4 ms·
What exactly is your argument? That if there's a bad law on the books, we shouldn't have laws?
by maratd 8y ago
What exactly is your argument? That if there's a bad law on the books, we shouldn't have laws?
- nv-vn 8y agoMy argument is just that not all laws are good, and following the law does not equate to doing the right thing.
- MBCook 8y agoAnd they’re free to take that position and face the consequences.
- rocqua 8y agoWhilst that is totally correct morally, law enforcement must be very careful about applying that. There is a trade-off between having a stable and predictable set of laws (i.e. strict enforcement) and having room for judgement calls when the letter of the law is unfair (i.e. discretion in enforcement). I understand when regulators decide to side with strict enforcement when a companies only advantage comes from not following the rules. Especially when it is disputed the rules shouldn't be there.
- emilfihlman 8y agoOr perhaps that if the law is bad, we should engage in civil disobedience.
- rland 8y agoGiant multinational corporations are squarely last in the "queue of parties that ought to commit civil disobedience."
- nv-vn 8y agoOnly if you start with the assumption that everything to do with them is evil. At the end of the day, they still employ and support thousands of people. There certainly are many cases in which they do the wrong thing, but their power for good should also be embraced.
- schrodinger 8y agoI agree in this case, but I’d disagree if it were Apple refusing to unlock iPhones for authorities, so I’m not sure I can agree this is universal.
- xxpor 8y agoYes, Facebook should commit civil disobedience by explicitly allowing housing ads to not be shown to black people. Great plan.