3 ms·

I'd actually challenge you to find a law in society that doesn't have some origin in vague decency - the legal framework built above decency is something we exp

by munk-a 5y ago

I'd actually challenge you to find a law in society that doesn't have some origin in vague decency - the legal framework built above decency is something we expect to be rather stable over the long term but, at a really basic level, we have a law to not murder people because we really don't appreciate it when people do it - not because there is some natural law inscribed in our DNA stating that murder must be a crime. Laws conform with societal ethics and those ethics absolutely change over time and are never uniformly agreed to by all individuals. Lastly - scale absolutely does matter when it comes to laws we want to enforce. We don't want to enforce a no-gossip law because the invasiveness of enforcement would be unbelievably deep, so decency is there to tell you that while you won't get arrested for doing a thing you should feel guilty about it - most members of society get equipped with this guilt during their upbringing and so criminally malicious gossip is a problem we mostly ignore at a societal level. Laws are absolutely BS in their inherent nature and a construct of society that could easily shift radically with large political shifts - but that doesn't mean they're invalid.

thegrimmest 5y ago
We have laws not to murder people because the state assumes a monopoly on violence. In absence of retributive justice we did and do continue to murder each other in blood feuds that last generations. This is perfectly normal human behavior. The state is there merely to provide a framework in which people who hate each other can be expected to surrender their natural right to use violence. To me that's where the right of one group (the government) to legitimately use force ends. The sledgehammer that is the legal system should only be used to administrate the peace. Beyond that, the only concept that can really be impartially measured is liberty. How free are you? In the graph of all possible actions, which are legitimately available to you? Everything else is an attempt to define good or evil, or right and wrong, and is therefore some form of religion. In a world where we are all equal, have no oracle to discern good from evil, and disagree diametrically, the only reasonable thing to do is optimize for liberty, and let everyone figure it out for themselves. Scale does matter, but not in regards to rights. If you have the right to do a thing, you have the right to do it a million times. If you have the right to write something down, you have the right to keep it in a database. If you can publish your letters, you can do so over HTTP as well. This isn't a new conversation. People have been publishing memoirs of their private correspondence since the printing press. What disturbs me is how we seem to be shifting our consensus that they have the right to do so.
- labster 5y ago
  The state needs not have a monopoly on violence. Dueling was outlawed in France in 1626, and early modern France was certainly a state. The dueling laws only became necessary because our mores on violence changed.
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    Early modern France was a monarchy, not a democracy and liberté, égalité, fraternité had yet to be uttered there.
- SiempreViernes 5y ago
  > We have laws not to murder people because the state assumes a monopoly on violence. This theory utterly fails to explain laws against murder from the millennia when there was no such thing as a state that claimed monopoly on violence. In the feudal system there was no such thing as a unified state entity, it was just a bunch of people invested with certain rights organised into nested hierarchy of fealty, no monopolies there, but still they had no problem ruling people guilty of committing murder. > If you have the right to do a thing, you have the right to do it a million times. You've never seen those signs that say you get only one free cup of coffee have you?
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    The source of legitimacy of feudal monarchies was divine right. This is not the case today. Our governments derive legitimacy from the consent of, and in defence of the liberty of, the governed. This is why I object to these laws. They only constrain my liberty to interact peacefully with other people, and I certainly don't recall consenting. > You've never seen those signs that say you get only one free cup of coffee have you? Indeed I've seen the signs. I would very much object to similar laws.
    - SiempreViernes 5y ago
      You are free to leave if the governed collectively have decided on laws you don't agree with, and they'll probably ask you to if you go on about your demand to be granted veto rights on all legislation. As an aside, I'm slightly curious how you explain the legality of said sign using your absolutist libertarian framework.

by munk-a 5y ago

thegrimmest 5y ago

We have laws not to murder people because the state assumes a monopoly on violence. In absence of retributive justice we did and do continue to murder each other in blood feuds that last generations. This is perfectly normal human behavior. The state is there merely to provide a framework in which people who hate each other can be expected to surrender their natural right to use violence. To me that's where the right of one group (the government) to legitimately use force ends. The sledgehammer that is the legal system should only be used to administrate the peace. Beyond that, the only concept that can really be impartially measured is liberty. How free are you? In the graph of all possible actions, which are legitimately available to you? Everything else is an attempt to define good or evil, or right and wrong, and is therefore some form of religion. In a world where we are all equal, have no oracle to discern good from evil, and disagree diametrically, the only reasonable thing to do is optimize for liberty, and let everyone figure it out for themselves. Scale does matter, but not in regards to rights. If you have the right to do a thing, you have the right to do it a million times. If you have the right to write something down, you have the right to keep it in a database. If you can publish your letters, you can do so over HTTP as well. This isn't a new conversation. People have been publishing memoirs of their private correspondence since the printing press. What disturbs me is how we seem to be shifting our consensus that they have the right to do so.

labster 5y ago
The state needs not have a monopoly on violence. Dueling was outlawed in France in 1626, and early modern France was certainly a state. The dueling laws only became necessary because our mores on violence changed.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  Early modern France was a monarchy, not a democracy and liberté, égalité, fraternité had yet to be uttered there.
SiempreViernes 5y ago
> We have laws not to murder people because the state assumes a monopoly on violence. This theory utterly fails to explain laws against murder from the millennia when there was no such thing as a state that claimed monopoly on violence. In the feudal system there was no such thing as a unified state entity, it was just a bunch of people invested with certain rights organised into nested hierarchy of fealty, no monopolies there, but still they had no problem ruling people guilty of committing murder. > If you have the right to do a thing, you have the right to do it a million times. You've never seen those signs that say you get only one free cup of coffee have you?
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  The source of legitimacy of feudal monarchies was divine right. This is not the case today. Our governments derive legitimacy from the consent of, and in defence of the liberty of, the governed. This is why I object to these laws. They only constrain my liberty to interact peacefully with other people, and I certainly don't recall consenting. > You've never seen those signs that say you get only one free cup of coffee have you? Indeed I've seen the signs. I would very much object to similar laws.
  - SiempreViernes 5y ago
    You are free to leave if the governed collectively have decided on laws you don't agree with, and they'll probably ask you to if you go on about your demand to be granted veto rights on all legislation. As an aside, I'm slightly curious how you explain the legality of said sign using your absolutist libertarian framework.