3 ms·
I agree with your first point: incremental changes are often for the better. Regarding your second: > Speaking of losing jobs, a whole industry just lost their
by woodpanel 8y ago
I agree with your first point: incremental changes are often for the better.
Regarding your second: > Speaking of losing jobs, a whole industry just lost theirs Doesn't the legitimacy of the job come before the right to perform it? A whole industry just lost their jobs is probably what many said in 1833 after the passing of the Slavery Abolition Act.
- WillPostForFood 8y agoI agree that legitimacy of the job comes first, but don't think bail bondsmen are illegitimate. They definitely aren't illegitimate if you think there should be bail system. Instead of comparing it to slavery (which is borderline Godwin's Law), I'd compare it to being a distiller when 18th amendment passed.
- canhascodez 8y agoI reject that comparison. Bail is an administrative construct, not a physical substance. It is a "peculiar institution".
- dragonwriter 8y ago> They definitely aren't illegitimate if you think there should be bail system Incorrect. First, a bail system still will exist in California, just not a money bail system. Second, most of the history of money bail didn't require up front payment and specifically prohibited those providing surety from getting paid. So, yes, it's quite possible (and the historical norm) to both accept bail systems as legitimate—even specifically when money bail systems are seen as legitimate—and view anything like the current American profit-driven predatory lending and privatized fugitive apprehension industry surrounding it as quite illegitimate.