4 ms·

I don't see a problem. A court decision is preceded by a fair argument between two parties. Any other way is gravitating toward the way of bolsheviks snatching

I don't see a problem. A court decision is preceded by a fair argument between two parties. Any other way is gravitating toward the way of bolsheviks snatching the power and shooting who they believed were cause of evil. (Which was fast and very efficient; do you like it?) The point is not to achieve the desired outcome quickly, but to deal with situation in the right way.

_cs2017_ 8y ago
You're right that the faster you try to solve a problem, the more likely you are to solve it badly. Where is the right trade off? At one extreme lie revolutionary fanatics destroying lives. At the other, a gigantic bureaucracy that watches passively while the lives it's supposed to protect are being destroyed. IMO the answer depends on the nature of the problem. It would be unwise to require a court order before police is allowed to shoot down an armed assailant killing people in the street. It would be unwise to allow police without a court order to break into any house they suspect of illicit activities. I don't have a strong argument about this particular situation. I can comfortably argue that the courts will not solve the problem at all. But you can respond that solving the problem through private corporations puts us on a dangerous path. You can say that the fix is so dangerous that it's better to leave this problem alone despite the deaths it causes. I would admit that your criticism is valid. Ultimately, it seems the choice here will be completely subjective, based on personal preferences about the importance of free speech versus the importance of saving human lives, and other similar factors. I cannot see a realistic solution that most reasonable people will be comfortable with.