Rus Articles Journal

Law and common sense. Who whom?

Even during my study in higher education institution at lectures on the Roman right to us in the head implanted thought that the law is the codified common sense . Got accustomed. And now, reading the next legislative masterpiece, I see the codified nonsense. And still in the same place, only at other lectures, learned: look for to whom it is favorable . And here - that everything rises on the places...

Well, looking at the modern legislation, and not only Russian, and the world in general, I see that from codification of common sense already nothing remained, and all drives the codified nonsense in half with thirst of a profit.

Examples? Itself I do not want to be unfounded so please.

At first ridiculous , though for non-execution their penalties very not cheerful:

In the USA in the State of Washington, people who arrived to the state with intention to commit a crime have to call at first police and inform it on existence of similar plans.

In the USA in California forbade baths.

And again USA: in states of New - Jersey and Oregon it is forbidden to fill in independently gasoline in a car gasoline tank.

In the same place in the State of Washington legislatively forbade all sexual poses except “missionary“.

I Will be distracted by a second. On this example at me in the blog one companion wrote the amusing answer: “… interestingly and how performance of laws is checked? I present to the wife`s zayav on the husband: tore up cancer, than violated my legitimate interests. I ask to call for responsibility! In there in police probably it is cheerful to work!“ . I apologize at the reader, but it is the quote. I long laughed. However, give further.

In Britain is forbidden to die in parliament.

In Switzerland is forbidden to merge water in a toilet bowl after ten o`clock in the evening.

In Swaziland to women the underwear is forbidden to carry.

In Singapore is forbidden to carry with itself the Bible.

In France forbids sale of dolls which person is not human.

In Thailand is legislatively forbidden to step on money.

it is frank mercantile Now :

In Gambia taxes make 287%.

In Belarus taxes make 145% of the income.

( It in general is worthy mentions professional humorists .) On the Internet - auction 18 - the summer Romanian, decided to sell the virginity. The buyer was and estimated innocence of the girl at 10 000 euros. Directly “purchase and sale“ took place in Venice, but money was transferred in the territory of Germany therefore local fiscal bodies demanded from the enterprising girl to pay a tax on virginity sale.

the Tax on windows in England.

Tax on a cow meteorizm. Ireland and Denmark imposed a tax on cow bunches. In Ireland - 18 euros from the head in a year, in Denmark - 110.

In France the tax on Google is. $29 million a year collect, by the way.

the Tax on a shadow in Venice. It was not lucky owners of shops and cafe, a shadow from canopies and which umbrellas falls to the municipal ground.

the Tax on the sun on Balearic Islands. For day of stay each tourist has to fork up for one euro.

the Tax on dance in Egypt. Each dancer has to pay a tax. Annual receipts from belly dance are estimated at 264 million US dollars.

Normally so? How, many of the codified common sense was seen? And it only what came to mind and if densely on the Internet to rummage, then it it is possible to find - ooh!

And so, it it is easy to explain with the thesis “I want money, here an occasion“, but not explainably common sense.

But there is more to come.

Separately there are penalties, but not those and not on those ridiculous bases which I gave in the beginning of article, and what all got used to perceive as self-evident - penalties for traffic violation of the rules.

Actually, on this subject to me is a lot of things to tell, but decided to stop on traffic regulations for that simple reason that it to close overwhelming number of readers. Let`s consider a penalty for not fastened safety belt. Why I write in quotes? But because if someone decided to push off the car with a concrete wall, he without seat belt inevitably would die. And with a seat belt such person has chance to survive. Only here pertinently to ask: why it incurred on a wall?

And here - it becomes clear that if in the car there are seat belts, the probability of collision for it sharply increases. It seems a fantasy? On the contrary, psychologists even have a so-called theory of “a risk homeostasis“ which can be expressed so: consciously or unconsciously, we change our behavior according to the changing risk in such a way that the total risk remains almost same. If danger increases, also our care and when danger decreases increases, we become less careful.

The general probability to die as a result of a road accident consists of probability to get to it and probability to die as a result of it. If the second component decreases as a result of use of seat belts and other survival equipment of human life which modern automotive industry uses, then the first component, on the contrary, from application of such means only increases. That is - it`s as broad as it`s long.

The researches conducted by the American scientists say that decrease in fatal cases as a result of collision of cars is compensated by the bigger frequency of collisions so total number of fatal cases remains at the same level. So if the general statistics of accidents on roads nevertheless decreases, then the reason for that not in seat belts, and in emergence of safer cars, in what roads began to do better, to divide lanes and other. Professor of the Californian university Armen Alchiyan suggested to bring the principle of a homeostasis of risk to a logical conclusion. For this purpose it is necessary to equip cars not with aerbega, and opposite, sharply ground edges which at each sharp inclination of the driver to a wheel would stick to it into a breast. Alchiyan claims that such adaptation sharply would reduce the number of accidents on roads.

But it is only one aspect of a question, and there is also another. I in the car - the owner and it, and own life and health, am free to do anything that does not bear danger to people around. Correctly? A belt here at what? From the fact that I was not fastened I can cause damage only to myself. Following this logic, all have to accept as the self-evident following.

Came home, cut a fresh cucumber, put before themselves a glass of milk, here unexpectedly the door opens, and police / militia (necessary to emphasize):

- Hello, I am your new district police officer.

- To Zdddrasta …

- you are going to cause damage to the health, from you a penalty of 500 rubles.

- But I houses and this my health on what basis you to me break?

- The citizen to wash down a cucumber with milk it is harmful. You will have a diarrhea. You will carry out a part of the life sitting in a toilet. The state cares for you! How you do not understand it? Penalty. 500 rubles. But we can agree. 300 - and I was not here.

- Yes I always wash down cucumbers with milk, a metabolism at me such.

- All this excuses, the citizen, and in the law is accurately written: it is impossible.

Well and so on. How picture? Parallels were seen?

Also here one more aspect of the matter imperceptibly creeps: if I was going to cause myself damage (unimportantly a belt or a cucumber), then why the beneficiary this act - some budget? Where logic? Where sense? No, from the point of view of “I want grandmas, here an occasion“ everything is normal, but in fact if I the actions created unjustified risk and threat to somebody, then that “somebody“ has to be the beneficiary, and in this case - I am. Funny, truth?

For what I wrote this article? And just there is a strong wish that people, and especially it concerns inhabitants of Europe and America, thought more often of the true reasons and the purposes of this or that law by which their state them and urges to be guided. Also there is a strong wish that legislators lay to own people less, and called things by their proper names.