“illegal” is overrated, anyway. Trump did a ton of illegal stuff and yet, here we are.
Unlimited campaign finance
Guns
They shouldn’t be illegal, but heavily regulated.
I mean, hunting and harvesting meat is far more ethical to the normal meat industry.
Yes. Every hunter is ethical and will absolutely nail every shot to make sure the animal doesn’t suffer and die a slow death. A hunter missing the killshot and instead wounding the animal? Never happens.
/s
Of course it happens, but for the absolute majority of it’s life, even a wounded animal has lived a life in freedom and nature, a proper hunter would absolutely track and deal with a wounded animal to reduce suffering and preserve the meat.
Most people in countries where guns are regulated would not get access to a gun for hunting, mind you. Unless your job is to be a forester, which over here includes selectively shooting animations to balance populations if something goes out of balance.
“I want to get my own deer meat from the forest” is not a valid reason to get a gun. Or even a bow!
I like the theory of gun laws in Sweden.
You can only get a gun if you are actively in need of one, there are only two legal way to be in need of one, hunting and competition.
You need to get a hunting license from a school, join a hunting society and be an active member to get a permit for gun, or you need to actively compete in a shooting club to get a competition permit. You also need to demonstrate competence and skill before you get a permit regardless of if you are a hunter or a competitor.
Getting a gun for personal safety is not permitted, and to be frank, it isn’t really needed here, we have few dangerous animals, and despite the rise of gang violence, Sweden is still a safe country.
Already illegal (without proper licence) in most first world countries. Or at least not as unregulated as as in Murica
AI. And PoW-based cryptocurrency.
Lobbying.
Lobbying is fine. Lobbying with money should be illegal.
I get what you mean, but that would backfire increadibly quickly.
Civil rights organizations would no longer be able to talk with politicians directly, possibly never, as demonstrations and manifestations could be classified as lobbying depending on how strict it would be enforced.
Environmental groups could no longer invite politicians to important conferences.
Lobbying isn’t just something that monolithic companies do, take it away, and it will only be something the bad guys does.
Please what’s the power of NGOs compared to corporations?
Just make an exception for charities and non-profit.
Yup, a late friend of mine was a lobbyist at the state level for a mental health lobbying group. His daughter has schizophrenia and that was his way to give back in his retirement. Without lobbying, it’s hard for politicians to know when there is a problem they need to fix. They have a small staff and they don’t just magically know when there is a problem. The problem is when a politician either can’t sniff out unethical lobbyists or just doesn’t care.
I’d accept such an outcome.
You’d accept possibly loosing the right to demonstrate or to hold a manifestation or protest.
That is not the world I want to live in.
Wut? It is supremely American to think you can only talk to politicians if you have money… and only because so many other people are willing to purchase a slice of their time.
I can just walk to Peter Julian’s office and, assuming I’m not rude, talk to him about something that matters to me. I’ve had conversations with Peter Welch and Bernie Sanders - I used to board game with a state senator. It it might be hard to get a lunch date with Joe Biden but politicians spend the majority of their time just talking to folks… it’s only when the rich can use their money to monopolize time that shit breaks down.
Those meetings you have had with politicians could absolutely be classified as lobbying, and would be made illegal if lobbying was outlawed.
A company have the resources to make a smokescreen around meetings like that, making it harder to prove lobbyism, the lobbyist just happened to stay at the same hotel as the politician did, they even arrived a week before, and left two days after the politician arrived, it’s not like a meeting was set up on the one overlapping day, that would be crazy…
Those meetings you have had with politicians could absolutely be classified as lobbying, and would be made illegal if lobbying was outlawed.
It’s not just classified as lobbying, it’s litterally what Lobbying is about. Meeting politician to tell them that the environmental law reforms means that the factory will close or that the consumer need better protection regarding toxic chemical in their food is what Lobbyist do. It’s sometimes get even funnier when they change employer and therefore political side
Keep in mind that the person you reply to isn’t wrong: Big corpos would still be lobbying, as they got the resources to hide it effectively and keep everyone trying to sue them over suspicions of lobbying stuck in litigation hell.
Anybody less affluent would however find it impossible to do any lobby work. Environmental agencies etc.
This is one of those situations where just outlawing something does the least affect the very party you would want to hit most.
Then break them down
ITT: people so used to lobbying that they got convinced it’s a necessary evil so that minorities and common folks can lobby as well.
It’s clearly absurd. Many places call lobbying with its real name: corruption. And there are laws in place to fight it. Are they perfect? No. Is it then more effective to legalyze corruption? OF COURSE NOT ARE YOU INSANE?!?
Lobbying isn’t the same as corruption.
Lobbying is informing politicians about an issue while pushing your agenda.
Corruption is giving a politician an incentive to vote as you want.
In what universe a politician does not have, nevermind intrinsecally in its raise to popularity, but explicitly active tools and relationships that keeps him up to date with the issues and needs of his community?
I guess in a monarchy.
