Nope. It’s because law is not something you use to protect people from themselves. This is principled.
There is no proficient enforcement model for such laws. People can willfully break them, without anyone knowing or reporting that they were broken in the first place.
This weakens rule of law, to the point of encouraging people to organize to break yet other laws. This is a known, observable effect.
The problem is that you’re trying to premise a different reality that we don’t live in. A better world that doesn’t exist, and cannot be made to exist, because of the human condition.
We have limits to law we have to acknowledge, and freedoms that people have that we must observe. No matter how much we may disprove of the way they use them.
You mean where I quoted multiple sources, you quoted one, and were ultimately proven wrong when it came to the original point of the discussion?
Because the F-15E doesn’t have the range to do anything more than a one-way trip from Djibouti, to Benghazi, without support?
You kept changing the criteria: whether it was loaded, whether it had to be a one-way or both-way trip, and that made things confusing. You even tried to alter the discussion point to one about a specific range number, instead of a range necessary to meet the original goal of flying back and forth between those two points.
Regardless; I was proven right, and you cannot, right now, quote any sources to me that will prove your side of that argument.
The F-15E could not operate at that distance and fly back without tanker support. Fact.
You were wrong, so quit with the conspiracy theories, quit suggesting the Air Force didn’t do its job that night, you have no right to suggest it. I don’t give a flying **** who you think you are. When you result to petty **** like this, you’re no better than the dozens of 9/11 truthers I’ve talked to.
A majority of people have to agree to observe the law, because law is partially a social construct. That shouldn’t surprise you.
If the community doesn’t affirm the law, things quickly fall into disarray, and you can even get what police would call “no-go zones”.
We have them right now, and they are due to laws currently on the books that are also unenforceable; laws that ruined the enforceability of other laws.
Other laws like murders. Their enforceability become collateral damage of lawmakers not understanding the limits of their powers. They create microcosmic meltdowns in the rule of law as a consequence of putting unenforceable laws on the books.
God also affirms the harm of drunkenness, and taking his name in vain.
Guess what’s still legal?
Try as you may, Fantasy Chaser, you cannot deny the fact that not every thing wrong has been made illegal, and for many of such things it’s for good reason.
For my part, I never once denied that Pornography causes harm. What I’m saying is that this doesn’t change the inherent limitations of law. Limitations you would have me believe don’t exist, setting off collateral harm you also pretend don’t exist, or inaccurately portray as “evil resistance”.
Law should be conserved for those things we can control, and only used to mitigate harms for those things we cannot.
“There ought to be a law” is an understandable impulse, but it’s the Conservative who understands that the law cannot be used to right every wrong, and in a society compromised of free persons, each of whom we expect to guide themselves in this world; shouldn’t.