[Bruce Parker (RIP)]

Laws used to be made to solve problems. There was a connection between what the problem was and what the law did to solve it. The new trend is to pass laws that don't, can't and are not designed to solve the problem. They merely send "the right message that we take this problem seriously". Two recent examples are banning handguns to solve gang violence and, more recently in Ontario, a proposal to not issue driver's licences to students who drop out of school. In both cases the problem is real, but as the politicians have no idea how to solve them (or acknowledge that their policies contributed to them), they make laws that target the wrong things, are not enforceable, are down right silly, but dam, they get tough and "send the right message".

The second trend is to describe almost everything the government lets you do as a 'privilege'. No longer are they rights, or just things that are a good idea to regulate and have some limits on. Driving, gun ownership is not a right, but a priviledge. This makes it so much easier to manipulate them, charge for them or take them away.

Even if linking driver's licences to staying in school was a great idea (school for kids is good. I like school for kids), what else, what other priviledges will be manipulated, linked or denied if you don't act according to the way they think you aught to?