4 ms·
> they might not exist as a company today had they complied with the law. If we accept that it's okay to get rich by breaking the law, where is the line that m
by ClumsyPilot 5y ago
> they might not exist as a company today had they complied with the law.
If we accept that it's okay to get rich by breaking the law, where is the line that makes it not okay to deal drugs or sell illegal financial products in the hopes they might be legalised later?
- onedognight 5y ago> where is the line that makes it not okay to deal drugs or sell illegal financial products in the hopes they might be legalised later? Nowhere. It’s a gamble. Vietnam War draft dodgers didn’t know they would be pardoned, but did it anyway. Normal people hated taxi companies and their dirty cars and “credit card reader doesn’t work” bullshit. Uber made the right call that they would get support. If you like currently illegal drugs, you might think that crypto is the path forward, but money launderers are scamming the system and these laws to fight them are well supported and push against the crypto tide. It’s a gamble.
- Dracophoenix 5y agoHow do you think marijuana got legalized, Prohibition got repealed, or Lawrence vs Texas got government out of the bedroom?
- ClumsyPilot 5y agoJust looking up Lawrence vs Texas > sanctions of criminal punishment for those who commit sodomy are unconstitutional I don't think anyone was getting rich of sodomy? The argument is spesifically about profiting from criminality, not about disobedience/protest and lawbraking in general.
- Dracophoenix 5y agoI got carried away with that last bit, my point stands. Profits accrued from breaking - or merely circumventing - the law can be a legal changing force.