Dieseler
11-21-2008, 09:36 AM
I've been reading a little about basic chemistry recently. Of course this lead me to understand basically the Laws of mass and energy and then that lead me to understand that theories are the result of very much testing of hypothesis, in many stages, that are determined or discovered through experimentation.
A very small light, I must admit, went off in my head.
Very small indeed...
I then asked myself: Why is legislation not tested and scrutinized in the same way that scientific hypothesis, theory and laws must be?
Or is it in some cases?
I think that in most cases it is not.
I can only assume that laws, in the way they are passed and enforced, are not even closely held to the same strict analysis that hypothesis, theory and law in the scientific fields are judged and agreed upon.
"Whats the problem here?" I asked myself, and I come up with one possible reason.
Legislation is often dreamed up and written by less than completely educated men and women in the matters they are assumed to be and given preponderance over while they are heavily influenced over by agents of the powers of the golden rule. Corruption can no doubt be one of many results when law is written under such circumstances.
Why do common men and women sit idly by and allow this to happen? That question in itself is easy to answer.
It is the law.
Ok, so now that that it is determined and I'm sure agreed upon by many, that the methods by which legislation is dreamed up and passed is flawed,
How can it remain law itself?
Isn't the creation of legislation that effects us all at least as important as the scientific laws?
When such legislation is found to be flawed or it causes undesirable outcomes, Why is it then not reduced immediately to something less than law to be further scrutinized?
Is one mans signature so much more incredible than that of another?
I'm rambling now so I will stop here.
Mods feel free to move this thread if it is not suitable to general or you see a better place for it.
Thanks.
A very small light, I must admit, went off in my head.
Very small indeed...
I then asked myself: Why is legislation not tested and scrutinized in the same way that scientific hypothesis, theory and laws must be?
Or is it in some cases?
I think that in most cases it is not.
I can only assume that laws, in the way they are passed and enforced, are not even closely held to the same strict analysis that hypothesis, theory and law in the scientific fields are judged and agreed upon.
"Whats the problem here?" I asked myself, and I come up with one possible reason.
Legislation is often dreamed up and written by less than completely educated men and women in the matters they are assumed to be and given preponderance over while they are heavily influenced over by agents of the powers of the golden rule. Corruption can no doubt be one of many results when law is written under such circumstances.
Why do common men and women sit idly by and allow this to happen? That question in itself is easy to answer.
It is the law.
Ok, so now that that it is determined and I'm sure agreed upon by many, that the methods by which legislation is dreamed up and passed is flawed,
How can it remain law itself?
Isn't the creation of legislation that effects us all at least as important as the scientific laws?
When such legislation is found to be flawed or it causes undesirable outcomes, Why is it then not reduced immediately to something less than law to be further scrutinized?
Is one mans signature so much more incredible than that of another?
I'm rambling now so I will stop here.
Mods feel free to move this thread if it is not suitable to general or you see a better place for it.
Thanks.