Are we too strict in applying and adhering to rules?

Valmont

Denerick wrote: »

If you legitimise theft in any way, soon enough you'll begin rationalising it when its less grey.

I agree, Eliot is probably knocking off the post office as we speak.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

liah

Any victimless crime shouldn't be a crime at all, in my books.

Setun

liah wrote: »

Any victimless crime shouldn't be a crime at all, in my books.

That's a slightly problematic view though - for example, many crimes have the potential to victimise, but perhaps often don't. The punishment that comes with the committing of a crime is an example to others and also a future deterrent to the perpetrator. At the point a crime is committed, it cannot easily be foreseen if there will be victims or not.

silverharp

There is supposed to be a statistic that the average person can break the law several times every day. It leaves one with the feeling that we are being managed in an overly heavy fashion or that the definition of a crime is far too broad. Even take a simple act like dropping a piece of litter, do it in the Aviva or in the Dundrum shopping centre (no crime) do it in Grafton street and its a crime (of sorts) where you can be fined.

Earthhorse

liah wrote: »

Any victimless crime shouldn't be a crime at all, in my books.

A fine ideal but too difficult to implement in reality.

If you give your money to me on the premise that I'll keep it safely for you in my bank vault and I take your money, without your permission, invest it, double it and then return to you the capital as agreed who has been the victim here? Nobody, yet there is no doubt in my mind that this should still be illegal.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

HivemindXX

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Maths is fun. In 2008 the IRS received over 155 million individual returns. So another way of stating this burden is that the average person spends less than 45 minutes a week doing their taxes.

Doesn't sound quite so scary then. Of course this ignores the fact that that 6 billion hours figure includes businesses. Some of which certainly employ people full time to come up with clever solutions to their tax burden. The vast majority of this time is not a "government requirement for filing taxes" but rather a voluntary effort to seek methods of minimising taxes paid. If a company can spend $1M on accountants to save $5M in taxes they will do it and that's fine. Turning around and complaining that the government requires you to spend that $1M is a bit rich though.

I doubt the average person spends anything like 45 minutes a week working on their personal taxes.

liah

Daddio wrote: »

That's a slightly problematic view though - for example, many crimes have the potential to victimise, but perhaps often don't. The punishment that comes with the committing of a crime is an example to others and also a future deterrent to the perpetrator. At the point a crime is committed, it cannot easily be foreseen if there will be victims or not.

I'll rephrase: a perceived victimless crime shouldn't be a crime until there is a victim made known. If no victim makes themselves known, then there is no crime.

Case-by-case basis. I don't believe in making examples of people, I believe in education on why these things are potentially dangerous. Seems to be far more effective a deterrent.

silverharp

HivemindXX wrote: »

Maths is fun. In 2008 the IRS received over 155 million individual returns. So another way of stating this burden is that the average person spends less than 45 minutes a week doing their taxes.

Doesn't sound quite so scary then. Of course this ignores the fact that that 6 billion hours figure includes businesses. Some of which certainly employ people full time to come up with clever solutions to their tax burden. The vast majority of this time is not a "government requirement for filing taxes" but rather a voluntary effort to seek methods of minimising taxes paid. If a company can spend $1M on accountants to save $5M in taxes they will do it and that's fine. Turning around and complaining that the government requires you to spend that $1M is a bit rich though.

I doubt the average person spends anything like 45 minutes a week working on their personal taxes.

now you are understating the case. Anyone that has run a business will know the hassle of dealing with tax authorities. For instance going through every item you buy for your building every year and paying an auditing firm to decide if its capital or not. Going though all your suppliers and filling in a return if they are over a certain limit. Paying for software updates for payroll systems and training for staff.
A flat tax would knock all this on the head. but no, its better to armies of pencil puchers in the private and public sector leaching off the productive process.

Crucifix

liah wrote: »

I'll rephrase: a perceived victimless crime shouldn't be a crime until there is a victim made known. If no victim makes themselves known, then there is no crime.

