Perhaps you're just too stupid?

[James_S_Saint]

Do the most ideal governing laws depend upon the average intellect and education of the populous?

• Yes
• No
• Too stupid of a question to answer

Seriously…

If you were designing a government for a society to be made of only serious genius intellects, wouldn’t you expect the rules, the “laws of the land”, to be different than those for a society of quasi-chimpanzees? Intelligent people would see many rules as not only crude, but also unnecessary and abusive (forbidding sometimes truly needed actions). Unintelligent people might see such rules as arbitrary, oppressive, or perhaps even holy.

Or alternatively, if you are designing (or “choosing”) a government for a society of people who seriously believe in a specific religion, wouldn’t you expect the laws to be different than for a different populous with a different religion? Religions affect the normal/average behavior, a self-regulating ethos limiting certain kinds of behavior to the point that laws for or against some behaviors would be unnecessary and abusive (for those limited times when such a behavior might actually be very needed).

A totally democratic governance over a society of extremely uneducated and/or extremely unintelligent people would manifest what? A completely dictatorial/socialist governance over highly intelligent and self-governing people would result in what? The average talents and average beliefs of a populous must be considered when choosing appropriate laws of governance.

When considering the laws of your home country, isn’t it reasonable to consider the average mental state of those living in that country? What about your home town or city? Are the people there the same average behavior of the people in every other city in your country?

What do you really think would happen if you suddenly altered the laws of Iran to those of the USA? … or vsvrsa?

People really are different (despite propaganda). Different rules must be applied to different groups of peoples. The alternative of making all people alike so as to have only one set of rules for all people (aka “Globalism”) is death, not only to the diversity that life is, but suicide to that very same governance.

If you reduce (or heaven forbid increase) the average intelligence or education of the populous, wouldn’t you expect the laws of the land to need to alter along with those changes? Make more people stupid and more “stupid laws” are required. Make more intelligent people and more intelligent laws are required.

There is a limit to the “size” of that which is to be governed. And there is a different limit to the “type” of that which is to be governed. The universe itself determines those limits and bends to no ones objections, excuses, beliefs, or desires. So why do people argue over which idol governance is the holy/“best” one?

One might want to note the number and type of new-age laws. What does that tell you of your population type?

[Ultimate_Philosophy (Ultimate Philosophy 1001)]

Basic laws are do not steal do not kill.

Sexual ownership laws…such as the State overriding sexual ownership and deciding what is or isn’t “evil” is a way to regulate the manimal. For instance, if a 20 year old loves a 17 year old, and they both consent, the State inserts its own ethics code deeming it “evil”, and the rest of the manimals eat up the shit trail the State left behind.

The State, upon its own choosing, may suddenly decide that Tacos are evil, because it makes people too happy, causing a chemical imbalance resulting in depression due to absence of Tacos…Tacos the prime evil…you better bet the other manimals will be preaching to their kids, the simple fact that Tacos are evil.

[Ultimate_Philosophy (Ultimate Philosophy 1001)]

Separation of State and Corps.

The nanny state, will bribe you withe free stuff until you break its laws. A mother, abandoning her child, who is simply too unruly and beyond help.

The corps however, are a purely manimal entity. There is no actual “law” saying you cannot hire felons and convicts. The corporate industry, sees to it that such beings are excluded from society and survival. Your fellow manimals, oppresses you even more than the State.

So, your lack of freedoms are not solely the fault of the state, but your fellow manimals, and cowards.

[surreptitious57]

Laws vary from nation to nation but none are actually set in stone as they can be subject to revision over time. However that aside every one by virtue
of being a human being has human rights the moment they are born. Human rights themselves are not laws per se but no law in principle or in practice
should violate the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights as established in 1948 by the United Nations. Unfortunately however many nations do violate
it as external agencies do not have any automatic right to interfere in the internal politics of sovereign states. But when they do it may be because the
violations are being committed with such frequency that intervention is regarded as the only available option like in Congo or in Yugoslavia for example

[James_S_Saint]

There are about 20,000 laws just governing the use and ownership of guns. New laws mean new crimes. From the start of 2000 through 2007, Congress had created at least 452 new crimes, so that at that time the total number of Federal crimes exceeded 4,450.

While a century or two ago nearly all crime was traditional common-law crime — rape, murder, theft and other things that pretty much everyone should know are bad — nowadays we face all sorts of “regulatory crimes” in which intuitions of right and wrong play no role, but for which the penalties are high.

If you walk down the sidewalk, pick up a pretty feather, and take it home, you could be a felon — if it happens to be a bald eagle feather. Bald eagles are plentiful now, and were taken off the endangered species list years ago, but the federal law making possession of them a crime for most people is still on the books, and federal agents are even infiltrating some Native-American powwows in order to find and arrest people. (And feathers from lesser-known birds, like the red-tailed hawk are also covered). Other examples abound, from getting lost in a storm and snowmobiling on the wrong bit of federal land, to diverting storm sewer water around a building.

“Regulatory crimes” of this sort are incredibly numerous and a category that is growing quickly. They are the ones likely to trap unwary individuals into being felons without knowing it. That is why Michael Cottone, in a just-published Tennessee Law Review article, suggests that maybe the old presumption that individuals know the law is outdated, unfair and maybe even unconstitutional. “Tellingly,” he writes, “no exact count of the number of federal statutes that impose criminal sanctions has ever been given, but estimates from the last 15 years range from 3,600 to approximately 4,500.” Meanwhile, according to recent congressional testimony, the number of federal regulations (enacted by administrative agencies under loose authority from Congress) carrying criminal penalties may be as many as 300,000.

And it gets worse. While the old-fashioned common law crimes typically required a culpable mental state — you had to realize you were doing something wrong — the regulatory crimes generally don’t require any knowledge that you’re breaking the law. This seems quite unfair. As Cottone asks, “How can people be expected to know all the laws governing their conduct when no one even knows exactly how many criminal laws exist?”

These are merely estimates for the federal level (State and Local generally greatly exceed). Why do I think that the majority of these are NOT about basic “Human Rights”?

[Innovice]

I think it would be nice to have an option “I am too stupid to answer this question”

lol