Let’s give an example that is more uplifting.
A 16 year old who just got their motorcycle license being able to buy a 200hp superbike capable of doing 180+mph.
For all intents and purposes, this should be illegal, because the teenager (usually) doesn’t have the skills and willpower to handle such a powerful motorcycle as a noob.
But it does feel awesome to be able to buy whatever motorcycle you can afford once you get your license in the US, rather than being forced to start on a 125cc that can’t even hit 60mph.
Eh, I don’t think the correlation of age is the causation of getting wounded or killed due to questionable decisions on powerful motorcycles. I’d venture to say the correlation is moreso in personality type, and aversion, or lack thereof to risk.
Like, you don’t see complete straight edge 16 year olds getting bikes, and from my own anecdotal experience, my straight edge friends were scared of it. Though if there wasn’t an inherent aversion to the risk, I’d bet those types would be incredibly safe motorcycle drivers.
The types that currently get them are the types that will take risks, regardless of their age, and we can’t rightly outlaw something because some risk takers act dangerously on them. We’d have to outlaw cars too.
A 16 year old who just got their motorcycle license being able to buy a 200hp superbike capable of doing 180+mph.
True, but rarely does a 16 y/o have ~$10k saved up to purchase a sport bike with that power.
Then it wont be a problem for most of them when theyre not legally allowed to buy one.
In India, minimum age is 18.
It’s wild that’s legal there! Where I live learners and provisional riders are restricted by power to weight ratio (150kw per tonne/200hp per 2000lbs), and that honestly seems like it keeps them on reasonable bikes for the skill level without having them all stuck on 125cc bikes struggling to reach the speed limit
Your provisional rider laws are a lot more fair than Europe’s, which limit teenagers to 125cc for the first two year of riding.
150KW/tonne (with the rider) is enough to get a Ninja 400 or Harley Sportster 1200, both of which are plenty powerful for the street. But maybe these calculations don’t factor in a typical rider’s weight.
Family vloggers
Child exploitation is already illegal
Alcohol
Didn’t we try that and it was an absolute disaster?
Yes but this time we legalise all the other drugs. Huge profits.
In all seriousness, no drugs should be illegal and healthcare and education should be freely available. Universal income. We would need to make conservatism, lobbying and billionaires illegal.
actually, no, not a complete disaster. During american prohibition, domestic abuse all but disappeared, same went for a big part of self-harm due to alcohol abuse. It’s normal to paint the prohibition as some complete mistake, but it has positive sides too.
And I say that as an enjoyer of alcohol and other fun stuff, disagreeing with banning it again
I’d be really interested to know the source of whatever stats say that. I mean, it’s not like people actually stopped drinking, so why would domestic abuse “disappear”? That also totally implies that domestic abuse almost entirely happens because of alcohol.
With how much political/financial influence/bribery was behind prohibition, I’d totally bet statistics are skewed in favor of prohibition.
Passive income.
Does that include a ban of UBI (universal basic income)? Because that is a idea I do indeed support
Going by the traditional definition, UBI is indeed passive income. I don’t think it is as bad as other forms of passive income, but I would prefer subsidies over just giving people cash.
deleted by creator
Government should found more art and research, also donation and crowd funding aren’t passive income. I believe OP talked about the Marxists bourgeoisie the class of people who live off dividends or rent and doesn’t need to work
musicians in shambles
There were musicians far before passive income for creative work was a thing. And it’s not like the €0.003 per play Spotify pays is making bank for most musicians.
we already are
deleted by creator
They have different uses. Like if you have a .22 pistol, generally you won’t use that hunting deer. It would be cruel to the animal.
In addition they do have specific hunting seasons for specific types of hunting in my area.
I understand if you are going for a limit.
Personally I don’t hunt. I sneak up on deer and tell them about Linux.
tell them about Linux
You monster.
*more than zero
I can get total ban but why a ban on amount?
Because you can’t get rid of guns completely. For one, the security forces of those in power will have them and second, those who intend to do bad things to people will have them.
