ENOUGH

I see that sometimes how vague language 

makes even simple ideas complicated. 

This inquiring mind wants to know, what's enough?

The idea of what is “enough” 

Placing value is very subjective, except when it’s not. 

Even the idea of what is practical comes into question

Who places a limitation also defines who'll control that valuation

And how what is enough is defined and how that definition is accepted. 

A chemical solution of sugar in tea is a good example

The what and why of sugar in tea can be very, very subjective. 

When are there enough taxes, enough clean water or enough pollution that is harmful? And then, harmful to whom? Enough tax for whom? What purpose will the enough serve, and for who? 

Working in an acceptable range of enough is very fuzzy

A stuffed animal seems more real.

Even the acceptability of the acceptable “enough” comes into question at practically every instance of a moral or legal question

That vagueness is what makes jurisprudent construction so difficult. 

How can such a construction not fail? 

The differences in what is “moral” or “legal” are very confusing when such are compared to, say, State's Right vs Federal, or, from one religious view vs another.

Enough about enough, hopefully.

Where is my fuzzy stuffed animal?

A. Mendoza,2016