It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Challenge: Name a Single Law That Has Solved A Problem

page: 5
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   

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.

Laws that are redundant don't count.

For example, it is redundant to have a law that grants the carry of weapons if there are no laws that prohibit it in the first place. It's not solving any problems other than stopping the government from creating problems by creating needless legislation.

Problems must be the underlying problem the law was designed to address. For example, seat belt laws are designed to solve the problem of people dying or being injured in car crashes. Gun laws are designed to solve incidents of murder and robbery. Put another way, if violent crime did not exist, gun laws would be pointless and therefore fall under the redundant rule.




edit on 12-8-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)


Outlawing slavery has solved the problem; therefore slavery isn't a problem anymore in the US.
edit on 13-8-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   

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."



Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


The law that says people should drive on the right side of the road.
Stops us from crashing into each other. I used to live in the USVI and everyone there drives on the left. It is helpful to have a law requiring everyone drive on either the one side or the other, since I think it saves lives in traffic.



Was there any kind of a prize?



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 



Outlawing slavery has solved the problem; therefore slavery isn't a problem anymore in the US.

Um, not really.

Slavery is still a huge problem in the U.S; therefore it is still a problem.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Um........... outlawing drugs has solved the problem of certain peoples cash flow problems.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Laokin

Originally posted by niceguybob

Originally posted by trailertrash
Without the law of gravity we'd all fall off the planet dude. Now that would be a major bummer.


OK the Eskimos would not fall... but the rest of us would.
edit on 13-8-2011 by trailertrash because: (no reason given)


Your actually serious with your responce?

The Eskimos would fall too.

Some people just don't get it.




The eskimoes won't fall... because... they are on the top of the planet? Is that the logic being employed in that statement?


Who the "F" says something like that? That person needs to go back to kindergarten.


I was being sacastic. I honestly don't know if the writer was.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   
"Name a Single Law That Has Solved A Problem"

Too many to list.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


Four-way stop signs still exist, waiting at traffic lights is now less democratic.

I get the OP's point. I'm afraid that the concept of "problem" has to be addressed a little more clearly.

Since I've cited Cuervo's example: What is the main problem for which four-way stops were introduced?

I can think of a few, but the most glaring would be collisions at intersections.

If you think about it, as old as the technology is, traffic lights were merely a way of removing the democratic process from intersections. In effect, the driver moved from an active, analytical role (I got here first, so I go first; I got here third, so I go third; I got here at the same time as the guy to the immediate left, so I go first, then he goes, etc.).

All the traffic light did was take away the control in the hands of the drivers and translate analytical problem solving to pavlovian reactions (green means go, red means stop). Yellow became ambiguous and open to interpretation, so...more high speed collisions even when the person was attempting to at least follow the rules implied. That is to say, if a person runs a four-way stop at posted speed, they are breaking the law; if they run a red light at posted speed they are breaking the law. If they negotiate distance based on their rate of travel and the time the light has been yellow, there is a nuanced area where guilt is difficult to be established.

In reality, the traffic light complicated things.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by 547000
 



Outlawing slavery has solved the problem; therefore slavery isn't a problem anymore in the US.

Um, not really.

Slavery is still a huge problem in the U.S; therefore it is still a problem.


This is true, but it's important that we don't get caught up in semantics. The rebuttal to your post would be that migrant labor and "wage slavery" are not true slavery because there is compensation. Well, if you think about it, slaves didn't work and the receive nothing.

In other words, slavery was not a matter of "work with no pay" as some construe it to be, but rather "work with no choice". With that meaning understood, it becomes clear that the name of the game has changed, but the game lingers on.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


Kro,

You seem to like to poke holes in people's arguments. There is a glaring hole in your own, however.

A court case can set a precedent. A precedent is not a law. A law must be passed by a legislator. A judge merely sets the precedent on how to effectively utilize laws. So your example does not apply to the OP's post.
edit on 13-8-2011 by flanderis because: grammar



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Sphota
 



This is true, but it's important that we don't get caught up in semantics. The rebuttal to your post would be that migrant labor and "wage slavery" are not true slavery because there is compensation.