Very few politicians have the time get down and understand the issues enough to make an informed decision, which they have aids and use lobbyists to learn about the subject.
A decision about deciding about subsidiaries for specific crops for instance, lets say that a farmer used to farm wheat, but then realized that he could get more money by farming tobacco, ok, so he switches to tobacco, but the nation still needs a stable supply of wheat, so wheat needs to be subsidized by the government to make it worth it for farmer to farm wheat, most politicians won’t know if there is a need for this or how large it needs to be.
This is where lobbyists come in, they inform politicians about what they believe is needed, show reports and other data, to influence the politician about how to vote and what to argue for. Wheat farmers and baker advocacy groups will argue for high subsidies, tobacco farmers and cigarette companies will argue against it.
Is that a government for ants?!?
No dude there’s experts, specialists, entire departments within any (?) human government that knows shit, talks with experts, calculate and runs stuff.
They don’t just wait for farmers to walk up and explain what vegetables are.
And why would you think it’s normal that cigarette companies are at this whymsical table? Why put cancer inducing products in a debate with food with baby politicians that knows nothing and wait for the “debate” to play out?
Is that a government for ants?!?
No this is normal.
No dude there’s experts, specialists, entire departments within any (?) human government that knows shit, talks with experts, calculate and runs stuff.
Yes there are departments for healthcare, having reports full of stats, that no politician will ever read, lobbying can bring attention to demetia and bring some context to the data.
They don’t just wait for farmers to walk up and explain what vegetables are.
Correct, but they want farmers to come up and talk to them about problems that they see that might be missed, for example, how young people can be encouraged to go into farming, or if there is something killing the crops that they can see faster than the governments experts can write a report about.
And why would you think it’s normal that cigarette companies are at this whymsical table?
Because they are a huge industry.
Why put cancer inducing products in a debate with food with baby politicians that knows nothing and wait for the “debate” to play out
Because farmers need money, and if tobacco pays more than wheat, then the farmer will farm tobacco.
You are blind to so many options…
They ignore the reports? So why would they not ignore the “people”? Because money? Then it’s just corruption and the policy won’t reflect any genuine need.
Why being a “huge industry” has any political weight? Drugs cartel move tons of money, do they get a say in the matter too?
non-consensual advertising (consensual being things like steam discovery queue, where I actively want to be advertised to), “lobbying” (bribing), fossil fuels and friends, gerrymandering (US), the electoral college (US), publically trading your company
Hanging the toilet paper the wrong way.
Why does people care how they hang their toilet paper in their own bathroom?
Lobbying.
It defintly is a slippery slope. I work for a municipalitylies utilities company. Part of my job is working with a utilities companies union to lobby politicians to make laws that will actually improve the way we can work. I think we actually do improve things for the German public by bringing desperately needed knowledge to the table.
But I think we are a small minority among lobbying institutions.
Buy-here-pay-here car dealers
Pawn shops
Payroll advance loans
Title loans
Private prisons
Bankruptcy-proof loans
Bankruptcy for corporations
Just spitballing here, feel free to add any I missed…
i’m sorry, but what is that first one, and what’s the alternative?
selling boneless chicken wings with bones.
The animals we create are morally equivalent to our own children and are owed the exact same unconditional love and protection.
Nope, good try tho.
If you want to argue for the ethical treatment of animals or that they deserve care and respect, that’s one thing, and I can respect it. But equating that to what humans, especially children, deserve is ridiculous. If it came down to saving the life of a child or an animal, it would be immoral to not choose the human child.
If you create intelligent life, it doesn’t matter who it is or how it came to exist. Your moral responsibilities to that specific creature are identical. I’m sure you can find edge cases where you have to make a decision between a human and a non-human animal, but even if those edge cases all go to the human, it does not excuse all the other cases where there is no human that has to suffer for you to live up to your responsibilities.
Humans have not created intelligent life, so your whole point is moot. Maybe it’ll become more relevant in the future, but at this current point in history, the only intelligent life that we “created”, has been our own children.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_husbandry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_breeding
We totally do. You think cows or chihuahuas exists in the wild?
I have been assured there are cows in the wild who live 20 years on average. it’s not true but people(vegans) definitely think that
My best friend is vegan and he have a master in biology.
Making more than 10x the money of your least paid employee.
This.
I get where you’re coming from, but I think you’d just see companies divide into tiers where one tier would subcontract to the tier below. Think “cleaning services companies” all the way down.
Well I don’t expect the exact phrasing of the code of law to be 11 words.
Simple : let’s make that illegal too
Requiring the purchase or use of proprietary software or formats to view or submit public records.
Or medical. Or educational.
Honestly? Alcohol. I used to work security at a rehab, and it was always the worst addiction. The withdrawls are horrible, up to and including death. Yes, even worse than heroin.
Go pick up a history book.
Why? Simply because this was actually tried in America? All I’m doing is answering the question. Just because this country failed at making it illegal does not mean it still shouldn’t be illegal.
