Personal freedom vs. hypocritical laws...

If our goal is to build a free and responsible society—one where individuals have the right to live as they please, provided they don't infringe on anyone else's freedom, while still being held accountable for their actions—shouldn't we design laws that actually encourage people to act that way?

To put it another way: if laws are primarily written to prevent people from behaving poorly or antisocially, aren't those laws inherently hypocritical? After all, they assume that people will inevitably act out unless these restrictions are in place.

What if we drafted legislation that permitted almost any behavior, so long as it didn't harm others? And what if we then imposed truly draconian penalties for those who cross that line?

Example 1) Drive as fast as you want. But if your speed causes an accident that results in someone's death (even unintentionally), you face 20 or 30 years in federal prison without the possibility of parole. If you die in the process, your estate (or the state, if you have no heirs) must compensate the survivors under strict terms—say, half of your lifetime earnings paid out over 20 years...

Example 2) If you cause an accident where no one is injured, you lose your driver's license for life. If you are caught driving again, you serve a year in prison (essentially stripping away what society values most: your liberty)...

(I'm sticking to traffic laws here, as there seem to be so many pointless regulations in that area)

Of course, there are countless other variables to define and problems to solve, but I believe such a legal framework would:

a) Make far more sense regarding how it incentivizes positive behavior.

b) Be significantly shorter and, therefore, much easier to understand.

What are your thoughts?

Perhaps this belongs in the LAW section. If the moderators feel it fits better there, please feel free to move it. I suspect the discussion might take a different turn in that subforum.

Yeah, laws like that would probably help people actually understand why they exist—they might even feel like they're helping build a better society (fingers crossed). And for those who just don't get it—and let's face it, there'd be plenty of them—the strict penalties would keep things in check... hmm... maybe not everyone, since there are always crazy people out there, but we have them now anyway, so why not at least give the idea a shot?

Lately I've been thinking about this—simplified, at least: you have the right to DO nothing, but once you actually step up and participate in social stuff, that's when all these extra regulations kick in. Like, "you don't have to join the military."

Then there's the other kind of "not having to," which is more about conditions—and this part gets messy. You don't have to pay a bill -> which leads to: you aren't allowed to use the service, etc. Does that make sense, or am I just missing something here?

Would you really be indifferent if some lunatic flying down the highway at 125 mph plowed right into you? If so, then those laws are pretty much useless. The reality is, plenty of people would jump at the chance to floor it if they thought they could get away with it.

Look, what you’re talking about is just basic common sense. It’s about practicality. If the cops slap you with three speeding tickets, maybe by the fourth one you’ll actually learn your lesson. And that’s how the police prevent some idiot from slamming into a Greyhound bus because they couldn't keep their foot off the gas...

A free and responsible society versus hypocritical laws...
That’s the title, anyway—you preach all this nonsense about freedom, but the second someone actually makes a mistake, you’re suddenly out there demanding we enforce these draconian, hypocritical laws against them.

It’s a solid idea. I’ve actually spent time thinking about abolishing all laws, getting rid of the state entirely, and creating this perfect world where everyone lives in peace and harmony. But after sitting with the thought for a while, I’ve realized the world just isn't ready for that yet. People are too self-absorbed; they don't care about anyone else. Is the human brain even developed enough? Maybe as we evolve, all this will fade away. Or maybe humanity will just wipe itself out first through sheer stupidity...

gentlecanyon92 said:Wouldn't you care if some maniac speeding at 120 mph plowed right into you and killed you? If so, then those laws aren't doing much good for you...

No, I certainly wouldn't be indifferent. However, I would take comfort in knowing that because of that act, that individual would spend most of their life deprived of what humans value most—their freedom. Besides, society would be safer for those next 20 years.

gentlecanyon92 said:The reality is that plenty of people would jump at the chance to speed...

So let them. If they aren't causing harm with that speed, let them drive as fast as they want. What I mean is, we could set posted limits for how fast one should drive on certain stretches of road, while also applying stricter penalties based on how much you ignored those warnings. If you hit two kids going 70 mph in a 25 mph school zone, I wouldn't even argue against the death penalty—though life without parole seems like an equally solid option.

