If you have "law" then you have order. It's like steak and meat.
The problem is that some people who are overly concerned about "law and order" are usually the same kind of people who are willing to violate human rights and civil rights in the process, and of throwing basic constitutional values out of the window.
Couldn't have said it better myself.Nothing is wrong with "law and order", but nothing is right about it either. Laws are neutral. They can be good or bad. Order is desirable to a point, but most people would say it should be balanced with liberty. Supermax prisons are very orderly, but I doubt many folks would want to live in a society based on that model.
As German Guy said, the biggest problem with so called "law and order" types is some of them tend to be dismissive of safeguards against abuse like due process, the notion of innocent till proven guilty, and constitutional guarantees of privacy.
If you have "law" then you have order. It's like steak and meat.
If you have "law" then you have order. It's like steak and meat.
If you have "law" then you have order. It's like steak and meat.
This is why I favor being very careful and selective in which laws we do pass, and believe we should wipe off the books laws that are neither enforced or broken/used.Many, probably most laws have unintended consequences, and those consequences frequently contribute to disorder and chaos.
As another poster noted, law unenforced contributes to disorder and chaos and lack of respect. As elected criminals are not investigated or prosecuted by their successors, a huge lack of respect in the populace is created.
This is why I favor being very careful and selective in which laws we do pass, and believe we should wipe off the books laws that are neither enforced or broken/used.
The problem is that some people who are overly concerned about "law and order" are usually the same kind of people who are willing to violate human rights and civil rights in the process, and of throwing basic constitutional values out of the window.
Things is, for good or for bad, stereotypes are almost never made up out of thin air. They have a root.Woot! Broad sweeping generalizations.
"The problem is that some people who are overly enthusiastic about being ice cream truck drivers are usually the same kind of people who are willing to violate a young boy or girl with their penis."
It plays off of stereotypes...... They aren't okay to use when talking about people of a certain race, and they aren't okay to accuse a group of people of having no regard for human rights either.
Absolutely, with an emphasis on repeal, the proper remedy for poor laws.
I have this theory. We've been at this USA thing for 200+ years. One would think that we've got most of it pretty much figured out by now. Hence, one would think that the numbers of new laws that need to be passed would decrease every year. Decrease to the point that there should be no more than a dozen or so new laws needed every year*. Barring the occasional new issue or technology that gets invented, really our elected representatives should be more caretakers than active lawmakers.We have lots of laws, and more being written every day.
We must be enforcing those laws, at least the criminal ones, as we have more prisoners than anyone else.
Therefore, we have order. Right?
Funny thing about liberty: Sometimes it leads to disorder.
So, why do our lawmakers continually pass new laws and tweak everything to the point of absurdity?
This is why I favor being very careful and selective in which laws we do pass, and believe we should wipe off the books laws that are neither enforced or broken/used.
I think all laws should have an expiration date.
If its important enough it'll get renewed. If its stupid, it can be allowed to die the death it should.
I have this theory. We've been at this USA thing for 200+ years. One would think that we've got most of it pretty much figured out by now. Hence, one would think that the numbers of new laws that need to be passed would decrease every year. Decrease to the point that there should be no more than a dozen or so new laws needed every year*. Barring the occasional new issue or technology that gets invented, really our elected representatives should be more caretakers than active lawmakers.
So, why do our lawmakers continually pass new laws and tweak everything to the point of absurdity?
To make themselves look important to us**, IMO, so we will think they're relevant and effective and we'll vote to re-elect them. Personally, not only do I see no shame in a representative not proposing any new laws at all, I would applaud that person for not making things worse.
*-Not including appropriation bills, that need to be continually renewed.
**-And to please special interest groups.
Time to start repealing some of those laws. I'm pretty sure they need an expiration date.
Better yet, create an independent, revolving constitutional jury with no ties to government, whose purpose is to review every law on the books and validate or invalidate those laws based on constitutional compliance. I'm sure over 90% of those laws would be invalidated.
yes. Maybe we could call it a "Supreme Court" or something.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?