3 ms·

I see this sentiment fairly regularly on HN. It's the idea that laws can sufficiently encapsulate ethical behavior (the rules) when they're strictly enforced, t

I see this sentiment fairly regularly on HN. It's the idea that laws can sufficiently encapsulate ethical behavior (the rules) when they're strictly enforced, that they're the best thing we got, so live with it. But there are many behaviors which aren't "crimes" but which are morally repulsive. The danger of not reacting, one way or another, to such inequities is that people lose faith in the system. Already, the election of Trump and rise of fascist sentiments everywhere are like a giant "fuck you" to politics as usual. It can get much worse. At some point, as one billionaire said, "the pitchforks are coming". I don't think we'll be able to avoid it the way things are going.

koolba 8y ago
> I see this sentiment fairly regularly on HN. It's the idea that laws can sufficiently encapsulate ethical behavior (the rules) when they're strictly enforced, that they're the best thing we got, so live with it. > But there are many behaviors which aren't "crimes" but which are morally repulsive. I don't agree with that concept. I don't think it's possible to legislate morality and the entire concept is downright scary. What's even more scary though is metering out justice based on perceived morality. Justice needs to be impartial, otherwise you're literally putting people in jail because your dislike them. > The danger of not reacting, one way or another, to such inequities is that people lose faith in the system. Already, the election of Trump and rise of fascist sentiments everywhere are like a giant "fuck you" to politics as usual. On the contrary, I see the election of Trump as a demonstration of people's faith in the system. It worked as intended and they got what they (electorally speaking) asked for. > It can get much worse. At some point, as one billionaire said, "the pitchforks are coming". I don't think we'll be able to avoid it the way things are going. I really doubt that. I've got significantly more faith in our shared humanity and the rule of law. I do find it disturbing how a lot of the politics on the left has shifted from policy disagreement to directly stoking violence. But it'll eventually pass. Unemployment and immigration policy is at a tipping point where the only choice for employers is going to be rising wages. The left is going to have a hard time arguing that's a bad thing.
- sokoloff 8y ago
  > The left is going to have a hard time arguing [rising wages are] a bad thing. Why would the left argue that rising wages is a bad thing anyway? It seems that a significant subset of the left has been beating the “we need higher minimum wages and more wage growth overall" drum for a while. Is it just because they strictly prefer a governmental rather than a natural market solution? Or something else?
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    I believe that koolba's point was about rising wages in relation to immigration policy. That is, wages rise further if we let fewer immigrants in. But that's a problem for the left, which wants rising wages, but also wants a liberal immigration policy.
- ionised 8y ago
  > I don't think it's possible to legislate morality and the entire concept is downright scary. What are laws if they are not an attempt to codify and enforce a group morality?
- crispyambulance 8y ago
  > I don't agree with that concept. I don't think it's possible to legislate morality... We don't have to "legislate" the morality but we do have a responsibility for doing _something_. "Rule of law" means nothing if one class of people has subverted the law, enforcement and governance to their benefit at the expense of everyone else.
  - koolba 8y ago
    > We don't have to "legislate" the morality but we do have a responsibility for doing _something_. If the government, or specifically the justice system, is going to be involved in that "_something_" then we need laws that can be enforced by prosecutors and interpreted by judges. If you want that to include actions that is currently legal but which you find morally reprehensible (ex: the actions of these finance executives) then that needs to be codified in law before you can go after them. And that's literally legislating morality. > "Rule of law" means nothing if one class of people has subverted the law, enforcement and governance to their benefit at the expense of everyone else. They haven't subverted anything. They've taken advantage of a system that is available to them. Ditto for veterans who get subsidized school or home loans, Tesla drivers who get $7,500 in EV credits, small business owners who get SBA loans, or anyone else that takes a dime from the pool of money we call public spending. You could argue that anyone of those programs is to the benefit of only the receiver and the detriment of the rest of us[1]. And there's already a system in place to change it. Elect politicians that will make the changes you want and understand the positions of the ones that are currently in power. With all the demonizing of wall street in regards to the 2008 crisis, most fail to go back to the true cause of the crisis, i.e. the repeal of the Glass-Stegall Act[2] via the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act[3] signed by President Clinton in 1999. It took almost a decade but the entire "too big to fail" concept grew from that repeal. [1]: I generally don't like qualifying my statements but for clarity, I'm saying you could argue it. I'm not saying that I would necessarily argue against those (well except the EV one which is asinine...). [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_steagall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_steagall [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bl...

