3 ms·

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 no

• 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.