6 ms·

I get the argument for federal laws but honestly I think it is misguided to want state laws promoted to a national level immediately. This is how law in the US

by mulmen 3y ago

I get the argument for federal laws but honestly I think it is misguided to want state laws promoted to a national level immediately. This is how law in the US evolves. The patchwork is a feature. A federal government with the agility to implement this law at a national level would have far too much power. The system is working.

craigmcnamara 3y ago
We should promote this patch to production ASAP
- mulmen 3y ago
  Works on my machine. Or is that in my neighborhood?
ryandrake 3y ago
I agree. It's helpful to remember: for every law you like and want promoted to the federal level, there's another law you probably don't like that someone else thinks would be great to promote to the federal level. Although moving states to flee terrible laws is a burden, it's not as much of a burden as fleeing your entire country. Laws should be as local as practically possible.
- banana_feather 3y ago
  > Laws should be as local as practically possible. You guys are every lawyer's dream. Yes, please, continue believing you're following some great American tradition of strong local government by submitting to the whims of your local Boss Tweed and the five judges in your county, I play golf with them once a month. Oh, you have a legal problem and need to navigate the rats nest of weird local laws? Great, you can choose from one of three tax attorneys that know the local tax regime as it applies to your business. I play golf with them too, and (coincidentally) we all bill $1,100 an hour.
  - ehvatum 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - some_random 3y ago
      You guys are every esthetician’s dream. Yes, please continue believing you’re following some great skincare tradition by submitting to the whims of your local sephora and the five skincare instagram influencers in your local county, I play volleyball with them once a month. Oh, you want a tattoo and need help to navigate the lawyers nest of weird local tattoo parlors? Great, you can choose from one of three instagram tattoo artists that know the local tattoo regime as it applies to your section of skin. I play volleyball with them too, and (coincidentally) we all bill $110 an hour.
      - nsxwolf 3y ago
        You guys are every fast food worker's dream. Yes, please continue believing you're following some great culinary tradition by submitting to the whims of your local drive-thru and the five foodie Instagram influencers in your local county, I play dodgeball with them once a month. Oh, you want a custom T-shirt and need help to navigate the crafters' maze of local thrift stores? Great, you can choose from one of three Instagram crafters that know the local thrifting scene as it applies to your fashion statement. I play dodgeball with them too, and (coincidentally) we all make $15 an hour.
        lurker616 3y ago
        So I guess reddit is still closed.
        xigency 3y ago
        Yes. And sadly even before the blackout it’s lost a lot of charm from the early days. I see people hating on pun threads and threads like above on Reddit and it makes me nostalgic and sad. Being a geek isn’t cool there anymore.
- abeppu 3y ago
  A kamikaze drone can have a variable blast radius that can kill a vehicle's driver but not passengers. That sounds extremely local. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/kamikaze-drones-new-weapon-brings-power-peril-u-s-military-n1285415 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/kamikaze-drones-new-we...
  - gus_massa 3y ago
    In the video at 1:10 there are a lot of glass shards in the passenger seat. I'll call bullshit until it's tested in Mythbusters with Buster as the passenger.
  - dghlsakjg 3y ago
    As someone who owns the model of truck pictured in the video, there is no possible way that you could kill the driver without risking death to the passenger. Those trucks are TINY. That video is pure propaganda, but I would support the CEO if he wanted to sit in the passenger seat and try and take out a dummy next to him.
  - krapp 3y ago
    The only solution to a bad man with a kamikaze drone is a good man with a kamikaze drone.
- ElevenLathe 3y ago
  This is an argument of process over substance. Good laws should be applied as widely as possible. Bad laws should be as local as possible, preferably applied nowhere at all.
  - bumby 3y ago
    >Good laws should be applied as widely as possible. Literally nobody except criminals would disagree with this. That's what makes is of limited value in a discussion like this. It's like saying "Good speech should be disseminated everywhere." Yes. We already agree, to the point where the argument is that protections for good speech aren't really needed. The difficulty is getting a handle on what is a "good law". This is difficult, in part, because we can't always understand the effects down the causal chain. We also can't always get people to agree on the definition. Is a "good law" one that prioritizes safety over personal freedom or is it the other way around? I dunno, but this is even harder in a democracy, where everyone (theoretically, at least) has a voice.
