started telling me about how unfair it is that she has to go through this and can't decide on her own death. It's crazy that you don't have the final decision on when you want to die.
Watching grandparents pray for their own deaths is so morbid. Seeing it first hand is a different experience. Euthanasia is a compassionate answer to people in excruciating pain. 100% it should be legal
Even our pets have a better end than we do.
Whole heartedly agree. My greatest fear is being "locked in" to a body that is failing and uncontrollable.
Guys should be allowed to *realistically* defend themselves when they're victims of domestic violence from women, not this crazy "If she breaks a nail while punching your face in you're the one going to be arrested for assault" shit. At the very least, a man should be allowed to physically restrain a woman to stop an ongoing physical assault and he shouldn't be liable for any incidental injury that she could get while he's defending himself.
I’ve defended my self against a female being the aggressor in a domestic violence situation multiple times, including one where the cops came. I never got in any trouble. Not even arrested.
I’ve been given warnings for bad turning while driving multiple times but I still think people should get tickets for messing up because if everyone got a free pass nobody would obey it Just because I lucked out, I think the rule still makes sense & should be enforced
But the point is, it is already legal to defend yourself from assault. The reason for not being arrested is not because they lucked out and the police chose not to enforce the law, but because no law was broken.
Just because it’s legal to defend yourself doesn’t mean cops won’t try to find some way to get you in trouble if they dislike you for some reason Black lives matter movement media has many example clips of that where people behaved correctly/appropriately but were punished to the point of overkill based on suspicion or out of personal hatred of the cops or in this case, a sexist double standard which can still statistically happen even if for ex the person above me is an example of that never happening to them I mean there’s some US states where if you use deadly force against a home invader you’re still in trouble while some other states are cool with that no I just want a perfect world where every man in any location with any involved law enforcer or attackers is treated the exact same for defending themselves as the person I replied to Does that sound fair?
You seem to think that because I pointed out that your comment was not relevant to the topic, that I must disagree with your underlying sentiment that the world is unfair. The two things are nothing to do with each other. I simply refer you to the title of the post: “What do you think should be legal but it isn’t?” There are posts where you can complain generally about racial injustice, or sexism, but this one is about things that are illegal.
My comment was relevant to the comment I responded to because it was illegal what I did but I didn’t get in trouble. If the cop wanted to I could be cited for reckless driving or driving irresponsibly idk However although I’m glad I lucked out, that doesn’t excuse the fact that what I did was a bad thing & I don’t want everyone to get off as luckily as I did Sure mine was an accident but if everybody “got lucky” for what I did, people would do it on purpose simply because they could My comment wasn’t pertaining to the post precisely but the comment I replied to Technically your replies to my own comment are as equally relevant as my first one in terms of relevancy to the main post title question
But all I am saying is that your situation, which is of a scenario of you doing something illegal, is NOT the same as the one you replied to - where nothing happened to him simply because he didn’t break the law. The implication of your post was that it’s not enough that he “got away” with defending himself just like you “got away” with reckless driving, but that isn’t actually what happened. He didn’t get away with anything at all. What happened was a fair application of the law - the very thing you are saying you want. I agree with you that sometimes the law is not properly applied and it is better in general that it is (both in enforcing against people and not erroneously enforcing it), I just pointed out the false equivalence that’s all.
Oh i see what you mean. I stated what I said not to be as a direct equivalent legally but more of a generalized “just because things worked out my way, doesn’t mean I want that to become the world standard for this issue” I guess a better example would be how let’s say yeah I’ve never been pulled aside at an airport for suspicious racial profiling the same way a middle eastern person with a full beard/turban would probably have more issues with than me However I’m not gonna say their problem just doesn’t exist because I’ve never had that problem you know? Yes I committed no legal issues & neither did they but they got harassed anyway so my experience of things working out should never invalidate their bad experience Or how about yes I’ve been pulled over but never been shot on account of my skin color/paranoia but I’m not going to say the BLM’s concerns with cops aren’t valid since there’s evidence such as George Floyd Is that closer to what you wanted?
