In my life I have seen many arguements reguarding law and order in a “civilized world” and in all these debates there is always a sence that either noone wins, or the arguement is one-sided… I feel that the results are guided to a no-win end.
For instance; when debating gay marraige, everyone seems to prefer one of three groups:
Group one: Gays are bad people who have no rights and are nothing more than animals deserrving of no better treatment.
Group two: Gays are people too, only they are diferant and thus deserve more rights than the average citizen.
Group three: Who gives a rats flying fart?!?
Nearly every debate I have ever listened to ends up similarly devided, one group is heavily biased and bigoted, one group is overly zealous and bigoted, and one group just couldn’t care less.
Personally as far as homosexuals are conserned… I personally am a homophobe… I have met several proclaimed gay people in my life and frankly from the word go, I had a dislike for them. not that they are bad people, I just felt uncomfortable arround them and had this overwhelming urge to smear them in napalm and light a match. However; I think that even they would be supprised at my personal beliefs on the matter.
I feel that the world should be subject to three laws and ONLY three laws. These laws are divided into two parts for each law. the first part is the negative and the second is the positive. I think you will see what I mean in a moment.
The First Law: No human may perform an action nor inaction that may take away the freedoms of other humans. Likewise, every human is free to act in any manner they see fit, so long as they accept the responsibility for their own fortunes.
Example of Law One: If a man wishes to sleep with another man. both men are lawfully protected to do so, so long as both are inclined to do so. Likewise they may perform or participate in a ceremony that binds them together in partnership allowing them to share benefits such as shared Insurance, community properties, and shared financial accounts. Please note that other than the “sexual” component said “partnership” could be shared by anyone wishing to share or pool their resources. this could include roommates and siblings without the controversy.
The Second Law: Every human over the age of wisdom (18~23) is responsible for their own welfare and estate and shal take no dependent on another human, unless deemed by a fit majority to be unable to maintain themselves by reason of mental or physical defect. No man is required to contribute more than their fare share of their time to mankind, nor is any man to be forced to participate in any part of humanity beyond their obligatory share.
Examples for Law Two: An able bodied man or woman is required to have gainful employment to maintain their own welfare. If a person wishes to “live off the state” unless the majority of people that would have to shoulder their bill agree that they are fit to work in some manner. this law would all but eliminate “welfare” as almost everyone is capable is working in some manner. Just about the only people I can think of that are not capable of working in some manner are quadriplegic deaf-mutes, coma, and the aged with senility.
The Third Law: Every human over the age of wisdom (18~23) is required to contribute their opinion on any legal matter that directly affects them as individuals. Likewise any likeminded opinion that is shared by the majority must be respected, taken as law, and enforced by those in the policing field.
Example of Law Three: The only example I can come up with here sould be for political figures… which could, in theory, be removed with the proper implementation of law three.
Of course all three laws would generate a “perfect world” or “utopia” if fully implemented including the disolution of all forms of currency.
I know someone will pick at this post, Go ahead! I have retorts to your disagreements.