Thanks. I appreciate the insight, as it helps me see where others are coming from. Couple of things: Who gets to determine if your actions or inactions are adverse? What I consider adverse may be trifling to you?
Which is preferable: Challenge after the fact, or preemptive regulation? I might respectively argue that preemptive regulation is the basis for a good many of our current laws, rules, and regulations. Better to clarify what is acceptable now, rather than deal with the aftermath later?
I feel there are many who choose to interpret things in a black or white manner, without giving enough consideration to the colors in between. Going by the letter of the law is one thing, but I don't think that excludes us from the necessity of studying the intent for making the law in the first place. I try not to get hung up on semantics, or technicalities, or extreme literal interpretation. Instead, I choose to try reading between the lines, studying my perceived view of the intent, and applying intuitive reasoning.
Maybe we wouldn't have so much regulation if more would realize the intent behind such regulation, rather than taking great pains to pick them apart, looking for areas where they might cast doubt upon what should be obvious.
I couldn't disagree more with the idea of a "preemptive" regulation. Why should someone possibly not liking what I do be cause for me to not do something legal? Let the person talk with, or sue me if they are bothered....
Law, more than anything, should be black and white!!! Ambiguity is exactly what has expanded so many powers in the current topic......the law was not grey or unclear...it was disobeyed!
Heck, I could probably live with an ambiguous law IF they would follow one simple requirement when writing a law...or regulation with the effect of law....Write it in a manner so that a man of common education can understand it!
