4 ms·

If the law doesn’t protect everyone equally, then people start gaining a strong incentive to not follow the law. We can see the results of this currently all ar

If the law doesn’t protect everyone equally, then people start gaining a strong incentive to not follow the law. We can see the results of this currently all around the world with countries rioting and on fire.

rowanG077 7y ago
Huh? Why do you bring the law into it? No one ever said anything about that.
jakelazaroff 7y ago
In many cases protecting people equitably makes more sense. For example, some countries assess fines based on one’s income: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine Classic quote: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
- macinjosh 7y ago
  Equity is, in effect, code for treating some people different than other people due to immutable facts about reality. That's wrong. Equality is right. Enforcing equity is illegitimate use of the government and is an out right attack on everyone's personal liberties. I don't care if someone is rich, poor, white, brown, gay, straight, etc. The government treating someone differently (in anyway) due to who they are is wrong. End of story.
  - jakelazaroff 7y ago
    A strict view of equality can actually lead to the law treating people differently due to who they are. Consider a flat fine for speeding: pragmatically, that means that someone living paycheck to paycheck has to obey speed limits whilst a millionaire does not. That is wrong.
    - merpnderp 7y ago
      You have a strange definition of "differently". A millionaire doesn't get to speed, that's just ridiculous. They'll be stopped, inconvenienced, and have points on their license, and eventually lose the legal right to drive. Treating people differently through some arbitrary definition of difference is wrong. Either we're all equal in front of the law or some animals are more equal than others. And the kind of justice you're peddling is what has set countries across the world on fire recently; the uneven application of the law. [Edit] I don't think I was clear. Everywhere we see special cutouts in the law, all that happens is that the more capable less scrupulous people capture those cutouts. The best we can hope to do is to treat everyone exactly the same in front of the law.
      - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
        This is exactly wrong. Someone sufficiently rich will simply pay a team of lawyers to challenge any points on technicalities. And they'll probably have a foreign licence, which makes a ban harder to enforce. "Equal in front of the law" actually means that financial penalties should be progressive in the same way taxes should be. Some countries actually do this, and they're not on fire.
      - jakelazaroff 7y ago
        The point is that by ignoring people’s circumstances, we are creating special cutouts. In the speeding example, the “more capable less scrupulous people” capturing the cutout are those who can afford to not care about the fine.
        merpnderp 7y ago
        What are circumstances? How do we measure those? What is fair? And most importantly, how do we keep the people who are better at life from capturing those cutouts like they do in 99.9% of the times there are cutouts? You may think you can create a Byzantine set of rules to make life perfectly fair, but you'll just create a framework for someone unburdened by ethics to win, as we see basically everywhere this is tried.
  - EliRivers 7y ago
    Mass-murderers should be treated the same as a nice man who helps old ladies cross the street? I suspect you don't believe that, so when you say "the government treating someone differently (in anyway) due to who they are is wrong" what do you mean?
    - Koshkin 7y ago
      In reality (if you haven’t noticed) mass murderers send nice men to war to kill each other (and old ladies, as a collateral damage).
      - EliRivers 7y ago
        I look forwards to you expanding this to explain why it's relevant and not just a non sequitur.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Thus you are calling for a system of fines designed and intended to punish the poor and disadvantaged harder. Forget about assessing means and circumstances. The minimum wage guy pays the same fine as a billionaire. You've just made a load of laws optional if you have enough in the bank (OK, justice systems can bring some degree of this, but via unintended consequences) Do you believe that will have the same deterrent effect across society? I sure don't.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tedivm 7y ago
No one here was talking about the law, as legality and morality are two distinct things.

rowanG077 7y ago

Huh? Why do you bring the law into it? No one ever said anything about that.

jakelazaroff 7y ago

In many cases protecting people equitably makes more sense. For example, some countries assess fines based on one’s income: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine Classic quote: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

macinjosh 7y ago
Equity is, in effect, code for treating some people different than other people due to immutable facts about reality. That's wrong. Equality is right. Enforcing equity is illegitimate use of the government and is an out right attack on everyone's personal liberties. I don't care if someone is rich, poor, white, brown, gay, straight, etc. The government treating someone differently (in anyway) due to who they are is wrong. End of story.
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  A strict view of equality can actually lead to the law treating people differently due to who they are. Consider a flat fine for speeding: pragmatically, that means that someone living paycheck to paycheck has to obey speed limits whilst a millionaire does not. That is wrong.
  - merpnderp 7y ago
    You have a strange definition of "differently". A millionaire doesn't get to speed, that's just ridiculous. They'll be stopped, inconvenienced, and have points on their license, and eventually lose the legal right to drive. Treating people differently through some arbitrary definition of difference is wrong. Either we're all equal in front of the law or some animals are more equal than others. And the kind of justice you're peddling is what has set countries across the world on fire recently; the uneven application of the law. [Edit] I don't think I was clear. Everywhere we see special cutouts in the law, all that happens is that the more capable less scrupulous people capture those cutouts. The best we can hope to do is to treat everyone exactly the same in front of the law.
    - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
      This is exactly wrong. Someone sufficiently rich will simply pay a team of lawyers to challenge any points on technicalities. And they'll probably have a foreign licence, which makes a ban harder to enforce. "Equal in front of the law" actually means that financial penalties should be progressive in the same way taxes should be. Some countries actually do this, and they're not on fire.
    - jakelazaroff 7y ago
      The point is that by ignoring people’s circumstances, we are creating special cutouts. In the speeding example, the “more capable less scrupulous people” capturing the cutout are those who can afford to not care about the fine.
      - merpnderp 7y ago
        What are circumstances? How do we measure those? What is fair? And most importantly, how do we keep the people who are better at life from capturing those cutouts like they do in 99.9% of the times there are cutouts? You may think you can create a Byzantine set of rules to make life perfectly fair, but you'll just create a framework for someone unburdened by ethics to win, as we see basically everywhere this is tried.
- EliRivers 7y ago
  Mass-murderers should be treated the same as a nice man who helps old ladies cross the street? I suspect you don't believe that, so when you say "the government treating someone differently (in anyway) due to who they are is wrong" what do you mean?
  - Koshkin 7y ago
    In reality (if you haven’t noticed) mass murderers send nice men to war to kill each other (and old ladies, as a collateral damage).
    - EliRivers 7y ago
      I look forwards to you expanding this to explain why it's relevant and not just a non sequitur.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Thus you are calling for a system of fines designed and intended to punish the poor and disadvantaged harder. Forget about assessing means and circumstances. The minimum wage guy pays the same fine as a billionaire. You've just made a load of laws optional if you have enough in the bank (OK, justice systems can bring some degree of this, but via unintended consequences) Do you believe that will have the same deterrent effect across society? I sure don't.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

tedivm 7y ago

No one here was talking about the law, as legality and morality are two distinct things.