People are allowed to make their own decisions, even if they’re bad decisions. And it shouldn’t be illegal because it has been proven that making it illegal only makes everything worse.
Read up on US prohibition and how it funded the Mafia. It just changes the form of the societal disease.
The answer to addiction is having support and care on place for those that fall to it so society helps pick them up again. You can’t stop the abuse of substances unless you fix why people are crawling into a hole to avoid the world. Lack of mental health is a disease of society as well as the individual.
Its so mad that we have such a literal example of exactly what happens, due to prohibition, yet society refuses to see like for like. The mafia simply used the exact same routes to smuggle heroin. They didn’t disappear or die out, due to alcohol prohibition ending. They got into bed with the CIA, under operation gladio. What they did with crack wasn’t the first or the biggest example.
Like you said, you can’t people abusing substances. They remain illegal because somewhere some very powerful people are making too much money from them remaining so.
I am in my late 30s. Drank in college with friends at parties. I dont anymore just not into it. I like things that make me faster, smarter, or stronger. I dont understand why all TV shows and movies seem to be centered around drinking when its a social scene. (I live in north america). Nothing good comes from drinking alcohol. They make it seem like if you’re relaxing or want to have fun you need alcohol. I just need a good brisket for both those.
We tried that in the US. It went very poorly.
In fact in the US it can’t be illegal federally without a constitutional amendment.
Because they saw just how badly prohibition went, shame it took them a century to catch up with weed.
Weed was made illegal in the 70s, no?
Nope, it was just returned to public spotlight in the 70s as a tool to fight the counterculture
Social- and greenwashing proposals.
“By buying [unnecessary product] you will help [marginalized group] to gain a livable income and also send their kids to school instead of sending them to [work place with - even for adults - horrible work conditions]. Also, when buying [product] we will save [arbirtary area] of [rainforest/ coral reef/ mangrove swamp] that would otherwise have been destroyed [but not by us]. Additional to that, your purchase helped us to save [arbitrary ammount of CO2 - at least in a completely hypothetical scenario]. While using [product] you will make the world a better place.”
As a customer there is barely any way you can ensure or check that these things are true. It cannot be possible to save the enviroment while buying stupid products like, for example, internet-of-shit-devices which will be phased out in no time or single use products made from plastic or other harmful materials that are not recycleable.
All these claims are just an indulgance trade - like it is done for centuries in a religious context. It is just that you have an excuse to consume more, because they to something to help people/ enviroment. If there was a product that would have been advertised as: “Well, we irretrieveably destroyed 100 km2 of nature, and for each single product in average two workers died and at end-of-life this product will fuck up the environment once more - also it will impair your health just by existing”, it would be horrible - but at least it would be honest.
- Lying if you’re a politician. You should be in a state similar to “under oath” in court, but at all times.
- Advertising. I should have the legal right to not be advertised at. I should have the right to not have to accept advertising in order to access services, especially so if I already pay a subscription to that service. I cannot put into words how much I loath and despise advertising and advertisers. I hate them. Hate, in the real sense of the word.
- Loot boxes in video games, whatever age group the game in question is aimed at, but especially so in kids’ games.
- Microtransactions in video games for anything other than non-essential/non-advantageous items, like cosmetics. Even then, their presence should upgrade the PEGI rating to adult/18, regardless of the actual content of the game. This might help prevent their inclusion at all.
- Whatever the fuck is going on in Gaza right now.
- Shielding police or soldiers from prosecution for crimes they’ve committed. If you stand in the way of the due process any other citizen would face, you should be heavily penalised for that. Like, the murderer soldiers who carried out Bloody Sunday are currently being protected by the British state and its lackeys, and I cannot fathom why. Cops in the US who murder people are frequently protected by unions and get to retire rather than be fired etc. All of that shit should be illegal. Get the fuck out of the way of due process.
- Naziism and related nonsense like Holocaust denial. Germany already has laws about this, but that shit needs to be legally smothered in its crib everywhere.
- Conspiracism surrounding public health issues like vaccines and masks.
- Climate denial.
- Slave labour in prisons.
- Private prisons.
- PACs and donations to PACs.
- Lobbying.
- Joe Rogan.
Lol they asked for what should be illegal not for a list of shit that annoys you🤣
Holds true for most of what this guy said, save a few things.
Oh come the fuck on. You want to live in world that puts the same people this guys claims (rightfully so just using his words) are skirting the around the law, to also regulate political lying, advertising, video games, conspiracy theories, uneducated opinions and Joe Rogan? I mean I don’t even know where Rogan fits into any of this. I assume his podcast bit fuck me that means you all support governing who can amd can’t have a public voice? I’m not saying his whole list is out there and yeah I’ll admit I cherry picked the shit out if it but since when has there ever been any legal or legislative framework designed exactly as the voting people wanted? I’m not fuckin Libertarian and will prolly vote for Harris but damn I am not about to allow the buffoons to metaphorically get the foot in the door when they are on record of not even checking if they’re in the right house before blindly opening fire on innocent civilians.
