4 ms·

I get so tired of comments like this, such low effort brain drainage.. Yes yes we know the glorious Soviet society that was the pinnacle of fair and just. It'

I get so tired of comments like this, such low effort brain drainage.. Yes yes we know the glorious Soviet society that was the pinnacle of fair and just. It's almost like justice and rule of law are separated from the economy and wealth. "But it is not so" - well it should be so, don't ask for further coupling of economic systems. For law and justice to be fair, liberties need to be given. Not taken.

arcticbull 5y ago
> Yes yes we know the glorious Soviet society that was the pinnacle of fair and just. The opposite of end-stage capitalism isn't Stalinism. It's very American to view the opposite of "capitalism" as the Soviet Union, but the truth is there's a whole spectrum in between socialism and capitalism, totalitarianism and libertarianism. In my opinion this criticism is just as low-effort. > It's almost like justice and rule of law are separated from the economy and wealth. I respectfully disagree. Societies with less inequality tend to be more peaceful. Economic policy and social policy are very much intertwined. > For law and justice to be fair, liberties need to be given. Not taken. Law and justice is by definition the restriction of liberties to support a functioning society - not the giving of liberties. You begin with the full universe of liberties and law/order is all about choosing which ones are sacrificed by whom to optimize along a certain axis.
- drekipus 5y ago
  > Societies with less inequality tend to be more peaceful. Yes absolutely, but that's not what we're talking about. We are talking about "justice". > Economic policy and social policy are very much intertwined. Cause and effect, yes, but economic policies don't (or shouldn't) affect the notion of justice. Laws should not be written as "if you own X amount or produce y units" as they were in the Soviet union. >Law and justice is by definition the restriction of liberties I don't agree but I can see the argument. If I were to never throw rubbish over my neighbours fence, then whether or not the law is there doesn't affect my liberty. Neither if there was a law forbidding the dumping of oils in the water supply.. this isn't a "restriction of liberties" but rather the guarantee of protection to the water: or I would put it as "giving liberty to me and others of the quality of the water" I understand that this is all subjective and slippery arguments so I'll digress from that.. what else are we meant to do in HN comment sections.. But I do hold to my judgement of "little to no brain use" for anyone who tries to support communism or similar measures. People need to be free, free to succeed (and unfortunately, free to fail). Laws and justice should protect people from each other, not enforce someone's failure to understand mathematics or entropy.
  - SequoiaHope 5y ago
    But the rule of law does bend under the influence of capitalism, and saying so has nothing to do with communism. And you mention freedom, but freedom is orthogonal to how economic production is managed. You can have a capitalist society with very little freedom (fascism) and you can have a communist society with lots of freedom (anarcho communism). But we can also critique capitalism on its own, because the status quo is always worth criticizing, and that doesn’t automatically mean a person is talking about communism at all.

arcticbull 5y ago

> Yes yes we know the glorious Soviet society that was the pinnacle of fair and just. The opposite of end-stage capitalism isn't Stalinism. It's very American to view the opposite of "capitalism" as the Soviet Union, but the truth is there's a whole spectrum in between socialism and capitalism, totalitarianism and libertarianism. In my opinion this criticism is just as low-effort. > It's almost like justice and rule of law are separated from the economy and wealth. I respectfully disagree. Societies with less inequality tend to be more peaceful. Economic policy and social policy are very much intertwined. > For law and justice to be fair, liberties need to be given. Not taken. Law and justice is by definition the restriction of liberties to support a functioning society - not the giving of liberties. You begin with the full universe of liberties and law/order is all about choosing which ones are sacrificed by whom to optimize along a certain axis.

drekipus 5y ago
> Societies with less inequality tend to be more peaceful. Yes absolutely, but that's not what we're talking about. We are talking about "justice". > Economic policy and social policy are very much intertwined. Cause and effect, yes, but economic policies don't (or shouldn't) affect the notion of justice. Laws should not be written as "if you own X amount or produce y units" as they were in the Soviet union. >Law and justice is by definition the restriction of liberties I don't agree but I can see the argument. If I were to never throw rubbish over my neighbours fence, then whether or not the law is there doesn't affect my liberty. Neither if there was a law forbidding the dumping of oils in the water supply.. this isn't a "restriction of liberties" but rather the guarantee of protection to the water: or I would put it as "giving liberty to me and others of the quality of the water" I understand that this is all subjective and slippery arguments so I'll digress from that.. what else are we meant to do in HN comment sections.. But I do hold to my judgement of "little to no brain use" for anyone who tries to support communism or similar measures. People need to be free, free to succeed (and unfortunately, free to fail). Laws and justice should protect people from each other, not enforce someone's failure to understand mathematics or entropy.
- SequoiaHope 5y ago
  But the rule of law does bend under the influence of capitalism, and saying so has nothing to do with communism. And you mention freedom, but freedom is orthogonal to how economic production is managed. You can have a capitalist society with very little freedom (fascism) and you can have a communist society with lots of freedom (anarcho communism). But we can also critique capitalism on its own, because the status quo is always worth criticizing, and that doesn’t automatically mean a person is talking about communism at all.