If you could make one thing illegal whIch is currently legal what would it be?

[noname223]

In Germany there are loopholes so that rich people can hand their wealth down to their children without paying taxes I would like to make this illegal.

In the US I would probably change the second amendement.

 

[Dejected 55]

How/what would you change the 2nd amendment in the US? It's a bit of a slippery slope to change some of the first amendments because some of those are how we have what level of freedom we currently have. I'm not a gun owner nor do I want to be... but I do recognize that the people abusing the privilege shouldn't be able to tear it down for the majority of people who aren't.

 

[mysticatedwine]

making people pay for medical treatment (be it for medication, operations, dental care, childbirth, etc)

 

[AcrobaticSilky]

Having Children 100%. Can't really think of a greater evil than bringing consciousness into this world were nothing is promised except suffering and death. There's absolutely no moral reason for humans to have not gone extinct already. The selfishness of the masses to procreate despite the circumstances of life is unfathomable

 

[amor.dor]

New births — that way we'd spare new people from suffering in this samsara.
— I'm being idealistic, I know forbidding people from having children is immoral.

 

[noname223]

How/what would you change the 2nd amendment in the US? It's a bit of a slippery slope to change some of the first amendments because some of those are how we have what level of freedom we currently have. I'm not a gun owner nor do I want to be... but I do recognize that the people abusing the privilege shouldn't be able to tear it down for the majority of people who aren't.

I would probably adapt it to European standards. I think this could save a lot of innocent lives. In the 21st century normal guns are useless if you want to defend yourself against the tyranny of your government.

 

[AcrobaticSilky]

New births — that way we'd spare new people from suffering in this samsara.
— I'm being idealistic, I know forbidding people from having children is immoral.

Ehh. Forbidding people from imposing harm on others isn't necessarily immoral. There's no altruistic reason to have children aside from maybe pursuing the efilist end of animal procreation. As far as most people go however, them choosing to birth more people is innately self serving

 

[amor.dor]

Ehh. Forbidding people from imposing harm on others isn't necessarily immoral. There's no altruistic reason to have children aside from maybe pursuing the efilist end of animal procreation. As far as most people go however, them choosing to birth more people is innately self serving

People have children out of instinct — it's more unconscious than conscious. They have children because they're cute, because they want someone to care for them when they're older, because they want to pass down an inheritance, continue a family business… Deep down, it's an impulse of the parents' ego. I've seen parents have children as if hoping the child would bring a better future for them.

But I also know many people have children because they think they're doing something good for the child — so they can see a sunset, eat ice cream… But that's just a common Pollyanna syndrome — thinking life is good despite all the pain. And because they believe life is something good that must be perpetuated, there will always be huge resistance to antinatalism. But anyone who looks at reality honestly realizes that even the best life ends in a tomb.

 

[martyrdom]

Misogyny (including all misogynistic content and all misogynistic industries)

Zionism

People asking me for a source on SaSu (+ "how can i get Nembutal" posts)

Me running out of cigarettes (I would ensure there is an infinite supply covered by taxes for all smokers of the world)

Millionaires +

Anime

 

[Scythe]

Saving suicidal people, having more than a billion in euros, 50% of extra money has to be given away to government, the rest can be given away however they want.

I would probably adapt it to European standards. I think this could save a lot of innocent lives. In the 21st century normal guns are useless if you want to defend yourself against the tyranny of your government.

Why wouldn't guns be effective? Yeah the government got higher grade military weapons but the government does not benefit from killing massive amounts of people nor causing mass destruction with said high grade military weapon. Too many ppl die means less tax for them and probably less people working. The government also has to contribute to rebuilding shit after civil wars.
I'm also for gun ownership cause firearms are extremely reliable for suicide if you know what you're doing. A lisence being required would be nice though.

 

[BradGuy123]

making people pay for medical treatment (be it for medication, operations, dental care, childbirth, etc)

This! The USA is the only industrialized nation on earth that doesn't guarantee health care. Why should health insurance be tied to your job? What does the company you work for have to do with having health care? If you lose your job here health insurance is very expensive. Why should people go bankrupt or die because of a health issue they have no control over? I am an independent. On some issues lean right. On some issues I am in the middle. This is one of the issues where I lean way left.

