5 ms·

It sounds like you skimmed half the article and then formed an incomplete opinion based on what you think the article was probably about. Just read it! The auth

• hugh3 16y ago
  After that point I decided it really was too long and didn't read it. I skimmed the rest, it seems to get a bit silly and suggests we should have different legal systems for different people. He then goes into an extremely extended analogy about how having one legal system for everybody is just like having one shoe size for everybody, which seems like a fairly flawed analogy. I just skimmed it again in a bit more depth, and in the end he really doesn't seem to come up with any ideas about what it would actually mean to "end the monopoly" of the single legal system which currently prevails, and certainly not with any ideas about how to overcome the huge inherent problems which you'd get if you implemented something like that (the most obvious one being that if my legal system says I'm right and yours says you're right then we're legally screwed).
  • deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]