4 ms·

Excellent comment. People need to be called out for this behavior.

• barrkel 10y ago
  I think my comment pinpointed the contradiction at the heart of his logical argument; it was only acceptable if you don't believe in the rule of law.
  • golergka 10y ago
    Believing in the rule of law doesn't oblige you to believe in rule of stupid and illogical law.
    • barrkel 10y ago
      It's an analagous moral hazard, though. Even if bringing a bank down threatens the banking system, it must be done otherwise banks act with impunity. It's little different with bankers and "stupid and illogical law" - if we rely on discretion for which laws we apply, then we're entirely corrupt. We must apply the laws we have and live with the consequences, otherwise we don't live in a lawful society. I see this as an absolute. I don't really see how it can be otherwise.
      • golergka 10y ago
        There wasn't a singpe mention of "bringing down banking system" here. Once again, you arguing without reading first.
        • barrkel 10y ago
          Now I know it's you that isn't reading! The comment I replied to explicitly said "it could trigger a collapse of the entire financial system". This is the justification that sievebrain used for the selective application of what he considers to be poor laws. I say we need to enforce poor laws too, because otherwise it's rule by men, not laws.