4 ms·

Legal is the default state for devices that don't use public roads, public airwaves, etc.

by chaz72 11y ago

jMyles 11y ago
This is a no true Scotsman fallacy. There's no reason that roads and airwaves need to be managed by violence.
- gress 11y ago
  How do you suggest dealing with drunk drivers or getaway cars?
- gnaritas 11y ago
  Law doesn't require reason, it's a popularity contest, not a theorem.
  - jMyles 11y ago
    Surely you realize that this position is not universally held? For a primer on an alternative view, start with The Law: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/44800/44800-h/44800-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/44800/44800-h/44800-h.htm
    - gnaritas 11y ago
      Universally held or not, it's a fact, not a matter of belief; laws are passed by popular consent, not by adherence to reason.
      - jMyles 11y ago
        Most people don't regard "the law" to be merely the collection of statues passed by whatever government claims power at a given moment. "The law" is subject to incredible debate and scrutiny - this is the reason, for example, for constitutional courts. It is also the basis for revolution. What if more than one entity claims to be the legitimate government? Then what is 'the law'? Merely reading the federal register is not sufficient to inform someone about the particulars of the law. Please - read the essay and see if you are find "the law" to be a matter of fact.
        gnaritas 11y ago
        > "The law" is subject to incredible debate and scrutiny Not debated, but only after the fact when challenged. Laws are passed by popular consent, even when they contradict previous laws and they tend to stand for far longer than they should because taking down bad law takes years. You're discussing an ideal "law", I'm discussing actual law. Take gay marriage, illegal for how long... despite always violating the constitution; it just took that long for the courts to acknowledge the discrimination that was going on. And no, I'm not going to read a few thousands words because you're unable to make your point yourself. My point is fact, and stands: law doesn't require reason to exist. Yes, eventually, after many decades, reason may find its way into the law, but that doesn't dispute my claim.
        jMyles 11y ago
        > And no, I'm not going to read a few thousands words because you're unable to make your point yourself. This is ridiculous. Not every matter of conversation - especially one so enormous as "what is the nature of law?" can be answered in an HN thread. There's nothing wrong with reading a few thousand words of a crucial essay to educate yourself. That's what you need to do to be able to think clearly about big topics. Reading the law will only just get you started. It makes sense to read The Federalist Papers, The Communist Manifesto, The Republic, and many other cornerstones of thinking about this instead of demanding that someone distill thousands of years of thought into a HN comment. > My point is fact, and stands: It isn't and doesn't. I asked you a simple question in my last comment that you haven't answered that, for your purposes, may well "make my point": What about a situation in which two different entities both claim to be the legitimate government? Or a society in which large numbers of people regard a government as illegitimate? Or who regard particular laws as beyond a purview which they recognize for government? What then is "the law?" How many different places to you need to look to find this one law?
        gnaritas 11y ago
        > That's what you need to do to be able to think clearly about big topics. This isn't a big topic, I stated a fact, I'm sorry you're unable to cope with that. > Not every matter of conversation - especially one so enormous as "what is the nature of law?" can be answered in an HN thread. Fortunate then that we are not discussing the nature of law. > It isn't and doesn't. Yes it is and yes it does. > What about a situation in which two different entities both claim to be the legitimate government? Or a society in which large numbers of people regard a government as illegitimate? Or who regard particular laws as beyond a purview which they recognize for government? None of those questions are relevant to the point I made and serve only as an attempt to move the goal post because you're unwilling or unable to restrict yourself to the point I'm making; I reject this attempt. There is no discussion to be had here, I stated facts, not opinions to be debated; it is a fact that laws need not be logical to be passed, you're being a child to deny that; we're done. Whatever your higher point about law is, I don't care.
- azernik 11y ago
  Of course there is. They are common goods: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_good_(economics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_good_(economics)

Legal is the default state for devices that don't use public roads, public airwaves, etc.

by chaz72 11y ago

Legal is the default state for devices that don't use public roads, public airwaves, etc.

jMyles 11y ago

This is a no true Scotsman fallacy. There's no reason that roads and airwaves need to be managed by violence.

gress 11y ago
How do you suggest dealing with drunk drivers or getaway cars?
gnaritas 11y ago
Law doesn't require reason, it's a popularity contest, not a theorem.
- jMyles 11y ago
  Surely you realize that this position is not universally held? For a primer on an alternative view, start with The Law: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/44800/44800-h/44800-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/44800/44800-h/44800-h.htm
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    Universally held or not, it's a fact, not a matter of belief; laws are passed by popular consent, not by adherence to reason.
    - jMyles 11y ago
      Most people don't regard "the law" to be merely the collection of statues passed by whatever government claims power at a given moment. "The law" is subject to incredible debate and scrutiny - this is the reason, for example, for constitutional courts. It is also the basis for revolution. What if more than one entity claims to be the legitimate government? Then what is 'the law'? Merely reading the federal register is not sufficient to inform someone about the particulars of the law. Please - read the essay and see if you are find "the law" to be a matter of fact.
      - gnaritas 11y ago
        > "The law" is subject to incredible debate and scrutiny Not debated, but only after the fact when challenged. Laws are passed by popular consent, even when they contradict previous laws and they tend to stand for far longer than they should because taking down bad law takes years. You're discussing an ideal "law", I'm discussing actual law. Take gay marriage, illegal for how long... despite always violating the constitution; it just took that long for the courts to acknowledge the discrimination that was going on. And no, I'm not going to read a few thousands words because you're unable to make your point yourself. My point is fact, and stands: law doesn't require reason to exist. Yes, eventually, after many decades, reason may find its way into the law, but that doesn't dispute my claim.
        jMyles 11y ago
        > And no, I'm not going to read a few thousands words because you're unable to make your point yourself. This is ridiculous. Not every matter of conversation - especially one so enormous as "what is the nature of law?" can be answered in an HN thread. There's nothing wrong with reading a few thousand words of a crucial essay to educate yourself. That's what you need to do to be able to think clearly about big topics. Reading the law will only just get you started. It makes sense to read The Federalist Papers, The Communist Manifesto, The Republic, and many other cornerstones of thinking about this instead of demanding that someone distill thousands of years of thought into a HN comment. > My point is fact, and stands: It isn't and doesn't. I asked you a simple question in my last comment that you haven't answered that, for your purposes, may well "make my point": What about a situation in which two different entities both claim to be the legitimate government? Or a society in which large numbers of people regard a government as illegitimate? Or who regard particular laws as beyond a purview which they recognize for government? What then is "the law?" How many different places to you need to look to find this one law?
        gnaritas 11y ago
        > That's what you need to do to be able to think clearly about big topics. This isn't a big topic, I stated a fact, I'm sorry you're unable to cope with that. > Not every matter of conversation - especially one so enormous as "what is the nature of law?" can be answered in an HN thread. Fortunate then that we are not discussing the nature of law. > It isn't and doesn't. Yes it is and yes it does. > What about a situation in which two different entities both claim to be the legitimate government? Or a society in which large numbers of people regard a government as illegitimate? Or who regard particular laws as beyond a purview which they recognize for government? None of those questions are relevant to the point I made and serve only as an attempt to move the goal post because you're unwilling or unable to restrict yourself to the point I'm making; I reject this attempt. There is no discussion to be had here, I stated facts, not opinions to be debated; it is a fact that laws need not be logical to be passed, you're being a child to deny that; we're done. Whatever your higher point about law is, I don't care.
azernik 11y ago
Of course there is. They are common goods: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_good_(economics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_good_(economics)