Anon predicting Chevron Doctrine
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (14)
sorted by:
The problem with ambiguity in policy is that it can be steered in any direction, whether it is tighter regulation or de-regulation - at the discretion of the supposed agency (under an elected president); or after the situation goes pearshaped, some back-country judge. And these days, the discretion is linked to poilitcal affiliation, or wokeness.
This is the reason that laws, regulations etc. should be worded exactly - to remove as much ambiguity as possible. But there will always be some, especially when it comes to values: For example - 'As near as reasonably possible' - what does it even mean? And how does one, as a judge, make a decision about - say several deaths due to some coroporate action - which was the 'reasonable' course of action. How much safety precaution is reasonable? And this issue was relevant even when people realized that miner's lives were not expendable during the late 19th C.
There is no such thing as 'zero risk', BTW. So one cannot legislate away everything that is dangerous, much as people would like to.
Which is how they get their "Club" in at the top. If you're not part of the cabal, you can expect your business to be lawfare bankrupted as soon as someone can't figure out the cup labelled "Caution, contents are hot" gets burned and into an accident.
Yes, the system is wide open for nepotistic appointments, and a very spotty result because the discretion allows a wide variety of outcomes.
Our entire system of jurisprudence is based on the reasonable person standard. Im not sure how law can be interpreted in any other way.
I agree, but 10% of the population is not reasonable, because of borderline personality disorders. Whether it is induced by trauma, or not. So, they have an inner three-year old that only think about themselves. Waaah. They will manipulate others to do their bidding, And they take offense at the slightest thing. So example, Narcissists, Sociopaths, and Psychopaths - but there is an entire spectrum. They just do not have a 'normal' filter.
If everyone was reasonable, we would have Utopia.
They dont look at the 10% when deciding what is reasonable. I think everyone, including the socio- and psychopaths, have an innate sense of what is reasonable. They may not follow it but they understand it. And even if they dont the other 90% do.
You concretely define what is reasonable, and mandate penalties for working outside of that definition.
Yes, but therein lies the rub: The concrete stuff is easy, it is the grey areas that force ambiguous language.