Case-by-case basis. I don't believe in making examples of people, I believe in education on why these things are potentially dangerous. Seems to be far more effective a deterrent.

There are definitely cases where I'd agree with you, but in cases of reckless endangerment, drink driving, etc, I think I'd consider the undue risk to people's life and well being to constitute a crime, even if no one is victimised

liah

Crucifix wrote: »

There are definitely cases where I'd agree with you, but in cases of reckless endangerment, drink driving, etc, I think I'd consider the undue risk to people's life and well being to constitute a crime, even if no one is victimised

I think that all that encourages people to do is think the government should take responsibility for what they do, and imo that's a bad thing to encourage. People should be learning how to take responsibility for their own actions, and learning why they need to.

Still, I can see your point. I'm not 100% on where I stand on speeding and the like.

Crucifix

liah wrote: »

I think that all that encourages people to do is think the government should take responsibility for what they do, and imo that's a bad thing to encourage. People should be learning how to take responsibility for their own actions, and learning why they need to.

Still, I can see your point. I'm not 100% on where I stand on speeding and the like.

I agree, but that's true of every law

HivemindXX

silverharp wrote: »

now you are understating the case. Anyone that has run a business will know the hassle of dealing with tax authorities.
<snip>
A flat tax would knock all this on the head. but no, its better to armies of pencil puchers in the private and public sector leaching off the productive process.

I thought the thrust of this was how we, as individuals, have to deal with too many regulations these days. I see this tax thing as a red herring trying to drag the topic over to how government regulation is harming free enterprise. An issue I think we can probably find one or two threads on already...

Incidentally, the reason the tax system is so complicated is because of attempts to support business. Companies lobby the government to support them by giving tax breaks for capital investment and reams of other special cases. The sole motivating factor for whether company management would support a flat tax would be whether they would make more money out of it. This calculation would include the cost of the accountants used to process the tax claims.

I do think simplifying the tax system is a good idea. I think the currently very complex system overly rewards people who are willing to push the bounds of "creative" very close to "criminal" when structuring their taxes.

I don't see think a totally flat tax is a good idea though.

liah

Crucifix wrote: »

I agree, but that's true of every law

I don't believe so. Like I said, it should be taken on a case by case basis. I don't see a problem with anyone speeding down long, straight, back country roads (aka not the kind you'd find in Ireland..) when there's no cars in sight for miles. But I'd have a problem with someone speeding in the middle of town where anyone could pop out 'round a corner. I do, however, think drink driving/driving under the influence should be a crime, giving it more thought, as you're not in the right mind to make that decision responsibly. But for the rest, like speeding, I think again it should be case by case.

People still need to learn some serious personal responsibility. Punishment isn't that much of a deterrent. Loads of people still drink and drive, speed, etc etc. A law isn't going to stop them. They're going to trust their own sense of personal responsibility. So, in my view, the key to making them more responsible is to make them aware of any possible dangers of their actions from a very early age. It's sad if their mistakes lead them to injuring or even killing someone, but they're probably the type who would do it whether the law was in place or not.

Earthhorse

liah wrote: »

I think that all that encourages people to do is think the government should take responsibility for what they do, and imo that's a bad thing to encourage. People should be learning how to take responsibility for their own actions, and learning why they need to.

I don't see how such laws to encourage people to think the government will take responsibility for what they do. More accurately, the government will take action against their lack of responsibility which recklessly endangered others. If only we actually thoroughly enforced and took seriously cases such as these there would be a strong disincentive for people to engage in these activities. As it stands, we're good at drafting lots of legislation and bad at enforcing it.

liah wrote: »

People still need to learn some serious personal responsibility. Punishment isn't that much of a deterrent. Loads of people still drink and drive, speed, etc etc. A law isn't going to stop them. They're going to trust their own sense of personal responsibility. So, in my view, the key to making them more responsible is to make them aware of any possible dangers of their actions from a very early age. It's sad if their mistakes lead them to injuring or even killing someone, but they're probably the type who would do it whether the law was in place or not.

