Law and common sense. Who will win?

The university lectures on Roman law to our mind implanted the idea that the law - it codified common sense.  Stuck.  And now, reading the next legislative masterpiece, see codified delirium.  And there, just on the other lectures, taught, looking for who benefits.  And here it all falls into place ...

In short, looking at current legislation, not only Russia but the entire world, I see that the codification of common sense there is nothing left, and all the taxis codified delirium mixed with a thirst for profit.

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

Funny at first, although their fines for failure is not cheerful:

In the U.S. state of Washington, the people who came to the States with the intent to commit a crime must first call the police and inform her that there are similar plans.

In the U.S., California banned the bath.

And again the U.S.: New Jersey and Oregon prohibited independently fill petrol in the tank car.

Also in Washington state law prohibits all sexual positions other than "missionary".

Distracted for a second.  This example in my blog, a friend of mine wrote a funny answer: "... interesting, but as a law enforcement check? Represent the applicant's wife to her husband tore cancer, which violated my legal interests. Please call for responsibility! In the police there probably fun to work with! ".  I beg the reader's pardon, but this quote.  I laughed for a long time.  However, let's continue.

In Britain, allowed to die in parliament.

In Switzerland, forbidden to pour water into the toilet bowl after ten o'clock at night.

In Swaziland, women are forbidden to wear underwear.

In Singapore, prohibited to carry a Bible.

France prohibits the sale of dolls, a person who is not a human.

In Thailand, against the law to advance the money.

Now, frankly mercenary:

In The Gambia, taxes are 287%.

In Belarus, taxes amount to 145% of income.

(It's worth mentioning at all the professional humorists.) On the online auction 18-year-old Romanian, decided to sell her virginity.  The buyer was found and the innocence of a girl estimated at EUR 10 000.  Direct "sale" took place in Venice, but the money is transferred to Germany, so the local fiscal authorities demanded an adventurous girl to pay sales tax on virginity.

Tax on the window in England.

The tax on cow flatulence.  Ireland and Denmark introduced a tax on cow bunches.  In Ireland - 18 euros per head per year in Denmark - 110.

In France there is a tax on Google.  $ 29 million a year collected, among other things.

The tax on a shadow in Venice.  Bad luck to owners of shops and cafes, the shadow of the awnings and umbrellas which falls on municipal land.

Tax in the sun in the Balearic Islands.  During the day visit every tourist must fork out for one euro.

Tax on dance in Egypt.  Each dancer must pay the tax.  Annual revenue from the belly dance is estimated at 264 million U.S. dollars.

Ok so?  How much of the codified common sense saw?  And that's just what came to mind, but if plotnenko the Internet to dig, you can find this - wow!

So, it is easy to explain the thesis' I want money, but also an occasion ", but can not be explained by common sense.

But that's not all.

Separately, there are fines, but not the same and not for the ridiculous grounds that I cited at the beginning, but what are all used to take for granted - the fines for traffic violations .

In fact, on this subject I have much to say, but decided to stay exactly on the SDA, for the simple reason that it is close to the vast number of readers.  Consider the fine for not wearing a belt of "security."  Why write in quotes?  Because if someone decided to push his car with a concrete wall, it is without a seat belt would inevitably perish.  And with the seat belt has a chance to survive.  Only here it is appropriate to ask why he suffered on the wall?

And it was then and it turns out that if the car has seat belts, then the probability of a collision increases sharply for her.  It seems a fantasy?  But no, psychologists even have a so-called theory of "risk homeostasis", which can be expressed as follows: consciously or unconsciously, we are changing our behavior changes accordingly at risk so that the overall risk remained about the same.  If the danger increases, and increases our caution , and when the danger is reduced, we are becoming less cautious.

The overall probability of dying in a car accident the sum of the probability to get into it, and likely to die from it.  If the second component is reduced by the use of seat belts and other means of saving human life enjoyed by the modern automobile industry, the first component, by contrast, the use of such tools will only increase.  That is - then that is what comes out.

Research conducted by American scientists, suggests that the decrease in deaths as a result of the collision offset machines greater frequency of collisions, so that the total number of deaths remains at the same level.  So if the general statistics of accidents on the roads still declining, the reason for this is not a safety belt, and the appearance of safer cars, the roads began to do better, to share the lane and so on.  Professor, University of California, Armen Alchiyan offered to bring the principle of homeostasis, the risk to its logical conclusion.  To do this, the machine is not equipped with airbag, and in contrast, sharpened blades that every sharp angle to the driver's steering wheel would be dug into his chest.  Alchiyan argues that such a device would sharply reduce the number of accidents on the roads .

But this is only one aspect of the issue, but there is another.  I'm in my car - and her boss, and his own life and health, is free to do anything that is not dangerous to others.  Right?  Belt here with me?  From what I have not strapped, I can only harm itself.  Following this logic, everyone should take for granted as follows.

Came home, sliced ​​fresh cucumber, set a glass of milk, then suddenly the door opens, and the police / militia (underline):

- Hello, I'm your new precinct.

- Zdddraste ...

- You are going to cause damage to your health, with you fine of 500 rubles.

- But I'm home and my health is, on what basis you breaks me?

- Citizen, cucumber drink milk is harmful. You will have diarrhea. You will spend most of his life sitting in the outhouse. About the same state you care! How do you not understand? Penalty. 500 rubles. But we can and reach an agreement. 300 - and I was not here.

- Yes, I always washed down with milk, cucumbers, metabolism, I like that.

- It's all excuses, a citizen, the law clearly written, it is impossible.

And so on.  As the picture?  The parallels did you see?

So is there another aspect of the issue has been sneaking up, if I myself was going to cause damage (whether a belt or a cucumber), why the beneficiary of the act - a budget?  Where is the logic?  Where's the point?  No, in terms of "I want to grandmothers, but also an occasion to" everything is fine, but in fact, if I am his actions created unnecessary risk and a threat to anyone else, the beneficiary must be exactly the same "someone", but in this case - I did.  Funny, is not it?