koolba 8y ago

> I see this sentiment fairly regularly on HN. It's the idea that laws can sufficiently encapsulate ethical behavior (the rules) when they're strictly enforced, that they're the best thing we got, so live with it. > But there are many behaviors which aren't "crimes" but which are morally repulsive. I don't agree with that concept. I don't think it's possible to legislate morality and the entire concept is downright scary. What's even more scary though is metering out justice based on perceived morality. Justice needs to be impartial, otherwise you're literally putting people in jail because your dislike them. > The danger of not reacting, one way or another, to such inequities is that people lose faith in the system. Already, the election of Trump and rise of fascist sentiments everywhere are like a giant "fuck you" to politics as usual. On the contrary, I see the election of Trump as a demonstration of people's faith in the system. It worked as intended and they got what they (electorally speaking) asked for. > It can get much worse. At some point, as one billionaire said, "the pitchforks are coming". I don't think we'll be able to avoid it the way things are going. I really doubt that. I've got significantly more faith in our shared humanity and the rule of law. I do find it disturbing how a lot of the politics on the left has shifted from policy disagreement to directly stoking violence. But it'll eventually pass. Unemployment and immigration policy is at a tipping point where the only choice for employers is going to be rising wages. The left is going to have a hard time arguing that's a bad thing.

sokoloff 8y ago
> The left is going to have a hard time arguing [rising wages are] a bad thing. Why would the left argue that rising wages is a bad thing anyway? It seems that a significant subset of the left has been beating the “we need higher minimum wages and more wage growth overall" drum for a while. Is it just because they strictly prefer a governmental rather than a natural market solution? Or something else?
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  I believe that koolba's point was about rising wages in relation to immigration policy. That is, wages rise further if we let fewer immigrants in. But that's a problem for the left, which wants rising wages, but also wants a liberal immigration policy.
ionised 8y ago
> I don't think it's possible to legislate morality and the entire concept is downright scary. What are laws if they are not an attempt to codify and enforce a group morality?
crispyambulance 8y ago
> I don't agree with that concept. I don't think it's possible to legislate morality... We don't have to "legislate" the morality but we do have a responsibility for doing _something_. "Rule of law" means nothing if one class of people has subverted the law, enforcement and governance to their benefit at the expense of everyone else.
- koolba 8y ago
  > We don't have to "legislate" the morality but we do have a responsibility for doing _something_. If the government, or specifically the justice system, is going to be involved in that "_something_" then we need laws that can be enforced by prosecutors and interpreted by judges. If you want that to include actions that is currently legal but which you find morally reprehensible (ex: the actions of these finance executives) then that needs to be codified in law before you can go after them. And that's literally legislating morality. > "Rule of law" means nothing if one class of people has subverted the law, enforcement and governance to their benefit at the expense of everyone else. They haven't subverted anything. They've taken advantage of a system that is available to them. Ditto for veterans who get subsidized school or home loans, Tesla drivers who get $7,500 in EV credits, small business owners who get SBA loans, or anyone else that takes a dime from the pool of money we call public spending. You could argue that anyone of those programs is to the benefit of only the receiver and the detriment of the rest of us[1]. And there's already a system in place to change it. Elect politicians that will make the changes you want and understand the positions of the ones that are currently in power. With all the demonizing of wall street in regards to the 2008 crisis, most fail to go back to the true cause of the crisis, i.e. the repeal of the Glass-Stegall Act[2] via the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act[3] signed by President Clinton in 1999. It took almost a decade but the entire "too big to fail" concept grew from that repeal. [1]: I generally don't like qualifying my statements but for clarity, I'm saying you could argue it. I'm not saying that I would necessarily argue against those (well except the EV one which is asinine...). [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_steagall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_steagall [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bl...