I wouldn't be opposed to some form of compensation for the family's loss either, as I mentioned before. Laws should aim to make things right and restore some semblance of normalcy, rather than just dictating what people can or cannot do...

illegale said:The point you're making is about practicality. Essentially, if the police hit you with three speeding tickets, maybe you'll actually learn your lesson by the fourth. It’s a way for law enforcement to prevent someone from smashing into a school bus because they just can't manage their speed.

That is precisely the issue. Maybe you'll learn your lesson.

But as we see from various examples—sticking to traffic laws for now, though the data looks similar when it comes to recidivism in general crime—this approach fails miserably with the people it's actually meant to reach. I'm talking about those who simply don't grasp the connection between having freedom and being responsible for it.

How many times have you scrolled through the local news and read about a tragedy caused by someone who had already lost their driver's license five times? Whether it was drunk driving, excessive speeding, or blowing through a red light, the pattern is always there.

It’s true that we don't have specific data on how many drivers start following the rules after one or two citations, but when it comes to the criminal justice system, the statistics are clear: once someone is caught up in the "legal system," they are statistically much more likely to commit another crime. Those patterns remain remarkably consistent across the United States.

ruggedfalcon30 said:A free and responsible society versus hypocritical laws...
That’s your headline. You talk about freedom, yet the moment someone slips up, you’re ready to enforce draconian, hypocritical laws.

Why would a strict—or even "draconian"—law be considered hypocritical?

The truth is, every single law that actually works (without exception) is exactly like that, and I’m talking about the laws of nature here.

Is gravity being hypocritical when it kills you just seconds after you make the mistake of stepping into thin air—say, walking into an open manhole or off a missing balcony?

Rebecca Cox2 said:No, I wouldn't be indifferent. But I’d take comfort in knowing that because of their actions, they'll spend most of their lives without what humans value most—freedom. Besides, society would be safer for those 20 years.

Point being...
but most people wouldn't let someone die just because they're an idiot, which is exactly why our current laws exist... 🙂

Chris Chavez66 said:It’s a solid concept. I’ve actually spent some time daydreaming about scrapping every single law, dissolving the state entirely, and creating this utopian landscape where everyone just lives in perfect peace and harmony.

But that isn't quite what I'm getting at. Peace and harmony aren't necessarily linked to a free and responsible society. Such a world wouldn't be "perfect," but it would be one where the vast majority—I won't say everyone—could live more easily and feel significantly better about their circumstances...

Chris Chavez66 said:On second thought, I've come to realize the world just isn't ready for that. Everyone is too wrapped up in themselves; they couldn't care less about anyone else.

Humans have always been self-absorbed as a species—or rather, as members of a tribe. Historically, people didn't give a damn about other tribes or whether those outsiders were thriving or suffering. Their only priority was the well-being of their own group...

The crux of the matter is that these new types of laws should empower the individual with freedom, while ensuring that violating social contracts carries heavy consequences. I'm not talking about dodging taxes or similar petty crimes—those could still be handled by fines and penalties similar to what we see in the US today. However, if someone guts a major corporation like JPMorgan Chase and leaves countless families without an income just to line their own pockets, shouldn't they be prevented from enjoying the fruits of that destruction? (Assuming, of course, it can be proven). In other words, they should be held personally and financially liable for the damage caused to their neighbors. If they don't have the assets to cover it? Well, then they can say goodbye to their freedom.

Chris Chavez66 said:The human brain just hasn't evolved enough yet. Once we evolve a bit further, all these issues will vanish—unless humanity wipes itself out first due to its own stupidity...

You probably have a point there. However, the human brain evolves specifically to meet the demands of survival within its environment. Wouldn't logical laws that actually serve a person's interests be far more effective at shaping human thought and behavior—including ethics and morality—than the ones we have now? Our current system seems largely rooted in ancient biblical assertions that humans are inherently sinful creatures...

gentlecanyon92 said:Hold on...
most people wouldn't let someone die just because of some idiot's mistake, which is exactly why our current laws exist in the first place... 🙂

The reality is, if you haven't noticed, today's laws aren't actually doing much. And like Arthur Dent pointed out in his post, there will always be fools running around.

