Ban THIS!

Published on May 6, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Current Events

Here's an exercise for you, joeusers.

Make a list of everything you would like to see banned. Don't worry about flames from others, seriously. Let's take a look at the things that you would like to see banned.

Now lets look at the list again, and try to see how many of the items on your list might possibly infringe on someone else's rights that are intended to be guaranteed by the Constitution.

Don't get me wrong; laws are essential to an orderly society. But laws should be confined to the bare minimum needed to maintain an orderly society. Honest citizens should not have to fear the legalities of things like building a shed on their property (Oshkosh, Wisconsin allows a maximum of two outbuildings per property), raising chickens (many cities have ordinances against them), the number of rummage sales you can have in a year (Enid, Oklahoma allows 2 per year and a city permit is required), and any number of other laws that are equally ridiculous.

We claim to be a land of the free; how free are we if we have to constantly check city and county codes and state laws before we act to raise our family and provide for our needs?

Think about it. Let's stop talking about banning everything and START talking about how to live as a community without enforcing our values on others.

Comments

stutefish

on May 06, 2005

Acts of pedophilia.

Illegal immigration.

Unlicensed drivers.

Public nudity.

A short list of the most commonly-acknowledged "rude words" in broadcast media and public displays.

Most, if not all, instances of public sexual intimacy.

State sponsors of terrorism.

People who make it necessary for establishments to hire some guy to stand in the restroom and supervise you to make sure you don't trash the place.

MasonM

on May 06, 2005

The only two things I think should be banned are negative acts against others (violence, theft, etc)
and people who want to ban everything they don't like.

stutefish

on May 06, 2005

MasonM, are you saying that you don't like negative acts against others? And that you want to ban them?

Banination for you!

sushiK

on May 06, 2005

Pitbulls

shadesofgrey

on May 06, 2005

Honest citizens should not have to fear the legalities of things like building a shed on their property (Oshkosh, Wisconsin allows a maximum of two outbuildings per property), raising chickens (many cities have ordinances against them), the number of rummage sales you can have in a year (Enid, Oklahoma allows 2 per year and a city permit is required), and any number of other laws that are equally ridiculous.

When do our rights interfer with the rights of others? I mean, should my neighbors have to put up with the thirty-five sheds that I have on my front lawn, or what about the noise and stink from the 13 chickens that I have in my backyard--or the people that traipse through my yard every saturday, rain or shine, to browse through my unwanted items.

Yes, rules suck--but the problem is that some people just don't take it upon themselves to be considerate of their neighbors and fellow human beings--so sometimes ridiculous laws get made to "protect" the rest of us.

Gideon MacLeish

on May 06, 2005

or what about the noise and stink from the 13 chickens that I have in my backyard

Noise problems require a NOISE ordinance, NOT an anti chicken ordinance; odor problems require NUISANCE ordinances, NOT an anti-chicken ordinance.

The problem with outright BANS is that they extend to regions within a community where it wouldn't be a problem to own chickens for instance. The shed issue should be approached similarly; I have friends who were forced to remove their children's playset because the city decreed it a "shed" and since they already had two, they couldn't have another.

Chickens, similarly, CAN be raised without odor; significant odor, is, in fact, an indicator they aren't being raised properly.

You may feel that you have a right to legislate your way into a utopian society, but I don't. The fact is, what you are doing is trying to impede the rights of others. Do you feel it fair and reasonable to tell a poor family that's raising a couple chickens for the eggs and meat that they have to get rid of the chickens and subsist on government aid? I don't. I feel that we should have the RIGHT to try to make a living for our family, and we should have certain rights as regards "our" property.

In densely populated areas, I will concede the need for SOME regulation to maintain some degree of order. But the problem is, these laws tend to spread out in areas where their application is wholly inappropriate. If I chose, for instance, to live in the middle of Chicago, it would be best to forego the chickens if I didn't have space to house them cleanly and with minimal noise problems. But what applies to the middle of Chicago does not even necessarily apply to its suburbs.

Frankly, I don't feel I should have to "put up with" nosy neighbors that insist on calling the law every time something I do offends them. But, I'm not about to introduce legislation to ban YOU.

Moderateman

on May 06, 2005

ban hatred.
ban idiots from seeking public office
ban greedy people
and last but not least
Ban. ban { I use degree}

Reiki-House

on May 06, 2005

Every suggestion by Stutefish are actually invalid. Not one is something that can be banned. Pedopheliacs and their behavior are already banned a.k.a. illegal under civil laws. Unlicensed drivers are already banned. But it's an hands-off type of ban which entirely depends on the individual to adhere to that ban. There are no social controls which prevents anyone with keys from starting a vehicle, banned or not. Illegal immigration can't be banned unless the hundreds of thousands of mexicans crossing the border will adhere to the rule of law like nice civil individuals and follow the ban. As for the thread, I'd have to say it's sad anyone even has to mention the word ban for anything. Responsible people should be mature enough to detest something while acknowledging it's a matter of free choice. And if it bothers you enough, you're free to try do something about it. To eradicate it. To ban it through reasonable measures. Taking legal access away does nothing but create another avenue for seemingly honest citizens to make some extra bucks or save some extra bucks. We all want to see something people want banned. It breeds support for what you want banned. Because 'banned' involves an authoritarian force over your own personal will and people will be swayed towards it as a way to make themselves think they can do whatever the f**k they want.

ParaTed2k

on May 06, 2005

Hmmm, tough one.

For me to be able to list what I think should be banned, I would have to qualify it with the level of government I think should ban it. While I am for local ordinances based on community standards, I am against states and the fed dictating standards from "on high".

For instance, I would have public nudity banned. However, I would want the definition of "public nudity" left to the local community. I agree with state laws banning acts of pedophilia, but I'd want the State to be able to define ages of consent, and define what "acts of pedophilia" means to their state.

Above all, all laws needs to be specific enough to be enforceable, but they also shouldn't be so rigid that they cause a "one size fits all" situation. Laws are nothing more than a list of unacceptable behavior and the consequences for that behavior. Their only purpose is minimize the ability of one person to infringe on the rights of others. Any law maker who is considering the validity of a bill should first consider what rights might be infringed by the law itself, if it were to pass. Laws should defend and uphold rights, not take them away.

Sorry my answer wasn't a list like you wanted, but I'd rather look at guidelines for laws than banning entire behaviors outright.

______________________________________________________-

I also can't believe I'm agree with Reiki here!! Bans don't prevent actions, they merely attach a consequence to actions.

shadesofgrey

on May 06, 2005

Gideon, I'm going to assume that you are using the "general" you in that post. I asked questions to suggest that sometimes my rights interfer with others rights.

I did not suggest a ban--in fact, I mentioned that sometimes "ridiculous legislation" occurs.

But I'll remember to keep my questions to myself in the future.

Gideon MacLeish

on May 07, 2005

I'm sorry, shades. My response WAS a tad caustic in light of your question. I apologize for that and thank you for bringing it to my attention.

I have been quite put out by the push by some individuals to want to ban everything they see as offensive and it has made me at times unnecessarily defensive. Your questions were honest, legitimate questions.

Once again, my apologies

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!