The law, in statute alone, won't stop them but the law, enforced properly will. Changing it such that people will only be punished when there's a victim won't change a thing unless the law is enforced except to shift the focus of the legal establishment onto debates about victimhood.

liah

Earthhorse wrote: »

I don't see how such laws to encourage people to think the government will take responsibility for what they do. More accurately, the government will take action against their lack of responsibility which recklessly endangered others. If only we actually thoroughly enforced and took seriously cases such as these there would be a strong disincentive for people to engage in these activities. As it stands, we're good at drafting lots of legislation and bad at enforcing it.

It shouldn't be up to the government to tell us when to be responsible. It should be up to us, is my point. Let the government punish only when there is another party involved, to mediate, but if you're not hurting anyone other than yourself it shouldn't be a crime.

The law, in statute alone, won't stop them but the law, enforced properly will. Changing it such that people will only be punished when there's a victim won't change a thing unless the law is enforced except to shift the focus of the legal establishment onto debates about victimhood.

Obviously I'm not saying it'll change anything in the current system. I'm simply talking about what I would prefer to see. If I could take a country and enforce it my way (not a crime unless there's a victim) from the get go kind of thing. I just think it's more sensible.

Critical thinking and learning to be personally responsible for your actions goes out the window when you know the government makes the final decision in everything you do. The more responsibility you take away from people the more helpless, unintelligent and reliant on the government/court they become. That can be quite dangerous, in an Orwellian sort of way.

Setun

I watched Louis Theroux's documentary about crystal meth addicts in California, and the incredibly high percentage of crimes committed that are associated with the drug (eg burglaries, shootings etc). The use, possession, and supply of the drug in itself is illegal, apparently for good reason as the evidence points to the probability that it is an incredibly destructive drug. When we talk about "victimless" crimes, how should the law be upheld in the case of the perpetrator of the crime is also a victim? Or perhaps the crime itself presents no victims, but secondary effects of the crime does? Can we trust some people to do what's (socially) right for their own sake - in the case of heavy crystal meth addiction, or should the government have a say in this?

Btw I'm not trying to catch anybody out - I'm finding this discussion interesting, and I don't have any clear answers myself.

liah

Hard drugs are a tough one. I still don't know what I think about the legalization of things like meth, PCP or heroin. I do feel that if they were legalized and regulated, crime would decrease significantly. If people want to self-destruct, that's their right, and at least with legalization and regulation, the drugs are clean, the money paid towards them is not going to criminals, and the money can instead be put into rehabilitation centres and better drug education programs. I do think with better, more honest drug education programs (not simply using examples to scaremonger, but actually describing the physical effects of the drug and how they work in your system both chemically, physically and psychologically, as well as the potential dangers and side effects), the amount of people who would try the drugs in the first place would decrease significantly. Sort of like how abstinence-only education is failing miserably in the locations it's instituted, but proper sex education has more people being responsible, less pregnancies/STIs, better healthcare programs, etc.

I'm keeping an eye on countries like Portugal where basically all drugs are decriminalized, but it's really hard to tell unless a country does actually go forward and try to regulate those drugs. It has been noted that drug use has actually decreased in countries where drugs are decriminalised/legalized, rather than the opposite, which is what one would expect.

Setun

Interestingly I've been living in the Netherlands now for a while, a country obviously famous for its coffeeshops, but many of the Dutch people I've befriended don't bother with cannabis at all - in fact it's mainly tourists and immigrants that frequent them, essentially either people that are relatively new to the country, or who are just passing through. As I've said, it's just my experience, but I'd like to see some statistical evidence of the availability/desirability relationship in practice. Many would argue passionately for and against the thread title with respect to drug use I think, although for me there is no clear answer on the matter.

liah

Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.
The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html#ixzz1HRcLvNuV

Earthhorse

liah wrote: »

Critical thinking and learning to be personally responsible for your actions goes out the window when you know the government makes the final decision in everything you do. The more responsibility you take away from people the more helpless, unintelligent and reliant on the government/court they become. That can be quite dangerous, in an Orwellian sort of way.