I honestly believe we’d see fewer incidents if the laws were clearer, had fewer loopholes, and if the penalties for violating someone's life or liberty were significantly more severe...

For example: imagine a father who stands to lose one of his sons to a lifetime of labor supporting the very family or society he harmed—essentially losing his freedom. Wouldn't he think twice before buying his younger son a fast car? Just imagine how much that would weigh on him (or on you, knowing that even an "accidental" fatality won't land you in a long-term prison sentence)...

Rebecca Cox2 said:Current laws—if you haven't noticed—aren't doing a damn thing. And, as Arthur Dent pointed out in his post, fools will always be fools.

My take? There would be fewer criminals if our laws weren't riddled with loopholes and actually made sense. Plus, the penalties for ruining someone else's life or liberty should be much more severe...

For example: imagine a father who, after losing one son, was sentenced to lifetime labor to support the family he harmed or society at large (with all civil liberties stripped away). He might actually think twice before buying his younger son a fast car. Think about how that would impact that kid—or you, knowing that even if you "accidentally" kill someone, you won't face a long prison sentence...

noticed

Look, I get what you're getting at... but every example we've seen shows there's no such thing as perfection, especially when it comes to legislation. You can't tame everyone or force them to play by the rules through any means necessary...

I agree that our legal system needs harsher penalties across the board...
but I highly doubt a radical overhaul like yours would actually achieve anything significant.

gentlecanyon92 said: you noticed

Look, everything you're saying makes sense, and I think I know where you're going with this... but if past experience has taught us anything, it's that perfection doesn't exist. Especially not in legislation. You're never going to be able to police every single person and force them all to follow the rules to the letter.

But I’m not talking about forcing them. The laws themselves provide the consequence. Is there any individual or any species on Earth capable of breaking the laws of nature without facing a fatal penalty? I don't think so.

For instance, what stops you from jumping off your apartment balcony? Absolutely nothing—except the reality that you’d likely lose your life in the process.

And what would more effectively stop you from driving like a maniac at 120 mph (assuming you're in a rush, not looking for a way out)? A speed limit sign reading 55 or 65? A highway patrol officer catching you on camera? A $500 fine, $333 points on your license, or losing your driver's license entirely?

Or perhaps just the sobering fact that if you drive that recklessly and mess up, you might be cutting your life short significantly.

gentlecanyon92 said:[I agree that penalties should be toughened under our current legal system in general...
but I doubt such a radical overhaul would actually yield much good.

Whether a change is "radical" has very little to do with whether the outcome is positive or negative. Sometimes things work out, and sometimes they don't.

But if we want to avoid that risk, here's a proposal: implement a temporary statute (say, for three years). If we see measurable results, we extend the law for another five years. If things don't improve or actually get worse, the law simply expires, and that's that.

If, after eight years, the law is clearly delivering results, then we codify it as permanent legislation.

See? That solves the problem of people complaining about "radicalism," while still giving us a chance to see what the changes actually achieve. We could apply this exact logic to drug laws (which I'll move to the appropriate thread) or any other regulations, instead of constantly trying to patch up old laws that clearly aren't working...

Rebecca Cox2 said:I’m not talking about forcing them. The laws will do that themselves. Can you name a single individual or species capable of breaking the laws of nature without facing death as a consequence? I can't.

Social statutes aren't natural laws.

Rebecca Cox2 said:What would actually stop you from driving like a maniac at 120 mph (assuming you're in a rush, not being suicidal)? A speed limit sign? State troopers catching you on camera? A $500 fine, $333 and points on your license? Losing your driver's privilege entirely?

Or the simple fact that if you drive that recklessly and screw up—you could lose a massive chunk of your life?

Radical changes aren't inherently good or bad. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't.

But to prevent failure, here is my proposal: implement a temporary law (say, for 3 years). If there are results, extend it for another 5. If things get worse or stay stagnant, the law simply expires. Period.

If after 8 years it shows positive results, then it becomes permanent law.

