4 ms·

> The law is solving a problem that didn’t exist... Obviously not. If that were really true, no one (left or right) would be making a fuss about this law. It

> The law is solving a problem that didn’t exist... Obviously not. If that were really true, no one (left or right) would be making a fuss about this law. It's perfectly legitimate for a legislature to address concerns that have not actually been realized (e.g. fund the construction of fallout shelters when there hasn't been a nuclear war yet). IIRC, it's only the courts that are required to be reactive.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> If that were really true, no one (left or right) would be making a fuss about this law. The right believes the problem exists, the left believes that the policy will do something besides what it is proponents highlights, both of which beliefs are possible without the problem it nominally seeks to correct actually being real, so, no, the fact that people care does not mean that the problem it overtly addresses exists.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > ...fact that people care does not mean that the problem it overtly addresses exists. In my framing, the problem being solved was the concern over the future development of the problem that's claimed to not exist.
happytoexplain 5y ago
>Obviously not. If that were really true, no one (left or right) would be making a fuss about this law. I don't follow this at all. How can "making a fuss" legitimize a perceived problem into objective reality?
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > I don't follow this at all. How can "making a fuss" legitimize a perceived problem into objective reality? Because if the law was actually solving a "problem that doesn't exist," it would be a noop and no one would care. Since people on both sides care, it's obviously not a noop. Also think about the example I gave before: if the government builds a fallout shelter, what problem was it solving if there's no fallout to shelter from? X doesn't have to be happening right now for people to worry about it, and it's perfectly legitimate for the government to do something within its power to allay those fears. A more contemporary example is climate change: the present-day effects wouldn't justify the kinds of changes that are being demanded. What justifies those changes is the fear of what would happen in 100 years.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> If that were really true, no one (left or right) would be making a fuss about this law. The right believes the problem exists, the left believes that the policy will do something besides what it is proponents highlights, both of which beliefs are possible without the problem it nominally seeks to correct actually being real, so, no, the fact that people care does not mean that the problem it overtly addresses exists.

tablespoon 5y ago
> ...fact that people care does not mean that the problem it overtly addresses exists. In my framing, the problem being solved was the concern over the future development of the problem that's claimed to not exist.

happytoexplain 5y ago

>Obviously not. If that were really true, no one (left or right) would be making a fuss about this law. I don't follow this at all. How can "making a fuss" legitimize a perceived problem into objective reality?

tablespoon 5y ago
> I don't follow this at all. How can "making a fuss" legitimize a perceived problem into objective reality? Because if the law was actually solving a "problem that doesn't exist," it would be a noop and no one would care. Since people on both sides care, it's obviously not a noop. Also think about the example I gave before: if the government builds a fallout shelter, what problem was it solving if there's no fallout to shelter from? X doesn't have to be happening right now for people to worry about it, and it's perfectly legitimate for the government to do something within its power to allay those fears. A more contemporary example is climate change: the present-day effects wouldn't justify the kinds of changes that are being demanded. What justifies those changes is the fear of what would happen in 100 years.