I think you have a rather more optimistic view of human nature than I do. governments are, at best, marginally involved in teaching or encouraging perosnal responsibility in their citizens. We all grew up in the same society with the same laws (well, okay, all Irish people did, all Canadians did etc.) yet some take personal responsibility very seriously and others don't. This is really down to good parenting in my opinion, almost exclusively down to it in fact.

There's no doubt that governments can incentive the wrong things at times e.g. bailing out bad investors when they should really be held to book for their poor investment choice, but I don't think they can significantly alter a person's philosophy in these matters.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

liah

Earthhorse wrote: »

I think you have a rather more optimistic view of human nature than I do. governments are, at best, marginally involved in teaching or encouraging perosnal responsibility in their citizens. We all grew up in the same society with the same laws (well, okay, all Irish people did, all Canadians did etc.) yet some take personal responsibility very seriously and others don't. This is really down to good parenting in my opinion, almost exclusively down to it in fact.

There's no doubt that governments can incentive the wrong things at times e.g. bailing out bad investors when they should really be held to book for their poor investment choice, but I don't think they can significantly alter a person's philosophy in these matters.

Would you not agree that education plays an incredibly large role in these things, though? Parenting only goes so far, schools can do an awful lot to influence a child, too. I'm not saying the effects would be immediate, it would take a generation or two to play out as the kids under the new, empirical evidence/critical thinking-driven education come of age.

Again, not that they're quite the same, but compare abstinence-only education statistics to incredibly informative and unbiased sex education statistics. There's a marked difference. Of course individuality plays a part to some degree, insofar that there will always be differences between people, but it's hard to argue that education cannot influence decision-making on a majority scale.

Earthhorse

Not really; in the sense that I went to the same school and through the same education as people who are now career criminals. I accept there is potential for a brilliant educaiton system to be transformative but I don't really know of many examples in the world. Sorry I don't have time to expand on that right now, my net access is very intermittent at the moment.

liah

Earthhorse wrote: »

Not really; in the sense that I went to the same school and through the same education as people who are now career criminals. I accept there is potential for a brilliant educaiton system to be transformative but I don't really know of many examples in the world. Sorry I don't have time to expand on that right now, my net access is very intermittent at the moment.

Well, I'm just looking at things on a very broad scale, using things like religion dying in the west, superstitious beliefs basically eradicated in the west, the failure of abstinence-only education, drinking and driving becoming rarer, hitting/spanking/physical reprimanding of children has gone out of fashion, etc. to contrast against.
I would say all these things are directly related to education, or lack thereof (depending on which topic). After awhile, it becomes increasingly hard to argue with the facts. And the real facts on drugs are much different to the ones we grew up with, and the countries that acknowledge this (Portugal in the above example) seem to be noting decreases in drug-related crime and drug use and increases in people entering voluntary rehabilitation.

If the playout is generational, drug related crime and drug use should decrease with better education: education also influences parenting styles.

There will always be crime, there will always be criminals. That just can't be helped. It's human nature. They're the type who were going to end up like that no matter what they were taught, but they're a much smaller percentage of the population than you seem to think. People are largely malleable, even after they leave their family, and are capable of a great deal of change. A lot of people fall into crime because they don't know any better, or have no other options, which is why I think education (so they know better) and rehabilitation (have more options) are key.

Earthhorse

liah wrote: »

I would say all these things are directly related to education, or lack thereof (depending on which topic). After awhile, it becomes increasingly hard to argue with the facts. And the real facts on drugs are much different to the ones we grew up with, and the countries that acknowledge this (Portugal in the above example) seem to be noting decreases in drug-related crime and drug use and increases in people entering voluntary rehabilitation.

But where are people getting the real facts on drugs? Not from the education system surely. So things changed in Portugal despite the eduction system not because of it.