I wasn't talking about wage labor, I was referring to the on going problem of human trafficking.


edit on 13-8-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Therian
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


What about the Lemon Law.. It dictates that if your sold a Lemon (Federal Means anything Mechanical) Then the manufacturer legally responsible for repairs to the consumer's vehicle or goods if it breaks before the Warranty expires.. The problem was they were selling lemons and the law makes them pay for it. Problem solved with Law.. Now you might say it still happens. Sure it does but because of the law you can take them to court where they will also pay your lawyers fee..

so, if the problem still exists (as you clearly agree), what did the law do to "solve" the problem?
all this law did was allow for redress which is already protected Constitutionally.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   
I'd also add, name one law that actually protected someone.

Someone mentioned driving on the right side of the road. Okay, well, there are still accidents so people were not protected even though there are more laws on the streets than anywhere else in America.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I know of no State where guns are banned and the second amendment says nothing about restricting or regulating them. Only that you may own them.

That's another debate however but regardless I met your criteria for a very loaded question.


Sure it does.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In all states it is illegal to own a fully automatic weapon without a class 3 dealer license. This is a direct violation of the second amendment.

The second amendment doesn't say "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except for machine guns, guided missiles, tanks and all other military hardware."


edit on 12-8-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)


True, in all technicality though, at the time of its writing, canons did exist. I wonder if a random frontiersman would have been allowed a canon...is there such commentary early on? Otherwise, I would mention that arms does not limit itself to firearm by definition, and traditionally, weapons were one on one, meaning that, unless you were a luck shot, no one was going to kill more than one person at a time with one weapon.

Also, it goes:

As passed by the Congress:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


This is a bit ambiguous. For starters, the Congressional approval contained two commas that later disappeared when the states ratified it. This actually does alter the original meaning in a major way.

The original text with the commas in tact leads one to read it as "A well regulated militia shall not be infringed." The other stuff is commentary on the main point. The writer chose commas, but we could just as easily have used parentheticals or hyphens to accomplish the same task by modern standards. In this case, it comes off - in its entirety - as "A well regulated Militia (being necessary to the security of a free state [and] the right of the people to keep and bear arms) shall not be infringed.

If you look at it like this, the amendment does not directly address the types or quantity of weapons, only that weapons need to be present to foment security and freedom in the form of a regulated Militia.

which is the right of the people to keep and bear arms) is necessary to the security of a free state [and thus it] shall not be infringed."

Again, the States ratified it as (without those two commas):

As ratified by the States:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


In this case, the reading is different and actually needs no interpretation, as the commas make it more "clear" as to what shall not be infringed. Clarity of the text here, however, is no guarantee that the original authors did not mean for those commas to be purposefully inserted. Certainly there are differences in text and style from then until now, but the amount of time that transgressed between the Congressional approval of the amendment and the ratification by the States was not so great the the language changed in some drastic way. The commas make or break the interpretation of just what it is that "shall not be infringed".

Some of you are certainly sitting there saying, this guy is over analyzing it. I disagree. The very basis of the law is the written word. Ask yourself how many times a contract gets edited before the final version is put in place? Why is it that a company would want a contract full of legalese and hyphenated, colons and semicolons inserted appropriately and pronouns and demonstratives made redundantly clear?

If law is open to interpretation, as a scholar of law, you would want your text to as crisply and clearly translate what you mean on to paper.

The comma forms a function of disambiguity in many circumstances, especially, is it a relative clause or not?

Example from Wikipedia:

A relative clause takes commas if it is non-restrictive, as in I cut down all the trees, which were over six feet tall. (Without the comma, this would mean that only those trees over six feet tall were cut down.


May seem silly, but the distinction would make a lot of difference if you were a logger, farmer or landscaper. I can come up with my own:

She did all of the work, which was data-entry.


Either all of the work was data-entry, or she only did all of the work that was data-entry (leaving filing or whatever other tasks to the side).

Again, these are random examples of how text changes meaning. Here are some more examples, in this case, the use of the comma as a parenthetical (also obtained from wikipedia - not because we can always trust it, but because it comes with ready made examples):


Parenthetical phrases

Commas are often used to enclose parenthetical words and phrases within a sentence (i.e., information that is not essential to the meaning of the sentence). Such phrases are both preceded and followed by a comma, unless that would result in a doubling of punctuation marks, or the parenthetical is at the start or end of the sentence. The following are examples of types of parenthetical phrases:

Introductory phrase: Once upon a time, my father ate a muffin.[8]
Interjection: My father ate the muffin, gosh darn it!
Aside: My father, if you don’t mind my telling you this, ate the muffin.
Appositive: My father, a jaded and bitter man, ate the muffin.
Absolute phrase: My father, his eyes flashing with rage, ate the muffin.
Free modifier: My father, chewing with unbridled fury, ate the muffin.
Resumptive modifier: My father ate the muffin, a muffin which no man had yet chewed.
Summative modifier: My father ate the muffin, a feat which no man had attempted.



