Too many laws?

if people can't be reasonably expected to know the entire legal code of the country, can they truly be expected to follow the law?  most legal documents are a twisted mish-mash of legalese which, although designed to make the law more precise to avoid getting off on a 'technicality', end up just making it more confusing to the common man.

not everyone can have their very own lawyer.  they get expensive.

since ignorance is generally not considered an excuse, this means people will eventually get punished for laws that they had no reason to even believe exist.  either that, or the law doesn't get enforced, which just enforces the chance that it'll be repeated, and thus what's the point of having the law in the first place?

in order to avoid punishment, people need to adopt a mentality that 'everything is illegal' unless proven otherwise.

is this liberty?

The laws of a country should indeed be easy to understand. Everyone knowing the entire law isn't necessary since there are a lot of situations few people will be subjected to. Maritime law isn't as important for everyone as contract law, for instance.
I agree, though, more laws means more lawyers and that's just going to make killing all the lawyers harder.

I'd like to add that until we've got a world government, we will NOT be getting rid of any laws.
All the international treaties and agreements out there are hard to implement and sometimes conflict with each other. Implementing them in national law is extremely hard.

>>3

But do the benefits of these international treaties offset the reduction of liberties of the people?  Liberty is (presumably) a guaranteed right according to the constitution or charter or whatever of you country, but "making other countries happy" isn't.  Where does one draw the line?

There are probably plenty of shady laws that weren't really gotten rid of, just forgotten.  There's a civil code book about the size of two Encyclopaedia Brittanica volumes in the school library.  You think the police enforces every one of those?

The one thing that irks me is the fact that to truly understand the law, you need specialized people for it which are lawyers. I mean why can't the law be accessible and simple enough that the common man can do with a lawyer.

>>1

I don't think there is any rational way to disagree with you.

Yet still, no one important will implement your policy.

>>7

there is.  only a certain group of laws are relevant to individuals.  once individuals take on added responsiblities, they are confronted with forms and checks to make sure they follow the law, in its mos important parts, in their new undertakings. 

>>8

this is not to say that it's easy to follow the law.  just that there IS an apparatus to keep most law enforced most of the time.  This being that groups are also legally answerable, especially those delegating responsibilities (driver's licenses, guns, taxation) to individuals.

>>8

"only a certain group of laws are relevant to individuals."

But if these laws are still too complex for the common man to comprehend properly, how can they be followed properly?  And if they can't be followed properly, and the common man ends up being punished for it, isn't the government really just punishing him for not being a lawyer?

>>4
Not at all. I'd say international treaties are a bad idea in most cases. When they contribute to keeping international peace, they're alright, but most of the time that's not what they're about.
Countries no longer have real autonomy these days, it's sad.

I especially dislike what's going on in the European Union these days. They make up rules that are not only passed down to the member countries, but also the countries that are part of the EEC and have *no* say in the matter.
Norway (not a EU member state) was recently forced to adopt stricter copyright laws even though barely anyone in the country agreed with them.

In the future, everyone is a criminal.

>>10

here's a big fucking hint.  Don't do anything your mother wouldn't want you to do.  it's that simple.

so get off world4ch

>>13
Obviously you've never met my mother.