There. We solve the "radicalism" argument people complain about while still giving us a chance to see what change brings. The same logic could apply to drug policy (which I should move to the RIGHT subforum) or any other regulation, rather than trying to squeeze everything into old, broken frameworks...

Fine, but what specific function would such a system or those laws actually serve? All we've concluded is that penalties need to be harsher... and you can do that with the current legal framework already in place.

On the other hand, it's obvious people ignore recommendations and restrictions regarding driving. Imagine if those were removed... how many people would floor it just to test their car's limits, causing accidents in the process? They don't think anything bad will happen. No one wants to deal with consequences. They aren't thinking about the person killed, they aren't thinking about $667, or $3333, so they certainly won't be thinking about a lifetime ban on driving.

gottcha said:social laws aren't natural laws

Laws are laws. They either work or they don't. Whether we're talking about social, natural, or divine laws (assuming those even exist)...

gottcha said:Fine, but what is the actual purpose of such a system and its laws? All we've established so far is that penalties need to be harsher... and you can achieve that with our current laws...

Wouldn't it make an impact if you didn't constantly feel like everything is being restricted—as if the system is just waiting for you to slip up? You know, that feeling where you have to watch every tiny detail just to stay within the legal lines? I consider myself an honest person, yet I find myself breaking some minor regulation every single day...

gottcha said:On the other hand, it's obvious people don't follow driving recommendations or restrictions. Just imagine if those were abolished... how many people would drive recklessly just to test their cars, causing accidents in the process? They don't even think about the consequences. Who actually wants to face a penalty? They aren't thinking about the person killed, they aren't thinking about $667, or $3333, let alone losing their driver's license for life...

I actually think they would take it seriously.

Beyond that, there are already types of traffic laws like this elsewhere. Take Malta, for example; they barely have any signs or traffic lights, yet they have fewer collisions than many other countries (despite having plenty of cars). Their rule of thumb is basically "older and better drivers go first," and emergency vehicles like buses, delivery trucks, fire engines, and police always have the right of way.

It's similar in Kenya, though their only real rule is: drive however you want, just don't hit anyone or run someone over.

Meanwhile, in places like Brazil or southern Italy, you see a massive amount of signage and traffic lights, but people mostly only respect them during the day. Once night falls, all those signs and lights become... optional.🙂

We also have to consider the other side of the equation—pedestrians. They would have to account for these new laws too, which would make them more cautious when crossing the street. They’d behave much like you do on your own balcony—you don't need a sign telling you not to climb over the railing and jump down...

Superskeptik said:Laws are laws. They either work or they don't. Whether they are social, natural, or divine (assuming such things exist)...

but you can't compare them.🙂 You said there's a penalty for breaking any natural law... I agree. Any violation of natural law carries consequences. In contrast, social laws aren't nearly as effective. But that's a different conversation entirely.🙂

Superskeptik said:It would have an effect if you didn't feel like you're constantly being restricted (and thus expected to slip up), having to watch every little detail just to stay within the law. I consider myself an honest man, yet I break some law every single day...

I think it would.

Besides, those kinds of traffic laws already exist elsewhere. For instance, in Malta, there aren't any signs or traffic lights, yet they have fewer accidents than many other countries (despite having plenty of cars). Their rule is basically "older and better car goes first," and municipal services—buses, delivery trucks, fire engines, police, etc.—have the right of way.

In Kenya, it's similar, though their only rule is this: drive however you want, just don't hit anything or anyone.

Meanwhile, in Brazil or southern Italy, you have a massive amount of signs and signals, but people mostly only obey them during the day. Once night falls, all those lights and signs become optional...🙂

You also have to consider that the other side—pedestrians—would take the new laws into account and cross the street more cautiously. They would behave just like you do on your own balcony—you don't need a sign telling you not to climb over the railing and jump down...

And you think this could actually work anywhere?

I agree that such a system could function... but I disagree that it could work here and now. First, you'd have to change the collective consciousness. People would need to reach a certain moral (extroverted) threshold before something like total freedom could even be considered...