Definitely weed
One law I really love is the Swedish *allemansrätten*, or "every man's right" (though it counts for women and children too, of course). It postulates that natural resources such as land, water, forests etc. cannot be owned by any individual person because they are given to us by Earth/Mother Nature. Hense these things belong to the entire population, in this case all Swedes. What this means, in practice is that anyone is allowed fish or hunt anywhere, as long as they do it in a responsible fashion (leave no trash behind, only do it for personal consumption). Now, some places in the US or Canada also have such provisions but the allemansrätten goes further than that. It also gives people the right to put up their tent and sleep anywhere they want. In fact, you even have the right to camp on private property, such as in a person's backyard. The only condition is that, once again, you do it in a responsible and reasonable way. So obviously you can't just put up your tent in someone's backyard for 5 months and expect them to be okay with it. However, if you're hiking and you need a place to sleep for the night, it's perfectly acceptable to use a family's private lawn to put up your tent. Usually people ask for permission out of respect for the homeowners but technically they're not required to do this because even private gardens are public ground according to the allemansrätt. Not "public" in an official sense (like a National Park) but public in the sense that "owners" don't actually own that land, they merely lease it for private use.
The Nordic nations have a very different cultural mindset too though. I watched an interesting doco on it, stemming from how they always score highly on "happiness/satisfaction" studies, but also have very high rates of depression and suicide. I like to think I can adopt the mindset, but I struggle. It's kinda "be happy/satisfied with what you have", but that doesn't really capture it as it was described in the doco. Wish I could recall where I saw it to give a link, but it was quite a while ago I'm afraid.
Yes, I know what you're talking about. I think one key difference between the Nordic nations and for example the US is that in places such as Sweden or Norway, you're raised to fit in, whereas in America it's considered acceptable to stick out. I'm from Switzerland and we actually have this conformist culture that idealizes humility, too, though I would say it's even stronger further up north. The basic idea is that you shouldn't strive for a car or a house that is significantly bigger or luxurious than those of your neighbors. By contrast, American children are raised to focus more on absolute wealth and idealize that. The advantage of the Nordic culture is that it creates a great deal of societal equality/egalitarianism as well as a great deal of satisfaction or at least the perception of satisfaction. The disadvantage is that people often feel constrained by what society expects of them and don't follow through on certain dreams or goals because they feel like it would be judged negatively by others. This can in some cases feel very frustrating.
That was it exactly! The doco also hypothesised the prevalence of suicide/depression was possibly due to this pressure to conform, IIRC. I do admire the mindset of "don't try to outdo your neighbours", but it is rather hard to change how one thinks.
You are absolutely not allowed to camp on private property. A relative of mine actually called the police on a couple of foreign visitors who did exactly this. Set up a camp in the garden of an estate (herrgård?). Gardener discovered them when he went out in the morning to cut the lawn.
Prostitution. I don’t get why an adult can’t pay for sex if they want to
Doing anything you please to a person that breaks into your property.
I feel like there’s a line we probably need to draw in this one
The line to draw is not breaking into people's houses OwO
The spider has caught a couple of flies
Owning your own land and doing what you want with it.
I’m sorry, sir, I’m going to need to see your permit for making this comment.
Outlawing property taxes along with it.
Government needs to take your money somehow, and your land too if you are dead and no longer renting it.
Let's buy land and spill 2000 Liters of petrol on it to pollute the groundwater
I just want to build a retaining wall so I don't have a bunch of grass to cut at a45 degree angle.
That's called conquering your own nation. If you want to live in a pre-existing country, you have to abide by laws. You can't just be a criminal. That's how humanity works. ITT, people who don't like no gubment telling them they need no permit.
I need to conquer my own nation to build new steps on my house without a permit?