Really there is an issue here in the 2nd amendment. I know the OP requested a certain task and it is not my intent to derail the thread. However, the nuance of text is the catch, because any law can be written a certain way and then interpreted based on the text used. This is probably why reading laws sounds unnatural to human ears accustomed to the more emotive, ambiguous and creative.

The OP was probably trying - from an anarchist standpoint - to point out the invalidity and mutable quality of the law. In effect, no law solves a problem because problems are context dependent and laws are written to apply to "generic incidences". It doesn't matter if the law is precise or vague, every new incident is unique and has to be handled uniquely. Yet, the law, by definition, is an all-encompassing tool.

In this way, I hope I have shown why I don't think I'm derailing the thread. I'm not trying to get into a 2nd amendment discussion, I'm using the 2nd amendment as an example of how even our most foundational laws can be too vague, too precise or interpreted differently.

For further reading about text, I would suggest Austin's Doing things with words.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockdisjoint
 


You still have a good point!
edit on 13-8-2011 by Sphota because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Laws can't even guarantee you cash settlement for damages.

If you are in an accident and it is not your fault, the driver at fault's insurance pays for your car, not the government. You can say the government forces people to get insurance, but if someone does not follow the law they still don't have insurance and thus can not pay you. You'd have to take them to court and there is still no guarantee they will pay you (if they break one law, why would they automatically follow a judge's ruling?)

If something is stolen from you, the police will not reimburse you. If you don't have insurance, tough luck. So even though there are laws against stealing, that law does not necessarily reimburse you. (Maybe the government should force us to have insurance on everything we own, just kidding, but that should be the liberal argument).

If someone you love is murdered, how do you get reimbursement from that? Again, the law can not pay you. The laws against murder also do not protect you, a valid point to make that proves the law can not protect you, but how would the law even reimburse you? You may get some media attention or go on Oprah if your story is really tragic, but that's not the government doing anything (maybe the government should force Oprah to help all the victims the law can not help).

edit on 13-8-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Sphota
 

i'm guessing you don't watch much historical battles via movies, television or theatre
swords have been used for centuries for Multiple killing sprees ... one sword, many deaths.

and, your entire argument (pointless as it is) is based on the Second Amemdment being interpreted as a stand alone law in need of interpretation and that is not the case, not at all.

btw, the commas are NOT included in the original Ratified amendment ... their origin is unknown.
i would suggest a more factual resource such as this one ... source

3. In the Congressional Statutes at Large, Vol. 1, Page 97, at memory.loc.gov.../llsl001.db&recNum=220, the first and third commas are omitted, so that it reads:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

The question remains open of where those additional, and grammatically spurious, commas came from, but they do not change the legal meaning of the provision, and it would not be erroneous to omit them.

all that is left is for the people to read and understand the original ... rather the re-writes.
edit on 13-8-2011 by Honor93 because: add txt

edit on 13-8-2011 by Honor93 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


What a stupid question. Nothing is 100%. No problem "no longer exists." How do you define "solved" or "problem".

This is just silly.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   
The existence of a code of law in general solves a problem. It puts everyone in society on equal ground. An agreement on how we at least should conduct ourselves with one another. Even thought the law against murder doesn't completely eliminate the problem. We do all at least know the consequences of the act, and societies consiquence for it.

Without the understanding of a code we have no way of having any certainty at all how deal with one another in business, disputes, and the general day to day interactions.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by 547000
 



Outlawing slavery has solved the problem; therefore slavery isn't a problem anymore in the US.

Um, not really.

Slavery is still a huge problem in the U.S; therefore it is still a problem.


Laws CAN'T solve problems, because they are not designed to, laws can only punish those who cause the problem in hope that the problem won't be as bad in the future.

anti slavery laws greately decreased slavery, but they did not erradicated it, because that's not what they where meant to do, they where only meant to punish the people who hold slaves.

Now, if you do make the definition of solving a problem a bit more wide, then there are a variety of laws that DID solve problems, for example: anti slavery laws did solved the problem of slavery not being punished.
edit on 13/8/2011 by mbartelsm because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join