That's not what ambiguity means. Ambiguity is, for example, the CFAA. Nobody really knows what "unauthorized access" means, it's ambiguous.
Ethanol subsidies aren't ambiguous. Nobody seriously disagrees on what they are. People disagree on whether we should have them.
And there are issues where that kind of disagreement is purely subjective, like abortion. Purely a disagreement about principles rather than facts.
But there are also your Bridge to Nowhere type deals, like ethanol subsidies, that are contrary to objective fact. The bill is sold under a particular justification (e.g. reduce dependence on petroleum) and it factually does not do that. There is no principle to disagree about, it's objectively just pork, and the "facts" used by the proponents are lies.
The thing where lobbyists pretend there are zero objective things just because there are non-zero non-objective things is merely a dishonest tactic they use to paper over the unjustifiability of their preferred pork.
> The system is all that keeps you and the corn farmers from picking up a gun and removing ambiguity.
There is a difference between specific rules and the concept of having rules. Basically nobody is in favor of total anarchy or removing foundational rules like the illegality of murder.
But when your tax code is more than a thousand pages, it's past time to throw it out and start over.
Ethanol subsidies aren't ambiguous. Nobody seriously disagrees on what they are. People disagree on whether we should have them.
And there are issues where that kind of disagreement is purely subjective, like abortion. Purely a disagreement about principles rather than facts.
But there are also your Bridge to Nowhere type deals, like ethanol subsidies, that are contrary to objective fact. The bill is sold under a particular justification (e.g. reduce dependence on petroleum) and it factually does not do that. There is no principle to disagree about, it's objectively just pork, and the "facts" used by the proponents are lies.
The thing where lobbyists pretend there are zero objective things just because there are non-zero non-objective things is merely a dishonest tactic they use to paper over the unjustifiability of their preferred pork.
> The system is all that keeps you and the corn farmers from picking up a gun and removing ambiguity.
There is a difference between specific rules and the concept of having rules. Basically nobody is in favor of total anarchy or removing foundational rules like the illegality of murder.
But when your tax code is more than a thousand pages, it's past time to throw it out and start over.