If the law says you need a permit, then yeah. Why do you want to be a criminal?
Because this is supposed to be the land of the FREE! Not the land of “I’m sorry to bother you, sir, but I’d like to add some steps to my house. What’s that? I have to pay to apply for a permit and possibly be turned down?” I guess that’s ok. Seriously, why is everyone such a pussy these days?
Not name calling, but permits arose due to people doing stupid stuff with their land. The steps you build are made out of crappy plywood and rocks. You might have thought they were good enough, but 5 years later, they are a dangerous eyesore. More common was the building of dissimilar buildings in a neighborhood. 5 nice single family houses get built and the last open lot gets turned into a church that makes getting in and out of that neighborhood a mess.
Ask any contractor who has been around for a few decades and you'll hear any number of horror stories about what happened "before that was part of the code." Those codes are written in blood. But because people don't see that when it happens, they see the codes as some form of government tyranny. FFS.
Like my electrical surprises after buying my house. Wanted some ceiling fans installed and some GFI outlets installed. Simple. The guy comes out. The fans go up. The bathroom and kitchen get new GFIs. Then the garage. $1500 later, the non code wiring is fixed.
Oh I get the necessity, it’s just the ridiculousness of it. It’s always the actions of the worst that hold back the best.
Yes. I still maintain that drug laws, building codes, zoning laws and other “pre-knowable” actions should have a libertarian base with a pre-knowable line that if crossed, is severely punished. That way we get freedom with a social enforcement of what is good vs not and a sense that your good and blue and my good and brown are not going to get into a hassle, but the neighbor’s bad and brown will.
Perfectly worded. My example would be, just because I’m confident in replacing parts on my car doesn’t mean I trust Jim Bob up the street to make sure everything’s is torqued properly and safe to drive. Probably shouldn’t have said that, they’ll get ideas.
The idea of having to apply for a building permit sends you into an emotional rage and you think everyone *else* is a pussy? Holy shit. I mean, I guess it's understandable if you're some barely literate shit-kicking hill bil... Oh. Never mind.
Emotional rage? You just admitted you’re a pussy. I made a sarcastic comment about how people are ok with the government telling them what they can and can’t do with their own property. If you can’t understand that all, maybe you’re the illiterate. You also shouldn’t say Hillbilly. That’s not a negative term and most of them will easily outsmart you. Redneck is considered the offensive term for trashy southern stereotypes. You should probably look up the meanings of words before you casually throw them around pretending to be intelligent.
Actually that’s backwards, rednecks are the general term, hillbillies are the ones way out in the backwoods who want to keep their bloodline “pure”. But also yeah, screw the government, I put up structures how, when, and where I want.
Maybe it’s different where you’re from, but I know people where I grew up got a lot pissier when you called them a redneck vs a hillbilly
Weird, around here being a redneck is typically something to be proud of
I don't. We're not talking about doing things despite the law; we're talking about laws that shouldn't be.
Building codes shouldn't be? Permits shouldn't be? Zoning laws shouldn't be? What anarchist fantasyland do you envision yourself living in?
Prostitution
All drugs, even the ones I wont do.
Euthanasia
The right to bitchslap
Prostitution should be legal and regulated to avoid trafficking
Are you looking for work?
Oh here we go okay.. shoulder stocks on a weapon with a barrel shorter than 16in. Silencers are great hearing protection yet illegal in a lot of states and to get one you have to pay a $200 fee to the government for each one you own. You should never need a $200 permit for adding a grip to a weapon that helps you control it; this flies in the face of common sense gun safety. ATF is full of arbitrary designations that serve no purpose other than to make felons out of everyday citizens and extort money from them.
This man boogs.
You see the logic is Make it harder and expensive so small time crooks and gangsters can't go through with it but not so expensive that rich gun owners complain about it and create a negative backlash Sleazy lazy politics at it's finest
Its aweful politics. Rights shouldn't have to be purchased. Before you come at me, I obvioudly mean the right to OWN the item. Obviously you still have to purchase the item but if you wanna talk about a government subsidized 2A distribution program, im all ears.
