4 ms·

Benjamin Franklin's world is so utterly different from ours because of where they were on the technology curve then, he may as well be talking about a different

Benjamin Franklin's world is so utterly different from ours because of where they were on the technology curve then, he may as well be talking about a different universe. Maybe if you live in a suburb in the Netherlands and are part of a privileged socioeconomic class, these risks are low to non-existent. How about the billion plus people who don't even have electricity today? How about those who have nothing to give to the global economy because they're unemployable, cast aside, and lack technology, do they not live in risky environments and engage in risky behaviors as a matter of course through no fault of their own? Are there not entire countries of people getting pwned in every sense of the word by more powerful entities, right now, as we speak? Used up and then left to perish? No matter what the statistics, these poor victims are somebody. They're real people. "Oh, but that crime is so rare (for someone like me)" What about slave trade? Our "low crime" existence in first world countries isn't made possible by rampant crime and resource domination on the other side of borders? From where I'm standing, it looks to me like a lot of assholes are not only getting away with murder and ecological destruction, they're getting rich off of it, despite any and all laws to the contrary. How does making law less enforceable by embracing shadows (lack of transparency) in our age of accelerating technological change make life better for the majority (all living things)? Unfortunately the American Bill of Rights doesn't mean shit unless it applies to everyone. American business and government as a matter of course commit atrocities that are against it and nothing happens merely because those atrocities aren't (directly / provably) against Americans. As a response to all the other children posts of this thread, I'm not saying let's maintain the status quo, plus perfect enforcement of the law. I'm saying we're entering a new age and shit needs to get revamped badly. Transparency in all things public would be a big step towards ridding our world of many evils that happen right now because powerful actors always have and will continue to act in the shadows while humanity, as a group, agrees to put up with it, er because e.g. preteens are sexting each other and as a result, the current utterly draconian and provably corrupt & massively inefficient law system has destroyed their first world lives. That really, really sucks. You know what sucks even worse? Being born or sold into sex slavery. Simplify the law, make a universal bill of rights for all living things. Make it global. Automate and enforce it. For everyone. Obsolete the time when you could kill disenfranchised people and get away with it 'because high-priced lawyers'. It's hard for me to see how that could possibly be worse than what we have today, where the few get a nice life and all the rest are grist for the mill, to be used up.

coldtea 11y ago
>How does making law less enforceable by embracing shadows (lack of transparency) in our age of accelerating technological change make life better for the majority (all living things)? The people you mention (the billions of global poor) get by, and live somewhat free, because of the law being less enforceable. All of them break this or that law in order to make ends meet and survive. And those laws are compiled and passed by people who'd rather get rid of those poor altogether. Again, to quote Anatole France: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread". More enforceability of the law will mean more people at the mercy of the law -- and more people in jail, undeservingly so. Not to mention that this whole discussion presumes "ethical laws" -- which is far from the truth in most of the world, include the BS us "three strikes laws" (which can put a man, usually a poor and/or black one, in jail for life for stealing a loaf of bread if they've done 2 equally BS offences in the past), marijuana laws, sodomy laws (until recently), etc.
lettergram 11y ago
> it looks to me like a lot of assholes are not only getting away with murder and ecological destruction, they're getting rich off of it, despite any and all laws to the contrary (1) You are comparing murder to ecological destruction. To me that seems like you're ethical code compares the two, which I have to question. Ethically, to me, creating a dam to give water and food to millions is better than murder.... I realize that's probably not the case, you were thinking of, but you should consider what you think of as right or wrong, then imagine the exact opposite. Do you want those perfectly enforced? (2) Usually, the people you don't like are using laws to get away with ecological destruction. Perfect enforcement would only make it worse.

coldtea 11y ago

>How does making law less enforceable by embracing shadows (lack of transparency) in our age of accelerating technological change make life better for the majority (all living things)? The people you mention (the billions of global poor) get by, and live somewhat free, because of the law being less enforceable. All of them break this or that law in order to make ends meet and survive. And those laws are compiled and passed by people who'd rather get rid of those poor altogether. Again, to quote Anatole France: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread". More enforceability of the law will mean more people at the mercy of the law -- and more people in jail, undeservingly so. Not to mention that this whole discussion presumes "ethical laws" -- which is far from the truth in most of the world, include the BS us "three strikes laws" (which can put a man, usually a poor and/or black one, in jail for life for stealing a loaf of bread if they've done 2 equally BS offences in the past), marijuana laws, sodomy laws (until recently), etc.

lettergram 11y ago

> it looks to me like a lot of assholes are not only getting away with murder and ecological destruction, they're getting rich off of it, despite any and all laws to the contrary (1) You are comparing murder to ecological destruction. To me that seems like you're ethical code compares the two, which I have to question. Ethically, to me, creating a dam to give water and food to millions is better than murder.... I realize that's probably not the case, you were thinking of, but you should consider what you think of as right or wrong, then imagine the exact opposite. Do you want those perfectly enforced? (2) Usually, the people you don't like are using laws to get away with ecological destruction. Perfect enforcement would only make it worse.