2 ms·
So in the hypothetical world, stealing cars is acceptable because it's legal and legal because it's acceptable? Do you see the problem with that? The first ste
by jjoonathan 6y ago
So in the hypothetical world, stealing cars is acceptable because it's legal and legal because it's acceptable? Do you see the problem with that?
The first step in breaking the cycle is forming public opinions that differ from the law. I chose "stealing cars" as an example because it's easy to judge independently from the law and therefore illustrate why the "it's OK because it's legal" line of thinking creates a problematic loop that makes it difficult to fix bad policy.
- slg 6y agoNo, I am not saying it is acceptable because it is legal. It is acceptable because everyone does it. It would be hypocritical to freely allow other people to steal cars, but then start singling out a specific group of people for stealing cars as if they are more immoral than the rest. If your problem is the act of stealing cars, you should be against all stealing of cars.
- jjoonathan 6y ago> If your problem is the act of stealing cars, you should be against all stealing of cars. So we should blame all of the car thieves for stealing cars? That's what I've been advocating for all along!
- slg 6y agoThis analogy is a mess at this point. The stealing of a car is an action that can be done with a single perpetrator. Lobbying requires both the lobbyist and a politician. I'm not sure what role each different group plays in this stolen car analogy. Much of society participates in the lobbying side at some level. I don't think it is appropriate to single out specific instances of lobbying as immoral or to shame all of society for participating. We should instead be focusing on the one side of the equation that is easiest to change, the politicians.