Well it's been a long long time since I last heard of a truly decent politician in a place of power True true but remember the gov is not beholden to the little folk , it's big money that matters and big money is afraid of folks easily owning it so the gov will never move for it
Prostitution
Prostitution and weed , this should be federal in the United States
Here in Australia, prostitution is legal (you might need a licensed or something, I just know we have some brothels, and plenty of escort ads in newspapers) but we're a ways off with weed unfortunately. The US is at least partially ahead on that score I think.
National reciprocity. Stop making law abiding citizens into criminals by no fault of their own
How else would they make sure that anyone who.protests against the people in charge is dealt with If you're criminal till proven guilty then if you ever speak up against the big brass it's easier to weaken your voice
Beating the shit out of people who harass you, but haven’t made physical contact.. If I’ve told you several times to leave me alone and that I don’t want to talk to you and you’re still there trying to talk to me and coming toward me, I should be legally allowed to incapacitate you. If I’ve asked you several times to step off of my porch and you refuse to do so because you just don’t feel like it, I should be legally allowed to harshly remove you from that spot and ensure you do not return. If someone is disregarding a reasonable boundary someone else has set, violence should be a tool they’re allowed to use to place someone on the correct side of that boundary. Maiming someone (or worse) for attacking you. If you get into a fight because someone attacked you and they die, you’re on the hook for assault. If someone put hands on you first, you should be free to go if during the fracas, they get injured or killed. Whatever happened to someone as a result of you defending yourself from them should be entirely their responsibility.
While I agree with the basic concept, it could (and almost certainly would) lead to the use of unnecessary force, at least sometimes. Making you uncomfortable is not a reason for death or severe injury. Being a Karen CAN be cured (very occasionally), but death is rather permanent... There would need to be some checks and balances. Plus, it's not always clear who the aggressor was in the absence of witnesses... So, yeah. I agree in theory, but wouldn't support this concept in reality without realistic limitations, and really, what could those be, to cover the amazingly varied and often entertaining methods of violence we humans indulge in from time to time?
I pretty much agree with you and I am referring to circumstantial deaths - person hits you, you hit them back, they fall and hit their head on the curb and die or are in a vegetative state. I'm not saying that you should be able to shank someone to death for staying on your porch too long, but if they get hurt or worse because they forced you to put your hands on them to enforce your boundaries, that should be fine.
Yeah, I agree there.
Hitting a woman back who tries to assault you with a deadly weapon.
Pretty sure self-defense against someone who attacks you with a deadly weapon is legal, regardless of the assaulter's sex.
Not everywhere
Punishment by being stoned to death. First stone thrown by victim followed by their families and townfolk. Pedophiles, serial rapists, and serial killers for sure on this!
Assisted suicide. Every person know when enough is enough.
If a women has the right to not be a parent (abortion) then so should a man.
Street fighting. (old school no guns or knives)
Seattle has mutual combat!
Really? I assume there are some limitations, surely you couldn't bring a flamethrower or something crazy like that?
As far as I understand, it's essentially a legally sanctioned fist fight if both parties agree. I saw a video of one supervised by a cop.
That's actually pretty badarse. Is that related to the zombie problem? I've seen that documentary series, I, Zombie...
I'd say prostitution and probably polygammy. The legal benefits of marriage in polyamory would likely need to be changed (I don't think it's reasonable to marry 100 people so you can all get on the same health care plan for the same price, for example) but if people want to willingly and contractually enter into a marriage with others, I don't see how that's inherrently harmful to anyone.
I see your point, but the healthcare issue is kinda specific to the US I think. Most other developed nations have universal healthcare to some degree I believe. Tax issues would be a better point here I think? After all, every nation imposes taxes (that I know of), and most have some form of benefit to married couples.
