3 ms·

“Will this law make it difficult or impossible to protect innocent life from a government intent on their imprisonment or death?” This makes no sense to me. A

“Will this law make it difficult or impossible to protect innocent life from a government intent on their imprisonment or death?” This makes no sense to me. A tyrannical government can change the law. If there’s a law that will make it easier for them to commit atrocities, they can make it happen. Enacting that law now, or refusing to do so, won’t make a bit of difference. Laws should be evaluated on their merits as things stand now, not based on their effects on a hypothetical where current laws don’t even matter.

drak0n1c 8y ago
Those in power often do not reach the critical mass needed to completely change or flout the laws at their whim. But they are able to selectively enforce existing laws or otherwise use them to target people they don't like. This has been the case throughout history, even under monarchies and during the rise of fascism. Existing laws matter.
- mikeash 8y ago
  Ok, but if the government is shipping entire populations to genocide camps, surely we’ve passed the point where they’d be constrained by old laws about IDs.
pdonis 8y ago
> A tyrannical government can change the law The article is not talking only about tyrannical governments, or laws passed by such governments. The test the article is proposing is meant to apply to any law passed by any government. The example of Jews in the Attic is just an illustration; it's used because one of the article's points is that failing to apply the test early on, when your government is not tyrannical but is just asking for a little bit more power to "fix" some problem, is how you ultimately get to a government that is tyrannical enough to either just ignore laws or pass them by fiat to suit itself.
- mikeash 8y ago
  Then perhaps the article should choose a more illustrative example. My point is that I disagree with the basic premise. Laws which help tyrannies oppress and murder people are not necessarily the same laws that turn good governments into tyrannies. I see no reason the two should be connected.
  - pdonis 8y ago
    > Laws which help tyrannies oppress and murder people are not necessarily the same laws that turn good governments into tyrannies. Can you give any counterexamples? Also, bear in mind that the criterion in the article is not "does the law help tyrannies oppress and murder people?" but "does the law make it difficult or impossible to protect the innocent against the government?"
    - mikeash 8y ago
      The test as quoted makes no sense. It’s always going to be difficult or impossible to protect the innocent against a government run amok. There is no scenario where a bunch of maniacs have taken over and you’re trying so save some innocent people and it’s easy to do. Thus I have interpreted it as “does the law make it more difficult to protect the innocent against the government if the government has gone crazy?” That seems like the more charitable interpretation, as it actually makes a little bit of sense until you bite into it.

drak0n1c 8y ago

Those in power often do not reach the critical mass needed to completely change or flout the laws at their whim. But they are able to selectively enforce existing laws or otherwise use them to target people they don't like. This has been the case throughout history, even under monarchies and during the rise of fascism. Existing laws matter.

mikeash 8y ago
Ok, but if the government is shipping entire populations to genocide camps, surely we’ve passed the point where they’d be constrained by old laws about IDs.

pdonis 8y ago

> A tyrannical government can change the law The article is not talking only about tyrannical governments, or laws passed by such governments. The test the article is proposing is meant to apply to any law passed by any government. The example of Jews in the Attic is just an illustration; it's used because one of the article's points is that failing to apply the test early on, when your government is not tyrannical but is just asking for a little bit more power to "fix" some problem, is how you ultimately get to a government that is tyrannical enough to either just ignore laws or pass them by fiat to suit itself.

mikeash 8y ago
Then perhaps the article should choose a more illustrative example. My point is that I disagree with the basic premise. Laws which help tyrannies oppress and murder people are not necessarily the same laws that turn good governments into tyrannies. I see no reason the two should be connected.
- pdonis 8y ago
  > Laws which help tyrannies oppress and murder people are not necessarily the same laws that turn good governments into tyrannies. Can you give any counterexamples? Also, bear in mind that the criterion in the article is not "does the law help tyrannies oppress and murder people?" but "does the law make it difficult or impossible to protect the innocent against the government?"
  - mikeash 8y ago
    The test as quoted makes no sense. It’s always going to be difficult or impossible to protect the innocent against a government run amok. There is no scenario where a bunch of maniacs have taken over and you’re trying so save some innocent people and it’s easy to do. Thus I have interpreted it as “does the law make it more difficult to protect the innocent against the government if the government has gone crazy?” That seems like the more charitable interpretation, as it actually makes a little bit of sense until you bite into it.