 

[Dejected 55]

Having Children 100%. Can't really think of a greater evil than bringing consciousness into this world were nothing is promised except suffering and death. There's absolutely no moral reason for humans to have not gone extinct already. The selfishness of the masses to procreate despite the circumstances of life is unfathomable

New births — that way we'd spare new people from suffering in this samsara.
— I'm being idealistic, I know forbidding people from having children is immoral.

This is a flawed thinking that I don't know if people realize what they are. Granted, this is fantasy and "what if" but... I see a lot of people saying it is "evil" or "wrong" or whatever to "impose" life on people that will only suffer. Mind you, I get it... I hate my life... but here's where the logic falls apart in wanting to forbid creation of new life without permission of those "people" beforehand.

It is impossible to get permission from a person who doesn't yet exist. So there is no way to ask you before you are born whether or not you want to be here. A person would have to assume you don't want to be here and just not create you in the first place. BUT... what if you are someone who wants to be here? You wouldn't want that same person to prevent your existence, without your permission, would you?

There kind of is no choice but to create you and wait and see if you like being here. We certainly could do better for making life better for more people... and allowing those who are unhappy peaceful ways out like we allow for our pets when they are suffering. But the notion of it being "unfair" to create you without your permission just never works for me because to accept this assumption means then depriving others of their similar right to exist without asking their permission either. The fairest solution in either case is to let you exist and let you decide for yourself, no?

Why wouldn't guns be effective? Yeah the government got higher grade military weapons but the government does not benefit from killing massive amounts of people nor causing mass destruction with said high grade military weapon. Too many ppl die means less tax for them and probably less people working. The government also has to contribute to rebuilding shit after civil wars.
I'm also for gun ownership cause firearms are extremely reliable for suicide if you know what you're doing. A lisence being required would be nice though.

I get where the argument against guns vs modern governments is... IF the government is corrupt and has enough people with access to the super-weapons... then the average citizen isn't going to be able to wage war against that. Leaders can lock themselves into virtually impenetrable bunkers while launching drone strikes and missiles at the citizens.

Now... I grant you that it doesn't make sense for a government to "win" by killing most of its citizens for all the reasons you note... BUT if they have reason to think they are going to lose? They wouldn't care about killing you then, because they'd rather win and have nothing than lose and be punished.

 

[amor.dor]

This is a flawed thinking that I don't know if people realize what they are. Granted, this is fantasy and "what if" but... I see a lot of people saying it is "evil" or "wrong" or whatever to "impose" life on people that will only suffer. Mind you, I get it... I hate my life... but here's where the logic falls apart in wanting to forbid creation of new life without permission of those "people" beforehand.

It is impossible to get permission from a person who doesn't yet exist. So there is no way to ask you before you are born whether or not you want to be here. A person would have to assume you don't want to be here and just not create you in the first place. BUT... what if you are someone who wants to be here? You wouldn't want that same person to prevent your existence, without your permission, would you?

There kind of is no choice but to create you and wait and see if you like being here. We certainly could do better for making life better for more people... and allowing those who are unhappy peaceful ways out like we allow for our pets when they are suffering. But the notion of it being "unfair" to create you without your permission just never works for me because to accept this assumption means then depriving others of their similar right to exist without asking their permission either. The fairest solution in either case is to let you exist and let you decide for yourself, no?


I get where the argument against guns vs modern governments is... IF the government is corrupt and has enough people with access to the super-weapons... then the average citizen isn't going to be able to wage war against that. Leaders can lock themselves into virtually impenetrable bunkers while launching drone strikes and missiles at the citizens.

Now... I grant you that it doesn't make sense for a government to "win" by killing most of its citizens for all the reasons you note... BUT if they have reason to think they are going to lose? They wouldn't care about killing you then, because they'd rather win and have nothing than lose and be punished.

The key lies in realizing how reality is. What I see is a constant struggle for nothing. I feel tired, in pain, live in a difficult country — so I think it's better not to bring a child into this same situation, purely out of empathy... I truly can't understand why people have children in the middle of war zones and then despair when their children die in the conflict. I sympathize with their pain, but even so, that's the reality. And even if my life conditions were those of a billionaire, I think I'd still be antinatalist — because in the end, we all die.

