Sorry this took me a while to get back to. I agree that if you reduce things to logical equivalences there is no semantic difference when you process all cases fully. But that's not how humans or our system works. In the extreme case (and I know you hate slippery slope arguments but here goes) you'd have to go to the government to get permission for EVERY action because whatever you do might violate some law. Clearly that's silly, so we draw a line somewhere else.
Wherever we draw that line it creates the "downstream" situation you wrote about, which I vastly prefer. I prefer it because in a logical sense people are very bad at nuance and predicting complex interactions. Those need to be worked out in media res. In addition, downstream exceptions most often get to the courts first, who are in a position to examine the relevant facts and judge how the law should apply. Often they get it wrong, but that's why we have appeals processes and the ability of the legislature to go back and fix things. And sometimes they get it right - right-er than the population. Gay marriage being just one prominent recent example. Conversely, legislation that is over-written or over-broad in an attempt to deal with all possible situations up front lead to ridiculous outcomes.
So if we're going to draw a line somewhere other than "ask the government first about everything you're thinking of doing" then I prefer to draw that line a great deal farther upstream. To wit, I think there are a set of things that almost all people would agree are unambiguous and those things are what we write legislation to prohibit. The more grey an area gets the more I want it left to be worked out case by case.
Relatedly, the less necessary it is to have governmental involvement the more I want decisions made downstream. As I originally wrote I think it's important to have government available to protect people from coercion and fraud, both of which are concerns in the marriage area. I think minors also ought to be able to get governmental protection in situations where their families are failing to protect (or may actively be endangering) them. But since these are (I expect) minority cases, I want the rest resolved downstream.
no subject
Wherever we draw that line it creates the "downstream" situation you wrote about, which I vastly prefer. I prefer it because in a logical sense people are very bad at nuance and predicting complex interactions. Those need to be worked out in media res. In addition, downstream exceptions most often get to the courts first, who are in a position to examine the relevant facts and judge how the law should apply. Often they get it wrong, but that's why we have appeals processes and the ability of the legislature to go back and fix things. And sometimes they get it right - right-er than the population. Gay marriage being just one prominent recent example. Conversely, legislation that is over-written or over-broad in an attempt to deal with all possible situations up front lead to ridiculous outcomes.
So if we're going to draw a line somewhere other than "ask the government first about everything you're thinking of doing" then I prefer to draw that line a great deal farther upstream. To wit, I think there are a set of things that almost all people would agree are unambiguous and those things are what we write legislation to prohibit. The more grey an area gets the more I want it left to be worked out case by case.
Relatedly, the less necessary it is to have governmental involvement the more I want decisions made downstream. As I originally wrote I think it's important to have government available to protect people from coercion and fraud, both of which are concerns in the marriage area. I think minors also ought to be able to get governmental protection in situations where their families are failing to protect (or may actively be endangering) them. But since these are (I expect) minority cases, I want the rest resolved downstream.