And given how people are now, I suspect total freedom would simply destroy the few honest and decent people left. 🙂

Yeah, true enough... and honestly, I doubt many people would actually start driving responsibly just because of a rule. They wouldn't. It’s only after a wreck that they finally get spooked..(like when a mom tells her kid, "don't touch that, you'll burn yourself"... is the kid going to listen? No. They have to touch it and feel the sting to learn. Then maybe they'll blow on it, but by then, what's the point? It's already done)🙂

And who isn't in a rush these days? Of course everyone wants to zip from New York to LA in record time... and who wouldn't try to make that happen🙂 It's not like standing out on your balcony. You're on the balcony because you've got nothing better to do and you aren't in any hurry to be anywhere else

gottcha said:But you really can't make that comparison, can you?🙂 You mentioned that any violation of a natural law should carry a penalty. I couldn't agree more. Every single transgression deserves its consequences, don't you think? Natural. Is there something inherently flawed about legal statutes? When you weigh them against social norms, the tension is palpable. Not at all. So efficient... but that’s a whole different conversation.🙂

Social laws in our modern civilization just aren't that efficient. In tribal societies, however, social rules work incredibly well. Why is that? It’s because they are rooted in natural laws and the fundamental reality that... They don't actually stop bad behavior. Whether you’re looking at an individual or an entire community, the goal should always be to restore balance and get things back to normal after a violation occurs. Laws ought to be designed around people and the society they build. Instead, our current legal system seems built entirely around the bureaucracy itself—as if the mechanics of the system matter more than the actual human beings it’s supposed to serve. Does anyone else feel like the human element has been completely lost?

gottcha said:Do you really think this could work anywhere?

Exactly. That’s precisely why I started this thread—to get others thinking about it. Is it even worth ignoring?

gottcha said:I agree that a system like that could work in theory, but I don't think it’s feasible for us right now. Before we could even consider something as radical as absolute freedom, wouldn't we first need a fundamental shift in the American psyche? People would have to reach a certain level of moral maturity—a collective social consciousness—before such a concept could even be taken seriously.

What are they even like these days? Honestly, I suspect that granting total freedom to everyone might actually destroy the few decent, grounded people left in the mix. 🙂

Absolute freedom is a myth, which is exactly why it wouldn't destroy society. Honest people would remain honest—mostly honest, at least—and criminals would still be criminals. The only difference is there would be far fewer of them. Why? Because... Does consciousness shift based on our circumstances? It’s a question worth asking.In other words, as long as our living conditions remain tethered to these specific laws, the collective consciousness will stay exactly where it is. If the environment shifts, the mindset of the majority will follow suit. I say "the majority" because the minority—the intellectuals, the artists, those driven by a certain spirit—don't really need such massive systemic shifts. Those individuals have the capacity to reshape consciousness even when circumstances barely move at all.

gottcha said:Yeah... one more thing... I don't think we could actually control people enough to make them drive normally. No one would listen... not until an accident happens. It’s like when a mother tells her child, "Don't touch that, you'll burn yourself." Will the kid listen? Of course not. They have to touch it, feel the heat, and learn the hard way. Only then might they be cautious about hot things, but by then, what's the point?🙂 )

That's a different topic, but briefly...

A child has a natural instinct for self-preservation; they won't just go out of their way to get burned. When a mother says, "You MUSTN'T touch that because it will burn you," the child interprets it as if she EXPECTS them to get burned, so they subconsciously try to meet that expectation. It's the same logic with a child running away from their mother—they think, "If Mom is chasing me, she clearly expects me to run." ALL OTHER OFFSPRING don't run away from their parents; they stay close. They do this because biological law dictates that moving away decreases their chances of survival (because something might eat them). Human infants are the same since we are mammals like most others, and only our babies in modern American society behave differently...

gottcha said:Who isn't in a rush these days? Naturally, everyone wants to get from one coast of America to the other in the shortest time possible... and who wouldn't strive for that?🙂 It's not the same as standing on a balcony. You're on the balcony because you have nothing better to do and there's nowhere you need to be.

Why do you assume that wouldn't change if our circumstances changed? Why do you think people wouldn't realize it's much nicer to just stand on a balcony than to be constantly chasing after something? (Since that chase is usually why we're in such a hurry, right?)