It goes without saying that the use of the word “controversial” is not an insult. It is the truth. It is literally the truth. We cannot have a “controversial” law. We should not be fighting the law. We should be fighting a problem that has to do with our values.
I don’t know, but it certainly has me thinking about this law. I’ve made my own arguments about why I think we should not have a controversial law. I don’t know that I have a right to a controversial law. But I do think that the law should have a purpose. It should be more than just a law, it should actually be a law that has a purpose. I would argue that a controversial law is one that does more than just enforce things.
For example, I think laws should have a purpose. They should be a good way of enforcing certain things. So I imagine that the law should not enforce that everyone has to wear a seatbelt. They should enforce that everyone has to wear a seatbelt. The law should enforce that every public school is required to teach the proper use of a condom. The law should enforce that every school should teach abstinence before marriage. The law should enforce that everyone should be required to teach abstinence before marriage.
The problem is, laws are often made up of conflicting opinions and there is no way to determine which ones actually have a purpose. What laws actually do is enforce certain things that are not true. I once read a post on the Internet (via a friend) about the need for laws in Africa. It made me laugh because all the people in Africa who don’t wear seatbelts also wear headgear. They also wear condoms. They all wear glasses. So we should just ban them all.
This is what happens when laws are made up of “untrue” opinions. They may have a purpose, but they certainly don’t have one. They enforce certain things that are not true. When I saw the above article on the Internet, my heart sank a little because I knew that there was a strong possibility that it would end up in court. But then I thought about it further and realized that there was nothing wrong with banning seatbelts.
Seatbelts have a purpose, even if it’s a purpose that I want to get rid of. People always talk about seatbelts being an issue, but there’s no reason to ban them. If you have the right to ride a bicycle anywhere in the country, you can ride it on a bike path or on the sidewalk. If you want to ride on a bike path on a sidewalk, you just have to get off the sidewalk and ride on the path you want to ride on.
But if you want to ride on a sidewalk, you can’t ride a bike. If you want to ride a bike on a sidewalk, you have to remove your bike from the sidewalk because you can’t ride on the sidewalk.
that’s right, you cant ride a bike on a sidewalk.
Just like the US Constitution and the European Union (EU), the idea of the law is always in flux. For example, the EU has had a long, contentious debate about its freedom of movement rules, which are also enforced by the US. In fact, the concept of a “no-free-travel law” is so controversial that it was actually called the “Bicycling Bill of Rights” in 2010.
In the United States you are free to move within the US but if you want to cross a state line, you have to either choose to cross the state line or be arrested. The state of New York, for instance, does not recognize federal laws requiring that you be out of your state when you cross a state line.