3 ms·
I disagree. The point is that by creating a law which you by extension are asking the police to enforce, you are inherently increasing the number of times that
by bluejekyll 10y ago
I disagree. The point is that by creating a law which you by extension are asking the police to enforce, you are inherently increasing the number of times that the police will negatively interact with people.
The cigarette tax is interesting because this exemplifies a corporate entity/state which wants to protect its revenue at the expense of a person lower on the ladder trying to address a simple market situation, it's not one that I or you deal in, but this guy obviously did.
By making it illegal, the police must enforce the law. The guy then breaking said law is faced with a hard choice when dealing with the police in that situation, which is that he is going to be at a minimum fined or possibly worse. For a cigarette, which all sane people would say, "seriously?"
Our goal should be to have police enforce laws that we care about, and laws that actually matter. It reduces the chance for potential abuse of the law. Remember that most poor people are forced to work and live in more public areas, where richer people have more private property that shields potentially the same or worse incursions of the law from the police.
- tprynn 10y agoThe discussion of cigarette sales/taxes is clearly a strawman. If you believe that we shouldn't have laws unless we are willing to kill to enforce them, you should be able to defend this argument against a law which the vast majority of people will support. For example, I would not choose to kill someone for driving drunk, but strongly support laws which ban drunk driving and remove the ability to drive from convicted drunk drivers.
- cheald 10y ago> The discussion of cigarette sales/taxes is clearly a strawman. I'd suggest that Eric Garner's case very explicitly proves otherwise.
- tantalor 10y agoAre you trolling? "Strawman", really? Are you not aware of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Eric_Garner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Eric_Garner? > I would not choose to kill someone for driving drunk You have completely missed the point of OP; it's not the punishment for the crime which results in death, but the enforcement of the law.
- necessity 10y agoIt is not the death penalty for drinking and driving that is on the table, but the possibility of the offender being killed as a result of a confrontation with the police over the act of drinking and driving. Engendering innocent lives is a serious felony and I imagine most people would support the police stopping the car with tire slashes and confronting the offender in case of further resistance, even though he might be killed (which is not the objective, but a possible consequence).
- tprynn 10y agoThanks for your clear argument. I was definitely arguing 'past' the parent, and this helped me to see that. Won't hide my shame at completely missing the point.