Unintended consequences...

Kburjr

Kburjr

Joined
Aug 17, 2020
Posts
35,567
Reaction score
40,592
Bookie:
$ 91,200.00
Location
still exiled in Illinois
Unintended consequences of poorly written law are greater than the intended consequences.

Unintended consequences create a change in the base data and therefore, change the problem.


Change my mind.
 
Kburjr said:
Unintended consequences of poorly written law are greater than the intended consequences.

Unintended consequences create a change in the base data and therefore, change the problem.


Change my mind.
Click to expand...
There’s been recent agendas to follow written law as it is written opposed to the reason for the original law. I believe that in a free society laws should be seen as guidelines to establish and preserve order. Enforcement of law has to be a secondary mission on the way to justice .

I do agree there is a by- product of the translation of the meanings of laws and that can be a horrific danger. But what law cannot be challenged ?

I know I may in a vast minority here and I fear the Federalist Society above all other groups in America right now because of their seeking sole power of what they feel they alone can decipher.

Do you feel that the distribution of legal findings be autonomous, or am I completely misunderstanding you?
 
"It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be."

... but isn’t the u.s. Supreme Court the pinnacle of the judiciary an which are appointed and tenured? ... and how is this not in direct contrast to Americanism?

...
 
Realityball said:
There’s been recent agendas to follow written law as it is written opposed to the reason for the original law. I believe that in a free society laws should be seen as guidelines to establish and preserve order. Enforcement of law has to be a secondary mission on the way to justice .

I do agree there is a by- product of the translation of the meanings of laws and that can be a horrific danger. But what law cannot be challenged ?

I know I may in a vast minority here and I fear the Federalist Society above all other groups in America right now because of their seeking sole power of what they feel they alone can decipher.

Do you feel that the distribution of legal findings be autonomous, or am I completely misunderstanding you?
Click to expand...

I was more aim at a micro rather than macro scenario. Hastily written law should be examined very carefully for the loopholes. The loopholes are the drivers of change, not the intent of the law.
 
Kburjr said:
I was more aim at a micro rather than macro scenario. Hastily written law should be examined very carefully for the loopholes. The loopholes are the drivers of change, not the intent of the law.
Click to expand...
I think I understand. Its just that who examines law cannot be held without check ...
 
Kburjr said:
I was more aim at a micro rather than macro scenario. Hastily written law should be examined very carefully for the loopholes. The loopholes are the drivers of change, not the intent of the law.
Click to expand...
All too often it seems that it's a reaction to squeaky wheels, than in the interest of the greater populace.
 
moxie said:
All too often it seems that it's a reaction to squeaky wheels, than in the interest of the greater populace.
Click to expand...


... I can tell ya if I or the ones I care about ever get pulled in to be judged, I’ll tell ya to fuck the populace
 
Creating criminals out of everyday citizens, via legislation, is not a positive.

New Legislation that does not negate old legislation, also not a positive.
 
Kburjr said:
I was more aim at a micro rather than macro scenario. Hastily written law should be examined very carefully for the loopholes. The loopholes are the drivers of change, not the intent of the law.
Click to expand...

wasn’t it a loophole that freed the slaves though?
or ... doesn’t “the intent of law” have to progress?
 
Realityball said:
wasn’t it a loophole that freed the slaves though?
or ... doesn’t “the intent of law” have to progress?
Click to expand...
Imagine the disappointment of slaves residing in Kentucky.


Im not free because my master had Lincoln on his ballot in 1860!?! (Abe didn't even get 1% of the Kentucky vote.)

The fuck!??
 
Kburjr said:
As an example, the damage done to the family structure of the poor through the Welfare state.
Click to expand...
I would also give you the Volstead Act. A basic law of economics is bans create black markets. How well do you think the outcome of prohibition worked?
 
Realityball said:
There’s been recent agendas to follow written law as it is written opposed to the reason for the original law. I believe that in a free society laws should be seen as guidelines to establish and preserve order. Enforcement of law has to be a secondary mission on the way to justice .

I do agree there is a by- product of the translation of the meanings of laws and that can be a horrific danger. But what law cannot be challenged ?

I know I may in a vast minority here and I fear the Federalist Society above all other groups in America right now because of their seeking sole power of what they feel they alone can decipher.

Do you feel that the distribution of legal findings be autonomous, or am I completely misunderstanding you?
Click to expand...

i like money GIF
 
Kburjr said:
As an example, the damage done to the family structure of the poor through the Welfare state.
Click to expand...

quickly, I can’t think of any law, including our freedom laws, that could possibly be written without negative consequence ...

baby and bath water stuff ..
 
Realityball said:
quickly, I can’t think of any law, including our freedom laws, that could possibly be written without negative consequence ...

baby and bath water stuff ..
Click to expand...

My point. Unintended consequences. The intent was good but at what cost?
 
Realityball said:
quickly, I can’t think of any law, including our freedom laws, that could possibly be written without negative consequence ...

baby and bath water stuff ..
Click to expand...

Also, this leads to Common Good type thinking. IMO, the most dangerous type of thinking when individual rights are to be protected. The making of new law should be long and arduous, not merely majority rules.
 
Kburjr said:
My point. Unintended consequences. The intent was good but at what cost?
Click to expand...
your going down a slippery slope ... comparing lives saved with social welfare laws against lives lost with the liberal 2nd amendment ...

the ‘costs’ are always going to greater where there is more freedom. ... no? ... or are you talkin’ dollars?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top