3 ms·

>Partial enforcement is a practical reality because we're willing to accept the injustice of partial enforcement rather than live in an Orwellian police state (

>Partial enforcement is a practical reality because we're willing to accept the injustice of partial enforcement rather than live in an Orwellian police state (a decision I'm thrilled with!). False dichotomy. If all laws are fully enforced, bad laws will soon be done away with by popular demand. If the government won't do so willingly, then they will be forced to do so by the people.

BWStearns 11y ago
Can you clarify? I just said that bad laws would go away with full enforcement, which is the core of why it is good for a society to enforce its laws evenly and thoroughly. I don't think there's any false dichotomy produced by simultaneously noting that on a practical level you will never achieve literally 100% enforcement of laws without some serious damage to civil liberties which is why we err on the side of partial enforcement as the lesser of two evils. Edit: Is the issue is the use of the phrase "accept the injustice of partial enforcement"? I was trying to communicate that there is some injustice in not fully applying the law (the fact that some murderers go untried is unjust for instance). However we're willing to accept that because getting literally 100% enforcement would require things we don't want. When I say full enforcement as something to aspire to I'm not suggesting literally 100%, I'm referring to the way we roughly fully enforce murder laws and do not fully enforce drug laws. One of those crimes (more or less) gets treated as a crime regardless of who commits it, the other does not. I don't think we'd tolerate drug laws as they are if they were enforced with the same degree of universality as murder laws.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >I don't think there's any false dichotomy produced by simultaneously noting that on a practical level you will never achieve literally 100% enforcement of laws without some serious damage to civil liberties which is why we err on the side of partial enforcement as the lesser of two evils. My point being there is the third option that the laws will be removed. And it seems like in part of your post you agree with this, but in part of your post you act like this isn't an option. I'm kinda confused in that regard.
  - BWStearns 11y ago
    Sorry, I specifically pointing to Orwellian nightmare a false option. It's like Cake or Death? Cake's really the only thing people are going to pick.

BWStearns 11y ago

Can you clarify? I just said that bad laws would go away with full enforcement, which is the core of why it is good for a society to enforce its laws evenly and thoroughly. I don't think there's any false dichotomy produced by simultaneously noting that on a practical level you will never achieve literally 100% enforcement of laws without some serious damage to civil liberties which is why we err on the side of partial enforcement as the lesser of two evils. Edit: Is the issue is the use of the phrase "accept the injustice of partial enforcement"? I was trying to communicate that there is some injustice in not fully applying the law (the fact that some murderers go untried is unjust for instance). However we're willing to accept that because getting literally 100% enforcement would require things we don't want. When I say full enforcement as something to aspire to I'm not suggesting literally 100%, I'm referring to the way we roughly fully enforce murder laws and do not fully enforce drug laws. One of those crimes (more or less) gets treated as a crime regardless of who commits it, the other does not. I don't think we'd tolerate drug laws as they are if they were enforced with the same degree of universality as murder laws.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>I don't think there's any false dichotomy produced by simultaneously noting that on a practical level you will never achieve literally 100% enforcement of laws without some serious damage to civil liberties which is why we err on the side of partial enforcement as the lesser of two evils. My point being there is the third option that the laws will be removed. And it seems like in part of your post you agree with this, but in part of your post you act like this isn't an option. I'm kinda confused in that regard.
- BWStearns 11y ago
  Sorry, I specifically pointing to Orwellian nightmare a false option. It's like Cake or Death? Cake's really the only thing people are going to pick.