5 ms·

This applies to almost every law, and illegitimate governments don't suddenly give up when there are no legitimate means (laws) that lead to their ends, they ju

This applies to almost every law, and illegitimate governments don't suddenly give up when there are no legitimate means (laws) that lead to their ends, they just use violence. This is deeply ignorant.

pdonis 8y ago
> This applies to almost every law Yep. What does that tell you? > illegitimate governments don't suddenly give up when there are no legitimate means (laws) that lead to their ends, they just use violence Only if they can get away with it. That is not always the case. And that's a key point of the test: it could be rephrased as "will this make it easier for an illegitimate government to achieve its ends using violence?"
- pvg 8y ago
  Yep. What does that tell you? It tells you exactly what the commenter is saying. This is a really silly 'test'.
  - pdonis 8y ago
    > It tells you exactly what the commenter is saying. This is a really silly 'test'. I think you and the other commenter are seriously missing the point.
    - dblotsky 8y ago
      The ultimate law in this case is discrimination. If it can get away with targeting anyone - an individual or a demographic - for imprisonment or murder, the game is already lost.
    - pvg 8y ago
      The point is to attempt to connect all sorts of laws the author doesn't like to Nazism and the holocaust. It's a common 2A-absolutist trope but it's so ahistorical, dumb and offensive nobody else takes it seriously. That's really all there is to it.
    - camgunz 8y ago
      There are a lot of people who live in places that are essentially lawless, but that experience isn't freedom like extreme libertarians might believe. It's total fear that at any moment 20 people in shitty Jeeps can drive up and threaten to cut off your hands unless you kill your parents and join their gang. This is what we refer to as the state of nature. At some point, people get pretty tired of it, so they form their own gangs to fight back. Time goes on, decisions have to be made about how to run things, you make a couple of rules, and before you know it you've got yourself a government. But what I find more dangerous is this ersatz common sense tone in the essay. It lends the argument a certain weight, like "boy, balancing of rights sure is tricky. Can we __really__ trust governments? I mean, Nazis." Please no one fall for this. The rule of law is a bedrock principle of human civilization, not a bullet train to totalitarian town.
      - pdonis 8y ago
        > The rule of law is a bedrock principle of human civilization The article is not advocating abandoning the rule of law. It is advocating judging laws based on a particular criterion. The fact that many existing laws do not meet that criterion does not mean no laws do, nor does it mean the only alternative is to abandon laws altogether. For example, consider the law against murder. Does it meet the criterion? Of course. Having a law against murder does not make it easier for the government to persecute the innocent.
        tacomonstrous 8y ago
        >For example, consider the law against murder. Does it meet the criterion? Of course. Not at all. What if the Jew in the attic had to kill an errant Nazi out of self-defense?
        pdonis 8y ago
        > What if the Jew in the attic had to kill an errant Nazi out of self-defense? Killing in self-defense is not murder.
        camgunz 8y ago
    - JadeNB 8y ago
      > I think you and the other commenter are seriously missing the point. It sounds more like they are disagreeing with the point, which is not at all the same as missing it.
      - pdonis 8y ago
        Disagreeing would mean making actual counter arguments. Some posters have been doing that, but not the one I responded "you are seriously missing the point" to.

pdonis 8y ago

> This applies to almost every law Yep. What does that tell you? > illegitimate governments don't suddenly give up when there are no legitimate means (laws) that lead to their ends, they just use violence Only if they can get away with it. That is not always the case. And that's a key point of the test: it could be rephrased as "will this make it easier for an illegitimate government to achieve its ends using violence?"

pvg 8y ago
Yep. What does that tell you? It tells you exactly what the commenter is saying. This is a really silly 'test'.
- pdonis 8y ago
  > It tells you exactly what the commenter is saying. This is a really silly 'test'. I think you and the other commenter are seriously missing the point.
  - dblotsky 8y ago
    The ultimate law in this case is discrimination. If it can get away with targeting anyone - an individual or a demographic - for imprisonment or murder, the game is already lost.
  - pvg 8y ago
    The point is to attempt to connect all sorts of laws the author doesn't like to Nazism and the holocaust. It's a common 2A-absolutist trope but it's so ahistorical, dumb and offensive nobody else takes it seriously. That's really all there is to it.
  - camgunz 8y ago
    There are a lot of people who live in places that are essentially lawless, but that experience isn't freedom like extreme libertarians might believe. It's total fear that at any moment 20 people in shitty Jeeps can drive up and threaten to cut off your hands unless you kill your parents and join their gang. This is what we refer to as the state of nature. At some point, people get pretty tired of it, so they form their own gangs to fight back. Time goes on, decisions have to be made about how to run things, you make a couple of rules, and before you know it you've got yourself a government. But what I find more dangerous is this ersatz common sense tone in the essay. It lends the argument a certain weight, like "boy, balancing of rights sure is tricky. Can we __really__ trust governments? I mean, Nazis." Please no one fall for this. The rule of law is a bedrock principle of human civilization, not a bullet train to totalitarian town.
    - pdonis 8y ago
      > The rule of law is a bedrock principle of human civilization The article is not advocating abandoning the rule of law. It is advocating judging laws based on a particular criterion. The fact that many existing laws do not meet that criterion does not mean no laws do, nor does it mean the only alternative is to abandon laws altogether. For example, consider the law against murder. Does it meet the criterion? Of course. Having a law against murder does not make it easier for the government to persecute the innocent.
      - tacomonstrous 8y ago
        >For example, consider the law against murder. Does it meet the criterion? Of course. Not at all. What if the Jew in the attic had to kill an errant Nazi out of self-defense?
        pdonis 8y ago
        > What if the Jew in the attic had to kill an errant Nazi out of self-defense? Killing in self-defense is not murder.
      - camgunz 8y ago
  - JadeNB 8y ago
    > I think you and the other commenter are seriously missing the point. It sounds more like they are disagreeing with the point, which is not at all the same as missing it.
    - pdonis 8y ago
      Disagreeing would mean making actual counter arguments. Some posters have been doing that, but not the one I responded "you are seriously missing the point" to.