>What is the point of a law that is not enforced? You're looking at it like: This is a law. It is not perfectly enforced. We must perfectly enforce it. Eve

>What is the point of a law that is not enforced? You're looking at it like: This is a law. It is not perfectly enforced. We must perfectly enforce it. Everyone else looks at it like: This is a law. We pay lip service to it's utility, and pay fines out of tradition, but are fairly certain it probably shouldn't even be a law anymore, but unfortunately other systems are cripplingly dependent on it as a revenue source. It's not actively causing much harm. If it were perfectly enforced, so many goddamn new problems manifest. If it isn't enforced at all, so many problems manifest. Leave it alone. You should sit and meditate on the legal system, and maybe do a bit of reading up on some examples of terrible/counterintuitive outcomes of legislation. Having done exactly that, I've come to the conclusion that legislation/enforcement is more about making threats against the governed populace, and in reality, many things passed as law could not survive being perfectly enforced without becoming severely disruptive. Besides which, this is the United States. Law enforcement is technically an extra obstacle placed in the way of people engaging in the pursuit of their own happiness. Only the pursuit is guaranteed. Not others being safe other people's pursuit thereof. There was a reason why "home of the brave" was a moniker; and it had nothing to do with warfare or the natives. It had to do with the fundamental level of courage necessitated by living in a culture in which liberty was valued above all else. Everything was okay by default. That was radical thinking at the time.