All laws cater to the exceptions because if a behavior was the cultural norm there wouldn’t be a law against it.
Your solution has the same level of bureaucracy but delays it and even adds, essentially, an addition licensure so it’s not really the bureaucracy but the timing.
The correct solution is almost certainly legislation at this point... but if the guilt grows too intense, people will ignore the legislation and tip anyway because it will seem immoral to obey any such law.
The cultural norm will soon (if it hasn't already) become ineradicable.
You are right. I guess I should have said "you can't punish away a cultural problem." Using legislation to change the culture itself can certainly work if done right.
But from a practical perspective all of this is already done and kept on the DL even before the law was in place. The social pressure already stops the blatant treatment from occurring.
The laws exist to keep the minority of counter culture people from disrupting the orderly society enjoyed by the majority. Elevating the “rights” of the minority over the comfort of the majority is not a universal value.
That seems like a good recipe for big government. If society can't trust that private institutions can avoid undesirable behavior, the only recourse is to make everything offensive illegal.
So, conversely, if we don't want to live in that world, it is appropriate and beneficial for private institutions to have some standards of acceptable behavior beyond mere legality.
Are laws meant to serve the people or to arrest them to slavery?
Is a pandemic not a good enough reason to create exceptions?
More importantly, if this administration could create exceptions for tax filing, printing money and stopping evictions, why can't they do it for the health of schools and educators?
I assume because of selective enforcement. The more that we make normal everyday events technically illegal, the more likely the police will have to pick and choose what they enforce and what they let slide. Then you have ample opportunity for that discretion to be applied in a discriminatory way.
On the one hand yes, on the other hand laws intended to prevent some behavior are usually less efficient than participants just not doing that behavior, and add extra overhead to the people whom you're worried about doing that behavior.
Your solution has the same level of bureaucracy but delays it and even adds, essentially, an addition licensure so it’s not really the bureaucracy but the timing.
reply