4 ms·
> when it comes to taxes this stuff is going in front of human beings and the government can always bring a hammer down. I cannot believe these kinds of polici
by tathougies 7y ago
> when it comes to taxes this stuff is going in front of human beings and the government can always bring a hammer down.
I cannot believe these kinds of policies are even being entertained. The government should decidedly not be able to 'bring a hammer down' based on their feeling about a company. That's totalitarianism.
In a civilized society with limited government, the most important thing about a government is that it follows the law and that the law is applied equally. By all means, the government should follow its procedures for changing the regulations to achieve the desired policy. But under no circumstance should it arbitrarily go after companies it deems to be 'immoral'. Moreover, if the company has followed law at the time, then there is nothing the government should be able to do to retroactively make what was legal, illegal.
These basics of civilization are encoded in our constitution as prohibitions on both bills of attainder as well as ex post facto laws.
Your proposal to pursue lawlessness reminds me of this dialogue from the play 'A man for all seasons', about St Thomas More, English lawyer, philosopher, and martyr. In the dialogue, Thomas More, who is the current prosecutor, is being asked by his son-in-law and daughters to arrest someone for speech which More and the son-in-law find repugnant. Moreover, the speech in question is what is going to lead to More's own execution, which More could have prevented by arresting him illegally. More rebukes all of them:
More: Why, what has he done?
Margaret More: He's bad!
More: There is no law against that.
Will Roper: There is! God's law!
More: Then God can arrest him.
Alice: While you talk, he's gone!
More: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!
Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast– man's laws, not God's– and if you cut them down—and you're just the man to do it—do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake.
- Wowfunhappy 7y agoIt's not about whether the government dislikes a company, but whether it believes the company is acting in bad faith.
- bigiain 7y agoThis is why the real world runs on reasonable people, backed up with lawyers and judges to interpret laws and the mis-use of them either through badly written laws or unexpected consequences of reasonable intent - and why even people strongly publicly opposed to that end up reinventing it and forking Etherium when someone read "the code that is the law" more carefully than the people who wrote it. A judge will (sometimes) look at a nov el abuse of the details of a law as its written, and make a determination based on the clear intent of the lawmakers even if it's not specifically covered by the written embodiment of thew law. Anyone who thinks that's bad idea needs to get out more. (I'm not saying it always works out "best", but not having the ability for someone to say "Hang on, that's not the _intent_ of this tax rebate. You can no longer abuse it this way." is critically important, for a species that cannot write bug-free code in the super-restricted space of computer languages, never mind in the vastly more complex and error-prone space of human languages for laws and legal contracts.