A propos of my earlier post on what recent legislation we should try to repeal in order to reclaim our lost civil liberties, I was struck by the thought that it might be easier to simply repeal every piece of legislation introduced since 1997.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the dayFebruary 19th, 2009 |
 22 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Or you could modify the laws so that killing politicians is only one tenth as bad as killing a decent human being?
There are a few you’d want to get rid of before that, but he’s right. The Blair revolution was such a huge change in the power of the state and of officialdom, that continuity with what went before is now hard to detect.
Plus, of course, the European Communities Act 1972.
Let’s undo the traitor Heath’s evil as well.
Pretty much all legislation since 1906, I’d say, except women’s suffrage and the decriminalisation of homosexuality.
“Pretty much all legislation since 1906, I’d say, except women’s suffrage and the decriminalisation of homosexuality.”
Yep.
I was thinking the same thing in regards to America. We would need to repeal the 17th Amendment and everything since to put thing right in America.
As a post on the previous views of this topic indicated, it would be quite in order to set a “Sunset” provison with a specific date for all legislation enacted in each 3 year period since 1925 (for example) Thus, there would be ongoing review of all legislation.
Further, the legislation within certain “sectors” (Taxation, judiciary, NIH, etc.) should also be Sunset, but with specifica attention as to remaining life expectancy.
Every piece of legislation since 1997? No, not at all. If we go back to 1997, I go back to being a second class citizen, with no civil unions, no equal rights in employment, illiberal police attitudes protected by law and the vicious and corrupt Clause 28 to promote and encourage the bullying and isolation of gay children.
No, if you’re going to junk a load of legislation, repeal everything that exists, and start again.
Phelps, I’m with you on the 17th Amendment, but can we please repeal the 16th, too?
Phelps and Laird, please explain? What are the 16th and 17th Amendments? I know you’ll think us highly provincial, but non-Americans can’t remember every single Amendment off by heart! Silly of us, I know, but do you think you could enlighten us?
The 16th Amendment introduced the income tax. The 17th caused senators to be elected by popular vote. Previously they had been appointed by each state’s legislature.
Don’t feel bad, Nuke. I doubt that most Americans know what any of the Amendments are, either.
16th Amendment: Allowed the Federals to collect income tax. Prior to that, Federal income taxes were unconstitutional. And I don’t know if there were any direct Federal taxes on individuals prior to then.
17th Amendment: provided for direct election of Senators. Prior to then, they were chosen by the state legislatures.
Laird,
Some of us know them but sadly, you are correct.
The are a GREAT MANY things about the government, economy. critical, logical thinking ( thank you – public education ) and on and on that are total mysteries to most here.
A long as they have their American Idol and flat screen TV’s they think are is well !!!!
Corsair has it about right – but he has picked too recent a date.
I would go for 1875 – with the exceptions of the rights of women, and not sending people to prison for homosexual acts (both of which are pointed out by Corsair).
Indeed there is a lot of legislation from the 1830’s I would like to get rid of as well. The Births Marriages and Deaths (Registration) Act, for example.
I am not in favour of the 1801 (and after) Census stuff either.
As Financial Secretary Cowperthwaite (back in the golden days of Hong Kong) used to say.
“Population figures – what would we want them for?”
That is the point – governments want information for two reasons:
Partly to build up administrative machine – and partly to put this machine into effect to introduce “policies” and “planning”.
By the way – on the 16th Amendment.
Look at the exact texts that were ratified by the various State legislatures.
I have often heard that the text varried – that it was not the same words before each State Legislature.
This is something that would take some real historical research.
It would also depend on States keeping records.
One of the frustrating things about American history is, at least at Federal level, how many vital documents vanish – and recent documents at that.
Lots of stuff from the mid 20th century is simply missing.
Nuke Gray! – there is no way to top your comment, so I won’t try.
Frankly we should repeal the legal code of Hammurabi.
Aegir. In what way did section 28 actively effect anyone? It was a completely pointless piece of legislation. Utterly silly, unworkable and nasty but it’s silliness and unworkability meant it didn’t actually affect anyone.
I’m a legal and political dunce. Is there any precedent for a mass repeal of laws? Is it doable in the strict legal sense and if so is it politically possible? At the very least it sets an odd precedent. Because it would appear to me that if it’s possible to repeal laws en masse it is also possible to re-instate them en masse.
1897. Almost without exception.
All “Section 28” did was try and stop local councils spending money on gay stuff.
And as someone who does not really believe in spending taxpayers money on much of anything…….
By the way – I agree about the code of Hammuribi, it was rotten code in many ways.
Even for those who like codes of law.
Amusing that the (I believe) that the only text we have left of it was written on a pillar – one stolen by the Elamites.
Of course there are some codes that have have their good sides.
The French Code of 1804 is often attacked by British people, but both its civil and criminal sides have their good points.
The German Civil Code of 1900 is a very impressive piece of scholarship – and works well in many ways (copied in many countries – even the Swiss Code owns a lot to it).
Oddly enough Chile produced very impressive codes of law in the 19th century – that worked well and were copied in other countries.
However, I forget the name of the main writer – although (if I remember correctly) he was not from Chile.
Of course there are some codes that have have their good sides.
The French Code of 1804 is often attacked by British people, but both its civil and criminal sides have their good points.
The German Civil Code of 1900 is a very impressive piece of scholarship – and works well in many ways (copied in many countries – even the Swiss Code owns a lot to it).
Oddly enough Chile produced very impressive codes of law in the 19th century – that worked well and were copied in other countries.
However, I forget the name of the main writer – although (if I remember correctly) he was not from Chile.