    - maxerickson 3y ago
      The lack of agreement on 'practical' or 'good' is what makes the point about local being better for good, practical laws tedious.
  - Clubber 3y ago
    >Good laws should be applied as widely as possible. Good for whom? Supermajority, sure. Anything less should be at the state and local level.
    - ElevenLathe 3y ago
      You're back into process again. Laws do not have metadata attached to them, their goodness is a function of the observer. You think a law is good if you think it's good. You preference is then for it to be applied as widely as possible. Maybe other people disagree, and so should want it applied nowhere. Now you get to fight with them, using whatever power you have and are willing to use. Whoever has the most power to bring to the fight will win it.
abeppu 3y ago
In general, I understand and am sympathetic to the idea of the states as being laboratories for democracy, etc. However, in this case: - The US federal government already has and has used drones as weapons overseas, including to kill US citizens. This now includes smaller/cheaper drones. - The US federal government has materially supported the militarization of police forces, including by giving them military equipment. - Federal law enforcement agencies operate everywhere in the country, and IIUC their behavior isn't limited by those state laws (e.g. the state of CA can't pass a law that removes the CBP "100-mile border zone" and restricts them to only operating at borders and ports), and IIUC the FBI already flies surveillance flights (though the facial recognition prohibition likely doesn't apply here).
- froh 3y ago
  the militarization of the police force is the issue here, isn't it? at a most fundamental level what's debated is if civilians and police should be demilitarized as much as possible or not. Who benefits and who doesn't if all legislation strives for a civic society without deadly force? that's the "Elefant in the room". The counter-argument to a demilitarized civic society usually is that you couldn't possibly control the bad guys. The empirically sound ground truth is that it takes 1-2 generations to get there, and that you will get there if only you want to get there, as a nation, as evidenced by a number of countries who wanted to essentially get rid of everyday knives and nunchucks and tonfas, let alone firearms, and who in fact essentially did get rid of them. The US, as a civic society, needs to discuss which kind of a civic society they want to be. the answer to "shall police have gun drones" flows from that. just like the answer to "shall school students need gun drills".
nathan_compton 3y ago
Doesn't this kind of depend on the law? Do you really think "guns and and facial recognition on drones" is the kind of thing we have to do experiments on? I kind of get where you're coming from in the sense that it is scary for so much power over so many people to be concentrated in such a small place, but, on the other hand, when the case is simple or the moral calculus is clear enough, I think we ought not feel a strong compunction against action at a federal level.
- mulmen 3y ago
  No, it doesn't depend on the law. I think all laws need experimentation regardless of the subject matter because no law is perfect. I also think a federal government that can quickly enact laws is far too powerful an entity to exist in a country of 330,000,000 people. While some "good" laws might get enacted sooner "bad" laws will as well. Remember we are a country guilty of genocide. As an exercise try writing down the name of all the politicians you can off the top of your head. Then consider if you like and agree with them or not. Then ask yourself if you really want an agile federal government. Thinking only the laws you like will make it to a federal law free of unintended side effect is naive fantasy at best. The laboratory of democracy is working. Please, lobby your representatives, get involved, but don't confuse lack of federal law for malfunction.
  - abeppu 3y ago
    I don't think anyone would accuse our federal government of being "agile" or able to "quickly enact laws". And I agree that in almost all things getting the right law is more important than getting a law quickly. However, your insistence that "it doesn't depend on the law" makes me view your whole stance more critically; the answer in complex areas is very rarely "it doesn't depend". There's a bunch of domains where stuff just happens across state lines so frequently that a patchwork would only create confusion. It would be really disruptive if NY made it illegal to drive on gas you bought in NJ b/c NY officials hadn't specifically tested it to confirm that all additives were acceptable; it's easier if we just have federal standards.
  - nathan_compton 3y ago

by mulmen 3y ago

craigmcnamara 3y ago

We should promote this patch to production ASAP

mulmen 3y ago
Works on my machine. Or is that in my neighborhood?

