3 ms·

A judge is not deciding whether something is "fair" they are deciding whether it is illegal to the letter and/or spirit of the law. The reason this is at odds w

A judge is not deciding whether something is "fair" they are deciding whether it is illegal to the letter and/or spirit of the law. The reason this is at odds with us is that many things are legal that are not "fair". The specific danger here legally is trying to apply general laws into an unregulated market. It's a bit like borrowing money from your mate and then trying to take him to court because he's asking for too much interest.

omarhaneef 4y ago
Well, this is going to send us down a rabbit hole but the reverse is also true: there are multiple interpretations of a given law and the judge tries to use their judgement to square the law with the facts. (Rabbit hole because I sense this is a debate lawyers have all through law school, and there are various schools of thoughts about the nature of the law etc)
- Brian_K_White 4y ago
  Right? There probably is not agreement on fundamentals like the root purpose of law.
Brian_K_White 4y ago
"many things are legal that are not "fair"." They are, or at least purport to be, fair at some level or through some mechanism most people may not immediately percieve. When something really isn't fair, even by some indirect means or when accounting for some other imperative like geneneral societal necessity, then they are at least understood to be failures not successes. This story though... it actually provides a good example of indirect fairness. Well yes and no, there's a point and also a counter to that point, net result throw up my hands glad I'm not in crypto: Point, it's fair: You got robbed and think it's unfair that there's no recourse. That downside is just the fair price of being in that game at all, which you pay in trade for not having to deal with the traditional system and "the man". You have to absorb the occasional loss from a mistake as just a feature of the environment like the risk of your shipping boat sinking because the ocean is not a safe place. The only protection possible is pay an insurer or maintain your own emergency escrow or something, not any kind of police or rule-daddy. Point, it's not fair: They are not in fact free of the man, and so they are not really getting the true freedom they are paying for by assuming all responsibility for their own risk.

omarhaneef 4y ago

Well, this is going to send us down a rabbit hole but the reverse is also true: there are multiple interpretations of a given law and the judge tries to use their judgement to square the law with the facts. (Rabbit hole because I sense this is a debate lawyers have all through law school, and there are various schools of thoughts about the nature of the law etc)

Brian_K_White 4y ago
Right? There probably is not agreement on fundamentals like the root purpose of law.

Brian_K_White 4y ago

"many things are legal that are not "fair"." They are, or at least purport to be, fair at some level or through some mechanism most people may not immediately percieve. When something really isn't fair, even by some indirect means or when accounting for some other imperative like geneneral societal necessity, then they are at least understood to be failures not successes. This story though... it actually provides a good example of indirect fairness. Well yes and no, there's a point and also a counter to that point, net result throw up my hands glad I'm not in crypto: Point, it's fair: You got robbed and think it's unfair that there's no recourse. That downside is just the fair price of being in that game at all, which you pay in trade for not having to deal with the traditional system and "the man". You have to absorb the occasional loss from a mistake as just a feature of the environment like the risk of your shipping boat sinking because the ocean is not a safe place. The only protection possible is pay an insurer or maintain your own emergency escrow or something, not any kind of police or rule-daddy. Point, it's not fair: They are not in fact free of the man, and so they are not really getting the true freedom they are paying for by assuming all responsibility for their own risk.