4 ms·

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

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.
  - jakelazaroff 7y ago
    Why do you keep speaking in generalities when I’ve given a concrete example? With flat fines for driving violations, we’ve created a framework for relatively rich people unburdened by ethics to ignore those laws. In what way is making fines proportional to one’s income less fair or more vulnerable to exploitation?
mreome 7y ago
I think you kind of prove the previous post's point though. As you said, to the millionaire all of that is just an "inconvenience". Even if you assume that they couldn't fight it in court, loosing their license is still just a slightly larger incontinence as they can just hire a chauffeur. Now to someone else, those fines could mean not being able to afford the basics like food and medical needs. Not being able to pay those fines could (and does) lead to further fines/fees and jail time, loosing homes, jobs, etc. How exactly does a punishment qualify as equal treatment under the law, equality punitive, when to one person it is at worst and inconvenience, and to another can destroy their life? How would it not be treating "everyone exactly the same in front of the law" to just say that fines are assessed as a percentage of income and/or net worth? All of that said, personally I wouldn't extend this all the way back to the original argument about theft though, stealing $1000 is the same regardless who you steal it from, at least as far as the law should be concerned. I could see a moral difference, but the law often does not (and can not) make moral distinctions. It could however make reasonable distinctions in the application of the punitive aspects, as it sometimes does in terms of jail sentencing.

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.
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  Why do you keep speaking in generalities when I’ve given a concrete example? With flat fines for driving violations, we’ve created a framework for relatively rich people unburdened by ethics to ignore those laws. In what way is making fines proportional to one’s income less fair or more vulnerable to exploitation?

mreome 7y ago

I think you kind of prove the previous post's point though. As you said, to the millionaire all of that is just an "inconvenience". Even if you assume that they couldn't fight it in court, loosing their license is still just a slightly larger incontinence as they can just hire a chauffeur. Now to someone else, those fines could mean not being able to afford the basics like food and medical needs. Not being able to pay those fines could (and does) lead to further fines/fees and jail time, loosing homes, jobs, etc. How exactly does a punishment qualify as equal treatment under the law, equality punitive, when to one person it is at worst and inconvenience, and to another can destroy their life? How would it not be treating "everyone exactly the same in front of the law" to just say that fines are assessed as a percentage of income and/or net worth? All of that said, personally I wouldn't extend this all the way back to the original argument about theft though, stealing $1000 is the same regardless who you steal it from, at least as far as the law should be concerned. I could see a moral difference, but the law often does not (and can not) make moral distinctions. It could however make reasonable distinctions in the application of the punitive aspects, as it sometimes does in terms of jail sentencing.