- Thread starter
- #2,481
I'm a debater at heart, so I'm constitutionally unable to see just one side of an issue. 
Personally, I'm tempted to believe that there should be no law against what we might choose to eat or drink or smoke, etc. In theory, we're only affecting ourselves. Sure, our behavior may cause a lot of chaos for others, but that's our behavior - it's not the drug. If I drink and pass out - no problem. If I drink and attack people - that's a problem. It's the behavior. But if you see a drunk guy attacking people, you know exactly why he's being a problem - it's the booze, right? So you try to regulate access to booze. It makes perfect sense. If we didn't think so, we wouldn't have age laws and driving laws, etc. But ... I bet if we really looked into it, even those laws might be costing us more than they're worth. After all, no kid is prevented from drinking just because there's a law against it, and most people will still drive buzzed.
Law-abiding people don't fully understand that not everyone abides by laws.
I think that's the core issue. A rule is not a law if you can't enforce it. And rule-breakers don't honor laws that aren't enforceable. 
This is something that the rule-followers are forever failing to grasp. They must understand it somehow, but it never seems to be in the forefront of their minds. They continue to think that if they come up with the right set of rules, they can keep the crazies from mucking everything up. But ... if the crazies followed the rules, there wouldn't be any problems in the first place. 
Right? Why does this obvious truth keep eluding them?
So, philosophers of the rule-breaking class scratch their heads at that stone cold stupidity, and try to come up with rational reasons for it. Who benefits? Who benefits from unenforceable laws? Law enforcement. The State.
And that's the point I want to make, the thought I'd like to distribute. I wish we were all talking about it this year. Who benefits from unenforceable laws? They allow LE to single out individuals to investigate, and that can certainly be a good thing. But ... how's that working out?
Those of us who have enjoyed smoking the herb for our entire adult lives intrinsically understand what it's like to live in a rule-breaking culture. We want LE to enforce laws against violence and thievery. We don't want them busting us for smoking or trading.
We have too many "laws", and we are currently firmly in the mindset that there should be more laws. The very idea that new rules solve old problems is foundational in our current culture. But ... people who cause trouble don't follow rules. So all that happens is that the government gets to build more buildings and hire more people, who never actually accomplish their purpose, which prompts calls for more funding, more buildings, more government employees, who end up not giving a ratsass because they never actually accomplish anything.
Meanwhile, the rule-breakers look at all those resources being wasted, all those dead-eyed government employees with benefits, all that useless effort and expense ... and they look at the problems in their culture ... and they don't see that all that effort is worth anything. Nothing seems "better". Instead, they have to constantly be afraid of being hauled into the system and having their lives, and the lives of those around them, totally disrupted. That's almost always unhelpful for rule-breakers. It might work for little Johnny from the suburbs, but he lives in a law-abiding culture. It would be more efficient for LE to concentrate on law-abiding cultures, wouldn't it? That might do some good.
So, the next time you hear about some great ideas for a wonderful new law, think twice. I almost never hear about one that's enforceable. Think more government buildings and government employees, and piles of money being wasted.
And freedoms lost.
And true, institutional, racism.
Personally, I'm tempted to believe that there should be no law against what we might choose to eat or drink or smoke, etc. In theory, we're only affecting ourselves. Sure, our behavior may cause a lot of chaos for others, but that's our behavior - it's not the drug. If I drink and pass out - no problem. If I drink and attack people - that's a problem. It's the behavior. But if you see a drunk guy attacking people, you know exactly why he's being a problem - it's the booze, right? So you try to regulate access to booze. It makes perfect sense. If we didn't think so, we wouldn't have age laws and driving laws, etc. But ... I bet if we really looked into it, even those laws might be costing us more than they're worth. After all, no kid is prevented from drinking just because there's a law against it, and most people will still drive buzzed.
Law-abiding people don't fully understand that not everyone abides by laws.
I think that's the core issue. A rule is not a law if you can't enforce it. And rule-breakers don't honor laws that aren't enforceable. This is something that the rule-followers are forever failing to grasp. They must understand it somehow, but it never seems to be in the forefront of their minds. They continue to think that if they come up with the right set of rules, they can keep the crazies from mucking everything up. But ... if the crazies followed the rules, there wouldn't be any problems in the first place. Right? Why does this obvious truth keep eluding them?So, philosophers of the rule-breaking class scratch their heads at that stone cold stupidity, and try to come up with rational reasons for it. Who benefits? Who benefits from unenforceable laws? Law enforcement. The State.
And that's the point I want to make, the thought I'd like to distribute. I wish we were all talking about it this year.
Who benefits from unenforceable laws? They allow LE to single out individuals to investigate, and that can certainly be a good thing. But ... how's that working out? Those of us who have enjoyed smoking the herb for our entire adult lives intrinsically understand what it's like to live in a rule-breaking culture. We want LE to enforce laws against violence and thievery. We don't want them busting us for smoking or trading.
We have too many "laws", and we are currently firmly in the mindset that there should be more laws. The very idea that new rules solve old problems is foundational in our current culture. But ... people who cause trouble don't follow rules. So all that happens is that the government gets to build more buildings and hire more people, who never actually accomplish their purpose, which prompts calls for more funding, more buildings, more government employees, who end up not giving a ratsass because they never actually accomplish anything.
Meanwhile, the rule-breakers look at all those resources being wasted, all those dead-eyed government employees with benefits, all that useless effort and expense ... and they look at the problems in their culture ... and they don't see that all that effort is worth anything. Nothing seems "better". Instead, they have to constantly be afraid of being hauled into the system and having their lives, and the lives of those around them, totally disrupted. That's almost always unhelpful for rule-breakers. It might work for little Johnny from the suburbs, but he lives in a law-abiding culture. It would be more efficient for LE to concentrate on law-abiding cultures, wouldn't it? That might do some good.
So, the next time you hear about some great ideas for a wonderful new law, think twice. I almost never hear about one that's enforceable.
Think more government buildings and government employees, and piles of money being wasted.And freedoms lost.
And true, institutional, racism.
There isn't much left of Nixon's world.
, etc. - couldn't even manage being a good Republican. 
...
High Gray.....