Knowing all this, no person can consent to their own birth — so the choice always falls on the parents. And with the awareness that there's much suffering and, in the end, death, I've chosen not to have children.

¹ And again I saw all the cruel things which are done under the sun; there was the weeping of those who have evil done to them, and they had no comforter: and from the hands of the evil-doers there went out power, but they had no comforter.
² So my praise was for the dead who have gone to their death, more than for the living who still have life.
³ Yes, happier than the dead or the living seemed he who has not ever been, who has not seen the evil which is done under the sun.

Eclesiastes 4:1-3

 

[Dejected 55]

The key lies in realizing how reality is. What I see is a constant struggle for nothing. I feel tired, in pain, live in a difficult country — so I think it's better not to bring a child into this same situation, purely out of empathy... I truly can't understand why people have children in the middle of war zones and then despair when their children die in the conflict. I sympathize with their pain, but even so, that's the reality. And even if my life conditions were those of a billionaire, I think I'd still be antinatalist — because in the end, we all die.

Knowing all this, no person can consent to their own birth — so the choice always falls on the parents. And with the awareness that there's much suffering and, in the end, death, I've chosen not to have children.

"
But better than both
is the one who has never been born,
who has not seen the evil
that is done under the sun." -Ecclesiastes 4:3

For what it's worth... you have a right to choose to have or NOT to have children and you shouldn't be judged for either decision. It's up to you and your partner on that front, period. I have zero issues with people who don't want kids. The only issue I have sometimes with people who want kids are if they seem woefully unprepared for the responsibilities of having them and seem to like the idea of kids more than appreciating what that all will entail.

All that on the table as pretext. I think you can choose not to have kids for any reason and no obligation to defend or explain it to anyone. But, the question on whether people should have kids because things are bad... well, if the good people who notice things are bad stop having kids... then the only people having kids would be the ones who like how bad things are... and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of future badness. The only hope humankind has is if the good people have kids and raise them to improve the next generation.

Again, no obligation and I'll never try to talk someone into kids they don't want to have. I just don't question the people who want to have them either, for the same reason that it isn't my business or decision to decide for them.

 

[Nightingale93]

I'd definitely agree with having children, at least until we can guarantee a pleasurable existence for any new life.
That and probably porn, the amount of damage that vile stuff is catastrophic.

 

[Forever Sleep]

How/what would you change the 2nd amendment in the US? It's a bit of a slippery slope to change some of the first amendments because some of those are how we have what level of freedom we currently have. I'm not a gun owner nor do I want to be... but I do recognize that the people abusing the privilege shouldn't be able to tear it down for the majority of people who aren't.

Being from the UK, I also find the expectation to be able to own and carry lethal weapons that can easily cause mass casualties troubling.

It's logical to me that- the more guns there are around, the more likely it is people will get shot! I imagine the statistics confirm that.

It's not like the UK is much better. There has been a massive rise in knife crime, including in schools. Although, we tend to have less school shooting masacres or accidental firearm accidents.

I realise the argument is that it isn't the guns themselves that are the problem- you have to trust the people owning them. But obviously- you can't trust all of them!

Plus- it tends to accumulate as I see it. Your police officers and ICE agents are armed because there's more likelihood the people they are going to arrest will be. It's not to say we don't also have our share of officers with a thug or bullying mentality but- if they aren't armed, it's less likely they will be able to use lethal force.

I imagine there's a good chance many criminals are armed. And I imagine, in a state of fear- it's probably quite easy to shoot at someone you feel threatened by but- illegally. In which case- that presumably means jail time. So, I tend to wonder if having the possibility of there being guns all over the place creates more paranoia and panicked reactions.

I suppose it's just a risk thing. Do you limit the amount of guns and licenced gun owners to people and officers who are (hopefully) properly vetted and trained or, do you indulge people their freedom and sacrifice lives as a result?

I suppose it's a deterrent for bugulars and muggers to know the home owner or person may be armed but then- isn't there a much higher chance they will be too? I don't know how the statistics lean. Does higher gun ownership mean less crime or more? It seems to vary place to place.

I suppose, not having grown up with the feeling it was my right to own a gun, it's harder to really imagine what that would be like to have that right challenged/ taken away.

Of course, when it comes to suicide, I'm pretty jealous! Although, I'd worry I'd mess it up still.