Once the technology exists and is available to the public, one can no longer stop its proliferation.
Or you just ban it completely for everything but hunting and regulate that strictly (ofc with exceptions for police and military). This is the way gun laws work in most European countries and most of them are indeed very save places to live in.
Your point here is a typical American one and just not any good. Guns in self defense rarely help anyone and do way more harm when random idiots who suddenly feel a need to kill someone finds themselfs already with a gun in their hand. Not to say that it’s impossible to get your hands on a gun in (for example) Sweden but the price and complications that ce with it do stop a lot of people from doing stupid things.
Well yes, but Americans have that unpleasant thing called ACAB that likely prevents them from accepting any attempt at removing their perceived self-defense against the abuse committed by authorities.
ACAB is a global fact, not unique to America. It’s also a fact largely recognised by the same kinds of people who are opposed to the free flow of guns. The kinds of people who think guns should be unrestricted are also the kinds who, by and large, are supportive of police and believe police are on their side.
Zero hour contracts in the uk don’t actually have to have an actual contract so if your boss says that something is in your job description you can’t argue otherwise because there was never a contract that said what your job roles were to start with.
How is that even legal somewhere ?
For context this is how the vast majority of jobs work in the US by default.
Advertisements for prescription medication
This one is pretty location specific but I agree that US law doesn’t make any sense. Like, physician and pharmacist spend 10 years at university to learn all the details about prescription medication and then have to get yearly retraining, so how do you even do ad’s for that
That’s only legal in like two countries.
I’m in one of them. I wish it wasn’t.
Advertisements in general. Imagine world without ads and sponsored content.
I don’t think that’s realistic. Even the guy at the local market shouting “get your potatoes here” is technically advertisement.
What could work instead is to make both the company that advertises and the one that displays the ad liable for the ad itself. If it’s inappropriate, contains malware or is in any way malicious, the company displaying it should also be liable for endangering the customers. Also outlaw tracking for advertisement purposes altogether
I left the US to work overseas and when I came back the law changed and everyone was hooked on viagra, the “little purple pill” and everything else…it was VERY obvious what happened…after we sttled down we went to establish care woth a GP & I walked out of my initial appointment with 6 prescriptions.
ridiculous…
Well that highly depends on location. I think that’s illegal in most of Europe
Most places other than the US. I know it’s illegal here in Canada.
We get medication ads here in Canada, they’re just very restricted in what they can actually say, but Sportsnet runs a rybelsus ad every hockey game
Forced arbitration
Lobbying and lobbyist groups.
Gonna overturn the 1st Amendment?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
I’m sure there are ways to dial in the abuse, but what legislator is gonna vote for that?
God the nerds in here are annoying.
“Ackchually banning lobbying would mean nobody could talk to politicians anymore blah blah…”
Everyone knows what you mean when you say that lobbying should be illegal.
Everyone knows what you mean when you say that lobbying should be illegal.
People who don’t know anything about lobbying know what you mean when you say lobbying should be illegal.
Everyone knows what you mean when you say that lobbying should be illegal.
Could you explain?
Probably the part where they’re straight-up bribing politicians to rubber stamp the garbage that ALEC writes.
Lobbying as in “bribery with extra steps” where companies give money to politicians, ask them to do something, then say it’s ok because it’s “lobbying” and therefore not bribery, but people are coming in and pointing out how lobbying technically just means talking to politicians, but that’s not what RotatingParts meant.
Banning lobbying would mean no one would be able to talk to a politician/official about an issue. Not even writing your local officials, proposing a local ordinance to making bike lanes or spending money to fix-up/improve a local park. Because that’s lobbying. You’re asking a government to wield their official power and/or spend public money, for your (and potentially others’) benefit.
Even lobbying groups aren’t necessarily bad. The Sierra Club, EFF, ACLU. These are American, but I’m sure there are equivalents of these in other countries.