ryandrake 3y ago

I agree. It's helpful to remember: for every law you like and want promoted to the federal level, there's another law you probably don't like that someone else thinks would be great to promote to the federal level. Although moving states to flee terrible laws is a burden, it's not as much of a burden as fleeing your entire country. Laws should be as local as practically possible.

banana_feather 3y ago
> Laws should be as local as practically possible. You guys are every lawyer's dream. Yes, please, continue believing you're following some great American tradition of strong local government by submitting to the whims of your local Boss Tweed and the five judges in your county, I play golf with them once a month. Oh, you have a legal problem and need to navigate the rats nest of weird local laws? Great, you can choose from one of three tax attorneys that know the local tax regime as it applies to your business. I play golf with them too, and (coincidentally) we all bill $1,100 an hour.
- ehvatum 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - some_random 3y ago
    You guys are every esthetician’s dream. Yes, please continue believing you’re following some great skincare tradition by submitting to the whims of your local sephora and the five skincare instagram influencers in your local county, I play volleyball with them once a month. Oh, you want a tattoo and need help to navigate the lawyers nest of weird local tattoo parlors? Great, you can choose from one of three instagram tattoo artists that know the local tattoo regime as it applies to your section of skin. I play volleyball with them too, and (coincidentally) we all bill $110 an hour.
    - nsxwolf 3y ago
      You guys are every fast food worker's dream. Yes, please continue believing you're following some great culinary tradition by submitting to the whims of your local drive-thru and the five foodie Instagram influencers in your local county, I play dodgeball with them once a month. Oh, you want a custom T-shirt and need help to navigate the crafters' maze of local thrift stores? Great, you can choose from one of three Instagram crafters that know the local thrifting scene as it applies to your fashion statement. I play dodgeball with them too, and (coincidentally) we all make $15 an hour.
      - lurker616 3y ago
        So I guess reddit is still closed.
        xigency 3y ago
        Yes. And sadly even before the blackout it’s lost a lot of charm from the early days. I see people hating on pun threads and threads like above on Reddit and it makes me nostalgic and sad. Being a geek isn’t cool there anymore.
abeppu 3y ago
A kamikaze drone can have a variable blast radius that can kill a vehicle's driver but not passengers. That sounds extremely local. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/kamikaze-drones-new-weapon-brings-power-peril-u-s-military-n1285415 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/kamikaze-drones-new-we...
- gus_massa 3y ago
  In the video at 1:10 there are a lot of glass shards in the passenger seat. I'll call bullshit until it's tested in Mythbusters with Buster as the passenger.
- dghlsakjg 3y ago
  As someone who owns the model of truck pictured in the video, there is no possible way that you could kill the driver without risking death to the passenger. Those trucks are TINY. That video is pure propaganda, but I would support the CEO if he wanted to sit in the passenger seat and try and take out a dummy next to him.
- krapp 3y ago
  The only solution to a bad man with a kamikaze drone is a good man with a kamikaze drone.
ElevenLathe 3y ago
This is an argument of process over substance. Good laws should be applied as widely as possible. Bad laws should be as local as possible, preferably applied nowhere at all.
- bumby 3y ago
  >Good laws should be applied as widely as possible. Literally nobody except criminals would disagree with this. That's what makes is of limited value in a discussion like this. It's like saying "Good speech should be disseminated everywhere." Yes. We already agree, to the point where the argument is that protections for good speech aren't really needed. The difficulty is getting a handle on what is a "good law". This is difficult, in part, because we can't always understand the effects down the causal chain. We also can't always get people to agree on the definition. Is a "good law" one that prioritizes safety over personal freedom or is it the other way around? I dunno, but this is even harder in a democracy, where everyone (theoretically, at least) has a voice.
  - maxerickson 3y ago
    The lack of agreement on 'practical' or 'good' is what makes the point about local being better for good, practical laws tedious.
- Clubber 3y ago
  >Good laws should be applied as widely as possible. Good for whom? Supermajority, sure. Anything less should be at the state and local level.
  - ElevenLathe 3y ago
    You're back into process again. Laws do not have metadata attached to them, their goodness is a function of the observer. You think a law is good if you think it's good. You preference is then for it to be applied as widely as possible. Maybe other people disagree, and so should want it applied nowhere. Now you get to fight with them, using whatever power you have and are willing to use. Whoever has the most power to bring to the fight will win it.

