i can understand where you're coming from. i've felt exactly the same about Martin Shkreli. people just went crazy about him, and few asked how to change the sy

i can understand where you're coming from. i've felt exactly the same about Martin Shkreli. people just went crazy about him, and few asked how to change the system to not allow it. but still, even if the system is wrong, so is Shkreli. no system can be perfect. even in pure math you have Gödel. in the ugly gray world of real life, of human societies, it can only be worse. unpredictable outcomes, grey areas,.. they are unavoidable. so i think we must do both - create systems which try to guarantee good order, and always complement them with a human touch. and that means personal moral responsibility, and a duty to think of more than just satisfying the dead letter of the law. furthermore, a system which would exactly codify morality is probably impossible, or even deadly for society. (just imagine what it means to have laws covering everything that is immoral... it would be the most extremely totalitarian state imaginable.) a lot will always be left to people themselves, to decide and to enforce in this way, through open public discussions, and their ugly brother, public blaming and shaming. it not even clear: should we even make a law against what Mr Thiel is doing? the answer does not seem so easy to me. also, how could this discussion even take place if no one should judge the actions of Mr Thiel? what kind of abstract articles would we then be reading? "somebody somewhere did something, we can't say too much about what, so you don't figure out who it is"? :) BTW, is it not kinda funny to defend a well known libertarian by proposing a stricter system? :)