I would make murder legal.

>>7371346
I'd make murdering this guy legal.

the law of gravity.

gravityblox

I would make opposites repel.

IMAGINE how that would look

I would change the law of physics so I could fly

inb4 marijuana activist hijack thread

I'd change the law that says women who accuse men of rape can't have their sexual histories used as evidence against them. Women who cry rape aren't forced to provide evidence and the system is stacked in their favor unfairly.

8 year max rule on presidency.

bill clinton back in office and the world would run smooth.

modify FOMA so that civilians can legally buy modern automatic weapons

law of conservation of energy.
Then, I'd patent my new process to provide ALMOST free power to the entire world.For a small profit.

>>7371323
I would change copyright law.

Without going into a great amount of detail, right now it essentially only serves the interest of megacorporations that hold copyrights on works by people that have died long ago. That is completely against the original spirit of copyright law.

The spirit is to give the CREATOR of the work (not the publisher or whatever bullshit we have today) a LIMITED monopoly over THEIR creation. Then it falls into the public domain to enrich the culture. This has been completely contorted such to the extent that it has a massive pull on policymakers around the globe.

They're even creating a treaty in complete secrecy that intends to bring three strikes laws etc. to all nations possible. That is: Megacorp doesn't have to file a complaint with the police, they have no burden of proof. They claim you're infringing copyright 3 times and you're completely cut off from the Internet.

I could go on all day about this, but whatever, I've answered your question.

>>7371399
make that FOPA

>>7371381
This isn't a law, it's an evidentiary rule, and you probably don't understand how it works. At all. Such evidence often IS admissible. And the fact that you conceive of it as being admissible "against" the victim just underscores how necessary it is that there be some constraints on the use of this evidence.

Reinstate literacy tests as a predicate for voting in the USA. Don't make them a racist farce this time -- really test literacy. Basic English-language literacy, basic current events literacy, and basic critical thinking skills.

>>7371512
who decides what should be on this test?

disabilty rights, for obvious reasons

The Burqa law over in France. Just to piss in the eyes of conservatives.

Attempted anything would be equal in punishment to actually doing it. Eg. Attempted murder carrying the exact same sentence as murder.

I don't give a shit if you're too inept to pull it off, the intent was still there, you're just as much of a fuckwad and deserving to rot in prison for several decades.

>>7371687
I would think common sense would answer it pretty much for itself.
" Excuse me sir, I'm here doing a survey regarding voting rights, and I was wondering if you had a moment to help me wit..."
"Get the fuck out my face witchyour clipboard, faggot."
"Thank you for your time, you have been very helpful to us today."
Just vary this several million times, and the picture will become clear to you, eventually.

I would abolish all rape laws, and make rape only illegal if the perpetrator was ugly, based on a scale of 1 to 10 as determined by random sample voting.

You know how some bitter faggot cripples go around suing businesses that fail to meet certain handicap law technicalities? Yeah, fuck them. Change the law so it's impossible for them to profit off of that. If they want to sue places that don't meet requirements, that's fine, but it shouldn't be possible for them to profit off of it. The places should be forced to make changes where reasonable. If any money needs to be paid by the companies, it should either go to the federal government (help fix this fucked up budget some). Maybe they can have their lawyer costs paid for if they win, but zero profit potential.

>>7371687
i do.

Here's what I'd include. I'd include some form of reading comprehension test -- because if you can't read, you probably can't be an informed voter. Likewise I'd test, outright, basic facts about which voters should be informed. This would include fundamentals of what distinguished the 2 parties ("modern republicans more commonly favor, (a) expanded abortion rights, or (b), fewer abortion rights"), as well as the individual candidates ("george w. bush is currently (a) governor of texas, (b) a former president who led us through the gulf war, (c) bill clinton's incumbent VP"). This section would also test basic 4th grade social studies knowledge, e.g. differences between executive, legislative and judicial branches.

Finally, I'd want to have some minimum threshold for basic intelligence, which in this context I thikn should mean critical thinking and logical reasoning. When confronted with a set of basic statements, you should be able to interpret them in light of a broader context, read between the lines, etc. You should be able to detect unstated assumptions underlying those statements. In short, you should be someone to whom politicians know they can't appeal by just repeating the same dogmatic crap soundbites over and over again.

The result would be an improved electoral process, wherein campaigning and debates didn't consist of efforts to appeal so bleakly to the lowest common denominator. Politics wouldn't be so boring to watch, because instead of these retarded stump spiels, candidates would be forced to offer some form of analysis targeted at (at very least) a rudimentarily-informed voter.

