4 ms·
> This wasn't government inflexibility, or stupid law, or selfish interests: it was a community improvising to deal with a tricky situation, and doing so imperf
by vntok 7y ago
> This wasn't government inflexibility, or stupid law, or selfish interests: it was a community improvising to deal with a tricky situation, and doing so imperfectly.
Improvising law and doing so imperfectly seems like a textbook recipe for "stupid law". That particular stupid law was worth complaining about "the law being an ass" (because it obviously was) and "the perfect example of government inflexibility" (local gov goes forward with putting down blameless horses based on an obscure law enacted 80 years ago in response to a situation that is nowhere near prevalent nor relevant today)
Maybe I'm missing something obvious but in light of this I'm curious how that specific example helps your argument?
- PaulDavisThe1st 7y agoSo your proposal is that the government can just choose in the moment which laws to enforce and not enforce, based on current conditions and the leanings/predilictions of its current members? The right thing to do do in the horse case would have been to repeal the law, since for sure, it no longer really applied. By contrast, the call from the public was "this is just another example of excessive government regulation", which is an entirely different claim. But do you really want to argue for "oh, no problem, the police/courts can just ignore that statute because its clear to everyone that the original conditions that led to it no longer apply?" Really?