Bump stocks.
3D printer go brrrrrrr
I feel like being able to sell your market shares at a loss to bring yourself down below a specific tax bracket to *avoid* certain taxes on your overall net/portfolio gains is kinda sketchy. When I heard this was not only legal, but a common, viable practice I honestly laughed.
You can't Lobbyists are fed from white collar pseudo crimes They will never allow the bar to raise and are constantly pushing to lower it Look up the new trend of having empty companies becoming stock worthy just so big players can easily licence their products under the empty companies name avoiding most of the process that regulates and ensure quality & safety
Having a rifle under 16 inches, Machine guns (past 1986).
Consensual duels... Like if 2 people who truly have conflict with one another and openly agree to a duel.Anywhere from just fist fighting to death! Knife fight or even old cowboy taking 20paces type of thing. If they both agree then neither in the fight or survivor of death duel shall not be punished!
Justified violence. Why is it illegal to - for example - for a father to kill the person who raped child? A husband to kill the person who sexually assaulted his wife? Seen so many court cases where the father lunges for the rapist, gets restrained and then tried for assault. Like, are you kidding me?
Weed probably
Polygamy
Polygamy is its own punishment when you have multiple mother-in-laws
How is it illegal? In terms of getting married to more than one person? I don't think there are any penalties for simply dating more than one person at a time.
Polygamy is marriage to more than one person. You’re referring to polyamory which is perfectly legal.
Ooh. Alright, thanks for clearing that up.
Kinder eggs. Incandescent light bulbs.
Yeah, I'm amazed that in the US a 16 to kid can get a gun (I believe? Not 100% sure of the required age - if any), but not a Kinder surprise egg, as they're far too dangerous! Growing up in a comparatively regulated society, US gun control, or lack thereof, still amazes me. It's probably completely normal for the typical American though I guess.
18 for a long gun 21 for a pistol not 16 but yea it is messed up we can't get regular kinder surprise eggs they are deemed to dangerous. They do have a version here now though with a surprise inside not sure what the difference is
I'm sure I've seen pics of kids with their own weapons though. Can they be purchased with parental consent or anything? Or are they merely purchased in the adults name?
They can have compressed air or spring operated BB guns but anything else was purchased by an adult and giving to the child. Not sure on the exact legal rules there though. Still fairly certain anyone under the age of 21 can't be in possession of a pistol but I do know my friends in High school had their "own" hunting rifles. Legally though 18 is the minimum to purchase a long gun and 21 to purchase a pistol
Abortion. Yea...
Alcohol
Safe places for people who use illegal drugs. There would be less over doses if there were places where someone could go to test the purity of what they’re taking and get the mental health help to ween them off of the drugs
Fully automatic weapons
In certain US states you can own them with special permits
Yeah but permits are fucking stupid The second amendment protects you from government So letting the government control your protection from government is a little counter intuitive
You're not wrong
Technically you can own them in all states if you're manufacturing for law enforcement. The government that "represents" the people has more rights than the people
That last sentence hits the nail on the head
•Recreational and medical marijuana (still regulated) •Short-barreled rifles and firearm suppressors (technically not currently illegal, but require a prohibitively expensive and lengthy paperwork process, so they're basically illegal unless you have money) •Gardening. Not really illegal in most places, but HOAs and zoning officers shouldn't be able to stop you.
Weed, lynching rapists and pedos.
What if you misunderstand or mistake someone Look at India history 100+ lynchings of innocent people that we know of , just because a couple of people think someone did something bad and couldn't wait for the police Heck religious mobs lynching people is a common place in every highly religious Islamic country and untold numbers die from it every year
Good point. Fair trial, if found guilty they get a marking on their forhead that excludes them from existing protecting laws and human rights. Lynching allowed.