abeppu 3y ago

In general, I understand and am sympathetic to the idea of the states as being laboratories for democracy, etc. However, in this case: - The US federal government already has and has used drones as weapons overseas, including to kill US citizens. This now includes smaller/cheaper drones. - The US federal government has materially supported the militarization of police forces, including by giving them military equipment. - Federal law enforcement agencies operate everywhere in the country, and IIUC their behavior isn't limited by those state laws (e.g. the state of CA can't pass a law that removes the CBP "100-mile border zone" and restricts them to only operating at borders and ports), and IIUC the FBI already flies surveillance flights (though the facial recognition prohibition likely doesn't apply here).

froh 3y ago
the militarization of the police force is the issue here, isn't it? at a most fundamental level what's debated is if civilians and police should be demilitarized as much as possible or not. Who benefits and who doesn't if all legislation strives for a civic society without deadly force? that's the "Elefant in the room". The counter-argument to a demilitarized civic society usually is that you couldn't possibly control the bad guys. The empirically sound ground truth is that it takes 1-2 generations to get there, and that you will get there if only you want to get there, as a nation, as evidenced by a number of countries who wanted to essentially get rid of everyday knives and nunchucks and tonfas, let alone firearms, and who in fact essentially did get rid of them. The US, as a civic society, needs to discuss which kind of a civic society they want to be. the answer to "shall police have gun drones" flows from that. just like the answer to "shall school students need gun drills".

nathan_compton 3y ago

Doesn't this kind of depend on the law? Do you really think "guns and and facial recognition on drones" is the kind of thing we have to do experiments on? I kind of get where you're coming from in the sense that it is scary for so much power over so many people to be concentrated in such a small place, but, on the other hand, when the case is simple or the moral calculus is clear enough, I think we ought not feel a strong compunction against action at a federal level.

mulmen 3y ago
No, it doesn't depend on the law. I think all laws need experimentation regardless of the subject matter because no law is perfect. I also think a federal government that can quickly enact laws is far too powerful an entity to exist in a country of 330,000,000 people. While some "good" laws might get enacted sooner "bad" laws will as well. Remember we are a country guilty of genocide. As an exercise try writing down the name of all the politicians you can off the top of your head. Then consider if you like and agree with them or not. Then ask yourself if you really want an agile federal government. Thinking only the laws you like will make it to a federal law free of unintended side effect is naive fantasy at best. The laboratory of democracy is working. Please, lobby your representatives, get involved, but don't confuse lack of federal law for malfunction.
- abeppu 3y ago
  I don't think anyone would accuse our federal government of being "agile" or able to "quickly enact laws". And I agree that in almost all things getting the right law is more important than getting a law quickly. However, your insistence that "it doesn't depend on the law" makes me view your whole stance more critically; the answer in complex areas is very rarely "it doesn't depend". There's a bunch of domains where stuff just happens across state lines so frequently that a patchwork would only create confusion. It would be really disruptive if NY made it illegal to drive on gas you bought in NJ b/c NY officials hadn't specifically tested it to confirm that all additives were acceptable; it's easier if we just have federal standards.
- nathan_compton 3y ago