There will always be crime, there will always be criminals. That just can't be helped. It's human nature. They're the type who were going to end up like that no matter what they were taught, but they're a much smaller percentage of the population than you seem to think.

It's not about how many or how few but rather that the same approximate percentage of people who refuse to take personal responsibility will show up in every generation. This is true regardless of what the education system tries to instill in them in my opinion.

People are largely malleable, even after they leave their family, and are capable of a great deal of change. A lot of people fall into crime because they don't know any better, or have no other options, which is why I think education (so they know better) and rehabilitation (have more options) are key.

People are capable of a great deal of change in adulthood but without a huge incentive to do so most people's adult personality is formed in early adulthood and remains fairly constant. Although I agree education and rehabilitation are important I think there's a huge limit to what they can do. Like I say, I shared classes with people who are now career criminals; they received the same education as I did but did not come from an environment where this was seen as important. You can teach people whatever you want, that doesn't mean they'll learn a thing.

liah

Earthhorse wrote: »

But where are people getting the real facts on drugs? Not from the education system surely. So things changed in Portugal despite the eduction system not because of it.

Education isn't exactly just through school. But still, if they were taught drug responsibility and the proper facts in school, theoretically the statistics should be even better.

It's not about how many or how few but rather that the same approximate percentage of people who refuse to take personal responsibility will show up in every generation. This is true regardless of what the education system tries to instill in them in my opinion.

Yes, I've stated repeatedly that there will always be some amount of criminals, because that's human nature. That doesn't mean that a focus on education and rehabilitation won't make a dent at all in those numbers. Are you trying to say it wouldn't work at all whatsoever? I don't understand why you keep bringing that up-- I already acknowledged repeatedly that of course there will always be some amount of people like that. I'm just saying that amount can be lessened.

People are capable of a great deal of change in adulthood but without a huge incentive to do so most people's adult personality is formed in early adulthood and remains fairly constant. Although I agree education and rehabilitation are important I think there's a huge limit to what they can do. Like I say, I shared classes with people who are now career criminals; they received the same education as I did but did not come from an environment where this was seen as important. You can teach people whatever you want, that doesn't mean they'll learn a thing.

I don't think the limit is nearly as huge as you think it is. I think what it comes down to is quality of education, quality of teachers, quality of counselling, and quality of time spent with students that has the potential to provoke great change.

Again, compare it to the abstinence-only vs. solid sex ed like I brought up earlier. Education has the capability to change people's habits and has the ability to encourage responsibility. Just look at the statistics.

Earthhorse

liah wrote: »

Education isn't exactly just through school. But still, if they were taught drug responsibility and the proper facts in school, theoretically the statistics should be even better.

No, but State Education is, and that's what we're talking about here, aren't we? Government's role in encouraging personal responsibility?

Are you trying to say it wouldn't work at all whatsoever?

Without a revolution in our education system, yes. Or that it's impact would be negligible.

I don't think the limit is nearly as huge as you think it is. I think what it comes down to is quality of education, quality of teachers, quality of counselling, and quality of time spent with students that has the potential to provoke great change.

The quality of the students is the big factor missing here. This isn't to be dismissive of all you're saying but that it does present a limiting factor. I guess this is something we'll just have to agree to disagree on.

dr.fuzzenstein

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And these days doing nixers, avoid any tax if at all possible, fill up the car with the wrong color diesel, smoking in the back room of the pub, climbing up the pylon and stealing electricity with a hook made from a coathanger (DON'T! ONLY JOKING!), I might possibly draw the line at folk dancing and eating babies...
But there is a consideration here, many people have lost one or both incomes or part thereof, the mortgage still needs to be paid, food still needs to be bought and saving money will only get you so far.
Many people who don't enjoy this sort of thing nevertheless have to do it anyway because no one likes living in the street and might prefer to just do an honest day's work and live a blameless life.
When I came here first in '93 you had to get by by any means possible and for many it's heading that way again.
Except smoking and drinking in the backroom of the pub after closing time. It's purely a "two finger" thing.