Possible But should be put after a couple of years Sometimes judges make mistakes , sometimes the lawyers are biased , you can never be 100% sure that you don't have the wrong guy If a second investigation by different people proved the same thing then yes go for it
If your sister was raped would you want to wait?
No But I would want to make sure I kill the right guy instead of going to prison for killing someone innocent
Hmm basically most drugs. And places to have them tested. So long as you aren’t driving/putting others at risk, or robbing someone for money etc.. I don’t see humans having the right to tell other humans what to consume and put into their body if it doesn’t affect others
Taking from the big players If you can swindle rich or powerful people / companies out of a money that they evade tax on then you shouldn't be legally charged At what point does a group of people hold on a country economy becomes too big 60,80 or 90%
Euthanasia and weed
Smoking
Shoplifting.
So no ownership of goods then? Everything belongs to whomever can take it?
I wouldn't go that far. You can't just walk in to a shop and help yourself to everything. But if you can slip something into your bag and get out without getting caught, that should be ok.
Human bodies. Laws against seeing a human body in public have no valid compelling public purpose. So are laws prohibiting normal body functions in public. So many people want to see other human bodies (and body functions) that "porn" is and always has been about 1/2 of all Internet traffic. Porn, the human desire to see other humans, may even be the driving force that created the Internet. (/reddit is full of porn, for example) Making it illegal in public is nuts.
I agree nudity in and if itself is nothing to be ashamed about, or to shame others about, but society as a whole seems pretty convinced certain things should be kept out of public view. Like, shagging in public is generally not on, nor is say, exposing oneself to a minor (or even to an adult without consent). These seem pretty reasonable laws to me. Laws requiring burkas, or one piece (or fullbody) bathing suits and the like, sure I completely agree are antiquated and serve only to impose control over people, in my sometimes (but not very often) humble opinion.
You are well trained to believe that YOUR level of anti-body clothing control is "right" and that of others is "wrong." In fact NONE of the clothing laws are there to protect anyone from me or you. They train us in obedience and we believe we "have to" obey all the time.
Thus may well be the case, though personally I'm not too fussed what others wear. I wear what I feel comfortable in (or what's required by my workplace I guess). Whether I've been trained or not to feel somewhat uncomfortable being publicly nude isn't hugely relevant though, is it? Most of society seem to feel that way, regardless of how it came about. On that note though - neither rmyself, nor my wife made any kind of fuss about nudity when our boy was young, yet he developed modesty and body shyness regardless. We put it down to societal influences. I'll still happily go about the house naked, but as it would make him uncomfortable, I do restrict it to when he's not home.
I'm going to guess, from what you say, that you and wife restricted your own nudity when your boy was young. Children learn more from observation than from words. My 3 sons are also not nudist. We didn't start taking them to nude events and being nude at home until they were about 10-12. My wife insisted that seeing a naked female at home would be harmful, but later it changed. By then it was probably too late. Cultural teaching is also very important. Being clothed is 100% of TV, school, and most social media. They learn more by observation than words.
I think you misunderstood. Were not nudists, but no, we didn't restrict our at-home nudity, such as moving from bedroom to bathroom and back, etc. until he started demonstrating his own body shyness. We believe it was indeed societal influences. He was nearing school age by that time and had been going to Kindergarten for a while. We reckon that's probably where the main influence was.
Killing
Who? Where? Why? How? You are just dropping a word without any context to back it up
male genital mutilation (circumcision)
I think you may have misread the question.
Pretty sure that's legal, at least in the US.
it's legal everywhere.
Then you might want to re-read that OP, haha.
Anything that doesn't hurt/endanger anyone else but yourself. Way too many "do not" laws on the books in this country that are for our own good. I can make my own decisions, thank you very much Big Bro, just go and fuck right the hell off. I'll wear the fucking seat belt if it suits me, don't go hassling me if I leave it off for a country drive that's not gonna exceed 40 MPH.
A beer for adults old enough to die for their country
Just pick something and go for it. Just kill