3 ms·
> They could have instead banned loud noise making machines and/or machines with high pollution Isn't that what they did? Oh, are you saying they should ban t
by jrochkind1 6y ago
> They could have instead banned loud noise making machines and/or machines with high pollution
Isn't that what they did?
Oh, are you saying they should ban the sale or posession, not just the use?
Or you're saying they should ban more kinds of noise-making or polluting machines, not just leaf-blowers?
Are you arguing for more expansive ban?
Or I may be missing it.
- proc0 6y agoI'm saying ban something that targets the supply, in a way that is both general but at the same time addresses the specific immediate need. It's hard to expand here, but IMHO the system/process of Law is not meant to target things at such "level of detail". If the system was extremely fast at revising existing laws, I would have a different opinion, but with how much power it has plus how slow it is, why are lawmakers designing laws that punish such specific activities? As a crude analogy it's like a bunch of programmers are adding a ton of bloat to the code just for a tiny feature, that maybe should have been part of a bigger feature to begin with. To summarize, every law needs to be extremely well thought out, but results have shown otherwise (although that's a different thread).