4 ms·
Yea sorry, meant civil law. Murder is kind of hard to use as an example because there's typically really strong moral and cultural understandings that you shou
by gph 9y ago
Yea sorry, meant civil law.
Murder is kind of hard to use as an example because there's typically really strong moral and cultural understandings that you shouldn't be doing that. But lets think of a more nuanced example. Lets say there's a lake that's being overfished. The government doesn't want to outlaw all fishing, but they want to rein in the more massive fishing operations. So they outlaw using trawler nets in the lake, but people using conventional poles or spears can keep fishing as much as they want.
Now say someone comes along and figures out another method to massively overfish the lake without using nets. In civil law countries if the law is written to specifically outlaw the use of nets I think the people would look at the law as faulty instead of the person who exploits the loophole. After all, whatever method they figured out isn't actually illegal. And the way to solve the issue is to update the law, not to punish the clever loophole seeker.
But in common law countries the law would more likely be written in a way that can't be as strictly interpreted. There might be wiggle room that would allow a judge/jury to basically say "Look we didn't explicitly forbid what you are doing, but it's clearly something this law was meant to prevent. Therefore you're guilty, and case law will be updated to include this verdict."
At least that's how I interpret it.
- throwaway613834 9y agoInteresting, thanks for the example. It doesn't fully seem to be consistent with my experience (I feel the US allows much more freedom than many civil law countries, which seems unintuitive give this line of reasoning) but you're probably right, I'll have to read more about this haha. Thanks!
- gcb0 9y agomurder is actually the perfect example. it was legal in so many ways in the past (slavery) and a few today (death penalty, wars) the thing with all laws, and the state, is that they exist not to make the world fair, but ti maintain status quo. in the death example, if the law explicitly left baseball bats deaths out, that means that someone with influence over the state wanted it to be exempt. this is the same on china now probably. china has tons of tech and hydropower. heck they may have invented satoshi! and maybe now too many small players are disrupting their game? or it maybe be that btc is but an annoyance to them and when their economy crumbles because of the upcomingreal state buble they dont want to also have to deal with people loosing money to bogus ICOs. who knows?