So banning lobbying doesn’t really work. Now if you’re talking financial contributions and gifts and nice dinners from those who lobby, yeah that probably needs to be more highly regulated or stopped altogether. Generally speaking, any kind of quid pro quo.
But just talking to a politician should not be made illegal. In democracies, talking to people, talking to politicians, and trying to convince them to align with your view is the name of the game.
Lobbying in and of itself isn’t bad, it makes our politicians aware of issues and alternatives.
Unrestricted lobbying is the problem, I recently read that lobbyists from Amazon would no longer have access cards to the European parliament so they no longer could come and go as they liked.
I just wonder why lobbyists ever got that access in the first place…
Owning shares when you are an elected official with jurisdiction over the industry you own shares in.
Also, any political figure owning shares in a media organisation, regardless of whether it is traditional media or “new media”.
Does that include unions?
Landlords. Housing as a commodity in general.
Just curious what your preferred solution would be?
Everyone gets one house. No hoarding.
Which house?
I imagine one that is convenient for their needs. Work, school, whatever. Is there a deeper meaning to that question?
I don’t think owning your home is realistic in all scenarios. For example, let’s say because you needed to leave your abusive partner, so you don’t have the luxury of going through the whole process of saving money, then researching, and eventually purchasing a home. You need to get out, maybe live somewhere for a year or two to get your feet under you and save some money so you can purchase a home. If you couldn’t rent a home, how could you possibly get out of this situation if you had no money on hand?
If you move to a new city that you’ve never visited before, sometimes you want to rent in a few areas to find the areas you like before commit long term to a place.
I really don’t think buying a home should be your only option for living in a home. It’s just not what’s best for some people in some scenarios.
Government owned housing used to be a common thing in the UK and it’s how housing works in Singapore today, just because private landlords don’t exist doesn’t mean people can’t rent houses from the government
Could you elaborate on Singapore? I have a friend who lives there and her rent is obscene…
Screwing over a large number of people to benefit a small number of people. Religion and corporations immediately come to mind.
That’s very vague and sounds like it would mainly affect minorities in a negative way. Not that I think that’s your intention of course.
Passing on the right.
Where else are you meant to pass?
Downvotes from all the Americans who don’t realise people drive on other sides.
To be fair, this is one of those times where the US is actually in alignment with most of the rest of the world.
Assuming lef hand drive country, then don’t use the passing lane for not passing.
I’m turning left on a two-lane street, waiting for incoming traffic to clear, and some jackass pulls into the right-turn cutout to pass me. It’s both rude and dangerous.
What. So this “jackass” and all the people in the right lane should pull up behind you and wait for you to turn left? That is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. That’s partially why there are two lanes, so traffic can continue to flow instead of waiting for you.
Edit:
Hold up. When you say “two lane street” do you mean one lane on each side? Because that changes everything. Whenever people I talk to refer to a two lane street they mean two lane in your direction.
Definitely illegal in Belgium, is that not the norm elsewhere?
Apparently, and perhaps not surprisingly, the US allows it on highways. Which helps explain why their traffic related deaths rate per capita is almost twice the European average.
Not just on highways. It happens sometimes on surface streets as well.
I’ve never seen anyone do it so I’m pretty sure it’s illegal in all countries were I’ve found myself on a highway. The US and Germany (due to their free speed generally quite weird autobahns) come to mind as countries that might allow it.
It’s illegal in Germany as well.
Passing on the left in regions with LH traffic (RHD)
Since it is the opposite of Overtaking, it is typically called undertaking, especially if you try to undertake a large truck with limited visibility on the passenger side.
I drive a lot in the UK for work. I see it occasionally when younger and/or angry drivers get frustrated with overtaking lane hoggers. Sometimes I also see people do it very slowly and overtly for that same reason.
Generally, I don’t think people want to do it and are aware of the dangers. But it’s easy to do it without being caught, unless it goes wrong of course.
Alcohol (beer, wine…).