In Germany there are loopholes so that rich people can hand their wealth down to their children without paying taxes I would like to make this illegal.

In the US I would probably change the second amendement.

If it could be more reliably proved, I think defamation of character ought to carry heavier punishment. I actually think- if someone knowingly falsely accuses another person of something and it can be proved both that the person is innocent and they knowingly lied to implicate them- the accuser ought to serve the time for the crime they accused them of. Because they were willing to condemn them to prison for that time plus- destroy their reputation.

Of course, it would likely be so difficult to prove. That they knowingly lied rather than that they were mistaken. And, it may discourage genuine victims to come forward even more. So practically, it probably wouldn't work.

 

[ctwc]

Make crimes illegal.

Wdym they're not legal now?

 

[LittleSunshine]

Psychological abuse. Although it's becoming extremely difficult to determine where the line is drawn.

And animal abuse...

In many countries, animal abuse is still ignored by the law and not legally enforced as a crime, and that's a moral failure. Animals deserve the same rights to safety and justice as humans. Anything less is failure.

 

[impossible_victory]

Being loud! Being sick in public. Small airline seats. Tips. Animal cruelty. Bullying. Zionism. So many things

 

[Dejected 55]

Not for nothing... but there are lots of laws that are not enforced or enforced properly or enforced fairly. This is good when it comes from archaic oppressive laws that should be stricken from the books... but it is bad for the ones that should be enforced.

Here in the US a lot of gun owners like to say that "criminals don't obey the law" and "criminals will be the only ones who have guns" and such nonsense. I mean, yeah... duh... criminals don't obey the law... but does that mean we should have no laws? People rob and rape, so obviously the law didn't stop them from doing it... so lets get rid of those laws that "don't work"? Except most people are sane enough to realize that is absurd logic.

We make laws to announce agreement among the majority that certain things are not to be permitted. Those laws discourage some... but also allow us to arrest and punish transgressors. Without the law, there is no legitimate method to arrest/detain and try/punish people who do a thing we don't like. Think the plot of "The Purge" movies but all the time. We need laws, and it is expected people would disobey them and need to be stopped. IF people weren't going to break the laws then we wouldn't need the laws in the first place!

So... then the "it makes it harder for legal gun owners"... okay, that's fair... but that is the unfortunate thing about society. The fuckheads make it rougher on the rest of it. People steal from stores so they have to put security and those ID thingies in/on items to catch people walking out the store, and prices are sometimes higher to account for the theft they can't stop... Rapists are the reason women don't feel safe walking alone or at night or in an unknown area. It completely sucks that law-abiding people have to feel and behave as victims before they even are one because of how a section of society behaves.

We lock our doors at night not so much because bears and wild animals are out there... but to make it a little tougher for people to get into our houses while we sleep or aren't home. In an ideal world you wouldn't have to lock them, just shut them for protection from the weather... but locks are a thing because of criminals.

We constantly tweak and evolve to try and protect ourselves from the criminal outliers. So... if making it a little harder for an honest man to get a gun is necessary to help slow down the criminal from getting one? Sure. Do that.

Also... the same folks that want "unfettered and unregulated" gun access absolutely know at least one person they don't think should be allowed to have a gun. Guaranteed! And... the same folks yelling about "only the criminals will have guns" are the ones saying they don't want to prevent people on the terrorist watch lists from having guns. Make that make sense... they are fine putting you on a terrorist watch list for a random reason and it being nearly impossible to get off such lists and you might not even know you are on it... but they don't want to prevent you from getting a gun. That's a special kind of fucked up logic there.

IF people are getting on watch lists unfairly and unjustly... how about lets fix that shit process then? Hell, maybe preventing them from access to legal guns helps motivate folks to fix the process by which people who shouldn't be on the list are on there!

I could go on... I guess my main point is, the 2nd amendment like some of the others has a bit of wiggle room. We have free speech but you can't lie about people to get them in trouble without consequences. You can't incite a riot without being responsible (yeah, I know sometimes people do get away with this one)... there's no reason why we can't check backgrounds and require gun owners to pass certification of being able to maintain, store, and use guns properly and be issued a license they need to renew on some regular schedule.

Good, lawful, proficient gun owners don't have any problems with this. It's usually the "I want a gun because it makes me look cool" people who scream about this shit.