>>7371897
it would be nice to include such a test for the purposes of determining how informed the electorate is. HOWEVER, I would not disenfranchise people on the basis of answering these questions incorrectly. Disenfranchisement isn't right. If you are bound to obey the law, you should have a say in what it is. This includes criminals, children, and immigrants.

>>7371875
The profit potential is built into the system for a reason. The government doesn't want to spend the money required to hire bureaucrats to go around and inspect businesses and ensure compliance. So, they basically put a bounty on the head of any noncompliant business and say to potential "victims" of this noncompliance: go for it. If you can find somebody not up to code, you win.

This is more efficient than having the government enforce regulations directly, for a number of reasons. One reason is that it puts the responsibility of detecting a breach in the hands of those best situated to detect that breach: the people who are going to be hurt day to day should a breach occur.

If you take away the profit incentive, these people wouldn't bother to ferret out noncompliant businesses and go to the effort to proving the noncompliance in court. Their behavior may seem sleazy and opportunistic, but it's conserving our tax dollars while helping to enforce the law.

>>7371928
So just to be 100% clear, you DO think criminals, children, and non-citizens should be able to vote?

Repeal the PATRIOT act.

>>7371994
That is correct. They should be able to vote.

>>7371323
Legalize possession of CP.

>>7372032
Well with respect to non-citizens, do you at least think there should be some residency requirement? If not, how would you feel in the event that another country (for simplicity's sake let's say canada or mexico) decided it wanted a certain election to come out a certain way and bused a bunch of people into swing districts to vote..then afterwards the people left? Or on a state level, let's say a bunch of people from Mississippi didn't want California to legalize gay marriage...so they all journeyed to CA to vote for Prop 8. But they're not actually going to live and pay taxes in CA. Why the fuck should they be able to tell CA citizens what to do?

Having a citizenship requirement for voting is the most common way of preventing this.

And then there's children. Do you think there should be any minimum age threhsold at all? What about toddlers just scribbling and drooling on the ballots? Do you think children should be granted other civil rights? It would be pretty unconstitutional to force all adults between the ages of 20 and 30, or whatever, to sit in government buildings studying x curriculum for x hours/day, but with public education that's exactly what we do to kids.

If we enacted the literacy tests, I actually would favor letting kids take the tests and granting them the vote if they passed (same as adults).

Criminals, I agree, should be able to vote. Well, not when they're in jail. But after they've paid their debt to society their privileges should be restored.

>>7371984
I don't see the value in that. If the offense isn't egregious enough for them to want to get it fixed for no (or okay, maybe minimal profit for their time) then it doesn't need to be fixed. If the technical violation isn't enough to actually bother anyone who's handicapped, why should we consider it a priority it get fixed? The people who roll around making lots of money off of what are frequently local businesses because a railing is technically half an inch too high deserve to be pushed into a pool.

I would enforce the commerce clause to end protectionism between states wrt health insurance. The increased competition (insurance companies would have to compete on a national level, because people in CA could buy insurance from Florida) would immediately make health insurance more affordable.

>>7372141
>If the offense isn't egregious enough for them to want to get it fixed for no (or okay, maybe minimal profit for their time) then it doesn't need to be fixed

There could be plenty of instances where the person WANTS the offense to be fixed but isn't going to be bothered to shoulder, all by himself, the burden of forcing the fix to occur. Unless you make it worth his while. Filing complaints and being involved in litigation are seriously draining things; court proceedings can stretch for years on end. In the meantime, you're suddenly a controversial figure in your hometown because you're inconveniencing this business owner. You're spending time on this shit that you could be spending on other things. Even if the situation is something that does in your opinion need to be fixed, you're probably going to conclude, "eh, I wish things would change, but it's not worthwhile for me to be the one to try to change them."

Another reason you permit these high payouts to be awarded is that businesses are going to calculate the expected cost of compliance vs. disregard of the law and are going to act accordingly. If you, Congress, decide that for the health and safety of disabled Americans it's necessary that every ramp have a handrail 3 ft off the ground (or whatever) and merely award something like a $1k fine for noncompliance, business owners are going to realize, hey, even if I don't comply I don't have a 100 percent chance of getting caught for it, plus it would cost me $2k to hire a contractor to install the rail. So I'll just take my chances.

Permitting larger damages changes that equation. Now, even if a noncompliant business owner still only has a 5% chance of being caught, that's a 5% chance of losing not $1k but $10k. So suddenly the cost of compliance is justified.