USA tried banning these once…
Rather than downvoting, I’d like to ask why you think all forms of alcohol for consumption should be illegal
It’s proven that is toxic for our organisms. It hurts our body and creates depressions.
More info: https://www.who.int/health-topics/alcohol
“No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health” https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04-01-2023-no-level-of-alcohol-consumption-is-safe-for-our-health
Also, thanks for asking and just not downvoting. 💖
Probably because they’re basically poison that has to be filtered out and fucks up your liver and kidneys.
Ok, but there are plenty of other items that that do that as well. It’s not a call out of “all drugs, including tobacco and alcohol”. It’s not a callout of microplastics. So there’s something specific to alcohol.
So there’s something specific to alcohol.
Being widespread. One bad set of laws in bad place in bad time (propination laws in eastern Europe in XVIII-XIX century) caused untold suffering and is keenly felt to this day, showing how easily hundreds of millions of people can be fucked up by poisonous commodity.
I’m not for entirely banning alcohol, but only because it would be rather futile, but for restrictions in its selling and far going educational campaigns to finally get rid of it - and it is possible, even if not entirely, looking at the decline of consumption of other poison, tobacco.
If we forbid things just because they are mildly toxic, we would need to forbid almost everything. Including oxygen and water.
and bacon.
Oh yeah, a lot of people die because they drink too much water. Don’t forget how moch money is wasted because people break shit and beat each other up when theu are high on water.
Isn’t that more a social issue? Getting drunk and becoming violent isn’t a cause-effect. Someone that becomes abusive after drinking would be abusive without alcohol as well, that’s just a trigger for the behavior.
This is closer to an actual answer, though. It’s easier to remove drinking than to change drinking culture. It just didn’t work the last time they tried to ban alcohol (in the USA), so if behavior around drinking is the issue that is trying to be solved there are probably other ways to go about it.
False,
“No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health” - https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04-01-2023-no-level-of-alcohol-consumption-is-safe-for-our-health
There is a safe level of oxygen and water you not only can, but must take. Your phrase sounds cool, but it’s 100% misinformation.
Alcohol is pretty significantly toxic, especially compared to oxygen and water.
I’m not in favour of banning it outright, but alcohol is more dangerous than some drugs that are illegal in many parts of the world, including the US.
Half of the things that go on with donations. People who are enlightened enough to know 90% of your money doesn’t go to its intended place (whether you’re donating to starving Africans, people with a medical condition, etc.) cannot effectively stand up to corrupt charity organizations in a culture where half of the people still think the Salvation Army is a literal branch of the army. Even the charity watch groups are compromised.
Killing animals forr pleasure.
I’m not sure if I’m misunderstanding your comment, but killing animals for pleasure alone is already largely illegal in Western countries. And that includes hunting. You aren’t allowed to just hunt an animal for fun and then leave it unharvested. It is hard to enforce, obviously. But you can definitely be charged for killing deer, moose, ducks, even fish, without a license and at least the intent to eat it. For example, you can’t kill a bear, cut off its paws or gall bladder, and then throw the carcass in the bush. You also can be charged for killing or treating an animal inhumanely or in a way that causes it distress. That theoretically applies to all animals, including pets, livestock, aquariums, wildlife, and even small animals like mice and bats.
Taste pleasure
Yes, there is that. I am personally against hunting because I figure wild animals are already under enough pressure from habitat destruction and climate change.
Hunting is largely cultural now and isn’t needed for sustenance except in very remote places. At the same time, I’m not sure if it is fair to classify a cultural practice as being for mere pleasure. It is a bit more complicated than that. Certainly, in Canada, indigenous peoples and the descendents of early settlers think so.
Hunting is needed for wildlife management. We’ve killed most of the natural predators for the animals we have hunting seasons for so we need to fill that niche or those animals won’t have enough food to go around during winter. I can’t speak for the animals, but I would prefer being shot to death rather than starving to death. There’s also the factor of more deer (and other prey animals) crossing roads being more dangerous for everyone involved.
