Vivisection

[leroy]

Law: The legality of vivisection
Category: Science

Options:
1. The government has no policy concerning vivisection. (Default)
2. Vivisection is legal and unregulated.
3. Vivisection is legal but regulated.
4. Vivisection is legal and unregulated for animals only.
5. Vivisection is legal and regulated for animals only.
6. Vivisection is completely illegal.
7. This matter is for the local governments to decide upon.

Effects:
1. Decrease in government responsibilities.
2. Significant decrease in civil rights and environmentalism.
3. Decrease in civil rights and environmentalism. Increase in government responsibilities.
4. Significant decrease in environmentalism.
5. Decrease in environmentalism. Increase in government responsibilities.
6. Increase in environmentalism.
7. Increase in devolution.

[Amazeroth]

What do you mean by 2. Vivisection is legal and unregulated? That everyone can go and snatch unsuspecting citizens and vivisect them? Usually I'm all for including such options, but in this case, I really think that "Vivisection is legal" would suffice instead of both 2. and 3.

[leroy]

What do you mean by 2. Vivisection is legal and unregulated? That everyone can go and snatch unsuspecting citizens and vivisect them? Usually I'm all for including such options, but in this case, I really think that "Vivisection is legal" would suffice instead of both 2. and 3.

Yes, that could be one of them. Also, that humans may be vivisected with utmost cruelty and in the sickest possible way. No government regulations.

[Eryk]

Its a good idea, and I agree.

[JuliaAJA]

I like the idea of the proposal and I agree with Leroy.

[Hrafn]

Support.

[Amazeroth]

Generally I support this, but I think that there is no real difference between

1. The government has no policy concerning vivisection.

and

2. Vivisection is legal and unregulated.

at least not as long as there is a law on murder. I don't think that this law is too far out per se, but I think that a law that is so different from the usual particracy laws should be a bit better formulated (although the far out part only concerns the idea of vivisection of humans, animals fit well into the environmental category). I think that there should be an option there for the state not caring what its citizens do to each other, but I don't see why that should be done in a law about vivisection (and not, for example, murder).

For example,

1. The government has no policy concerning vivisection.

makes only sense if there is a more general law concerning murder. If there is no such law - which there isn't - this proposal is completely senseless and would basically mean that vivisection is completely irrelevant to the government - which means that everyone can do it to anyone, and nobody cares, and thus basically what option Nr. 2 already states.

Now,

2. Vivisection is legal and unregulated.

is also a bit of a problem by itself. In general, I have nothing against the possibilities to create incredibly sinister states (on the contrary, I've sometimes created some or helped with it). But seeing that there isn't even a law that regulates murder, it is quite strange to have a law that not only has the option to allow murder, but also a very cruel variant of murder. Now, if we were to implement such a law, it would be much better if it would come as a law in its own right, something like


Law: The legality of killing
Category: Civil rights (although there should be a new category for these laws, called penal laws or something like this)

Options:
1. Murder is completely illegal.
2. Murder is illegal, except as last method of self-defence
3. Murder is illegal, except with a government license
- then any other exceptions -
and finally:
x. Murder is legal.

[Eryk]

^^ Agreed

[leroy]

Generally I support this, but I think that there is no real difference between

1. The government has no policy concerning vivisection.

and

2. Vivisection is legal and unregulated.

at least not as long as there is a law on murder. I don't think that this law is too far out per se, but I think that a law that is so different from the usual particracy laws should be a bit better formulated (although the far out part only concerns the idea of vivisection of humans, animals fit well into the environmental category). I think that there should be an option there for the state not caring what its citizens do to each other, but I don't see why that should be done in a law about vivisection (and not, for example, murder).

For example,

1. The government has no policy concerning vivisection.

makes only sense if there is a more general law concerning murder. If there is no such law - which there isn't - this proposal is completely senseless and would basically mean that vivisection is completely irrelevant to the government - which means that everyone can do it to anyone, and nobody cares, and thus basically what option Nr. 2 already states.

Now,

2. Vivisection is legal and unregulated.

is also a bit of a problem by itself. In general, I have nothing against the possibilities to create incredibly sinister states (on the contrary, I've sometimes created some or helped with it). But seeing that there isn't even a law that regulates murder, it is quite strange to have a law that not only has the option to allow murder, but also a very cruel variant of murder. Now, if we were to implement such a law, it would be much better if it would come as a law in its own right, something like


Law: The legality of killing
Category: Civil rights (although there should be a new category for these laws, called penal laws or something like this)

Options:
1. Murder is completely illegal.
2. Murder is illegal, except as last method of self-defence
3. Murder is illegal, except with a government license
- then any other exceptions -
and finally:
x. Murder is legal.

Then the problem lies not in my proposal, but that Particracy is in want of a murder law.

[Amazeroth]

Then the problem lies not in my proposal, but that Particracy is in want of a murder law.

Yes, which is why I wouldn't blame you for anything. I really don't think that Particracy needs a murder law. I think it's enough in this case that that it is just assumed that there is a law against murder in place (I don't know a single country that doesn't have such a law in reality, not even the most twisted totalitarians), and when a player wants to allow murder (that is, killing of every kind being completely legal) he does that via RP, which is more ideal for such cases anyway, and always more creative.