Challenge: Name a Single Law That Has Solved A Problem

Thanks,I think....

Every single one of them ever enacted.

The problem is that Every law solves a problem FOR SOME PEOPLE, and other people are inconvenienced by it.

Somebody benefited by every law or it would not have been put in place.

I know what your saying though but can you see my logic?

Even if a law was bad for 98% of the population it benefited somebody......Usually the people who enacted it.

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Any law, from any period of time, in any country, for any particular problem.

For example, state the following:

"Law ______ has solved the problem of _______ ; therefore, that problem no longer exists."

Laws that repeal old laws don't count.

Law of having to stop at traffic lights has solved the problem of the slower four-way stop sign; therefore, that problem no longer exists.

Except that it created another problem that stop signs did not have. Ever been caught at a long traffic light at 4 am on a deserted street? With a 4 way stop, I would lose much less time in that circumstance.

Originally posted by rwfresh

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by kn0wh0w

 

How the hell can your challenge still stand when I answered it with a correct law. Just because I blew up your thread in the first five minutes is no reason to change the rules.

hahahaha that is great.

back to youtube please.

never seen a person make a mistake?

how real mature of you

ats law of violation of ats terms and conditions person x breaks said laws get banned therefore the problem no longer exists!

oops that doesnt count

i cant name one.

Originally posted by Cuervo
Law of having to stop at traffic lights has solved the problem of the slower four-way stop sign; therefore, that problem no longer exists.

Traffic lights aren't a law, they are a technological device.

Law is simply text on paper.

For example, without traffic lights existing to begin with, laws that implement them would be useless.

Laws are not meant to solve problems, only to curb them. Their purpose is to denote unacceptable actions and provide a legal basis for punishing those that break them.

On a side note...i'll play along....Roe v. Wade has literally solved millions of "problems".

There was no existing law. Beforehand it was assumed individuals had the right to own firearms. Not a Law however as the Supreme Court had not ruled on the second amendment's relevance to the State yet.

When the District of Columbia passed a law outlawing firearms the law did not go into effect but went into the court system until the Supreme Court decided on it.

This law now instead of prohibiting firearms is instead the case that says States do not have the power to forbid people from owning firearms.

So there was no existing law that this case overruled.

Murphey's Law has solved the problem of things going right, therefore the problem no longer exists.

One a more serious note, I think some laws may help problems but never fully get rid of the problem.

Off the top of my head, Kennesaw, Georgia where everyone has to carry a gun, the crime rates are comparatively low: www.mirror.co.uk... but not altogether gone.

Generally, laws are a rule of living for most, a guide for others, a deterrent for some and a challenge for few.

Yeah the city I live in has a store hours bylaw that regulates the times and days stores are allowed to be open. We are one of two.canadian cities who have such an archaic law. Council has been trying to.keep this city a small town forever despite us having close to 200k people. Having this bylaw solved the problem of growth and economic prosperity in this city for all the old folks who want to keep the big stores and the ethnic groups out. Its working, once considered the fastest growing city in canada in the 1970s our population has barely budged, there is barely anything new being built and the greedy small business owners have effictively pushed out big business. Our unemployment rate is sky high though.

Originally posted by kro32
There was no existing law. Beforehand it was assumed individuals had the right to own firearms. Not a Law however as the Supreme Court had not ruled on the second amendment's relevance to the State yet.

When the District of Columbia passed a law outlawing firearms the law did not go into effect but went into the court system until the Supreme Court decided on it.

This law now instead of prohibiting firearms is instead the case that says States do not have the power to forbid people from owning firearms.

So there was no existing law that this case overruled.

I updated my rules to clarify situations like this.

Mandating that seat belts be placed in every vehicle has saved countless lives... I got messed up going 15 mph
without a belt once, could only imagine going 60 or 70

Drunk driving laws have kept my scared enough not to drive smashed on several occasions.

Cigarette laws help deter shop owners from selling those disgusting sticks to youths.

Usury laws help individuals who need credit not get their interests rate bump arbitrarily, based on a standard escalation clause. Most people who need credit cannot afford $100,000 for a lawyer to litigate such a case, which they will probably lose due to your proposed lack of a law or laws.

I know you are going to parse these to death... I know you are religious so, wharves, get as technical as you want, praise the god book!

I think there are good laws and bad laws, more bad than good, enjoy

Banning drugs has solved the problem of the populace developing independant thought.

Originally posted by Janky Red
Mandating that seat belts be placed in every vehicle has saved countless lives... I got messed up going 15 mph
without a belt once, could only imagine going 60 or 70

Drunk driving laws have kept my scared enough not to drive smashed on several occasions.

Cigarette laws help deter shop owners from selling those disgusting sticks to youths.

Usury laws help individuals who need credit not get their interests rate bump arbitrarily, based on a standard escalation clause. Most people who need credit cannot afford $100,000 for a lawyer to litigate such a case, which they will probably lose due to your proposed lack of a law or laws.

I know you are going to parse these to death... I know you are religious so, wharves, get as technical as you want, praise the god book!

I think there are good laws and bad laws, more bad than good, enjoy

Yeah, but the problem is people getting killed in traffic accidents.

Seat belt laws have not solved that problem, and in fact have increased pedestrian fatalities in proportion to the lives saved by motorists, because people drive more recklessly when belted in.

Cigarette laws don't solve the problem of underage smoking, which is what they are designed to address.

reply to post by mnemeth1


That's funny.

So instead of admitting defeat you change the rules?

Originally posted by mnemeth1
"Law ______ has solved the problem of _______ ; therefore, that problem no longer exists."

What criteria are you using for a problem being ''solved'' ? I can think of absolutely tons of examples.

''The law banning the construction of minarets in Switzerland has solved the ''problem'' of new mosques being built with minarets, or new minarets being added to existing mosques, in Switzerland.''

''The 13th-century Florentine law instructing all buildings to be reduced to a maximum height of 85-feet, solved the problem of having buildings higher than 85-feet in Florence.''

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

That's funny.

So instead of admitting defeat you change the rules?

Laws that prevent new laws are not solving a legitimate problem.

Kids are not allowed to sell lemonade from their lemonade stands on their own property without a permit.

Saves a lot of innocent lemons. Won't someone please think of the lemons?

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by mnemeth1
"Law ______ has solved the problem of _______ ; therefore, that problem no longer exists."

What criteria are you using for a problem being ''solved'' ? I can think of absolutely tons of examples.

''The law banning the construction of minarets in Switzerland has solved the ''problem'' of new mosques being built with minarets, or new minarets being added to existing mosques, in Switzerland.''

''The 13th-century Florentine law instructing all buildings to be reduced to a maximum height of 85-feet, solved the problem of having buildings higher than 85-feet in Florence.''

Minarets and tall buildings are a problem?

To me it looks like those laws are creating problems, not solving them.