4 ms·
Agreed. The number of people affected is a big difference. But I think the comparison does make clear that isn’t necessarily a principled reason not to accept a
by mtsr 3y ago
Agreed. The number of people affected is a big difference. But I think the comparison does make clear that isn’t necessarily a principled reason not to accept a few failures as part of otherwise useful regulation.
- omniglottal 3y agoA "few failures as part of otherwise useful regulation" sounds an awful lot like some innocent victims exists, treated as guilty. Treating the (presumed) innocent as though guilty, by regulation even, doesn't sound all that good. In fact, seems there in fact are profound and relevant principles to not accept that.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago> some innocent victims exists, treated as guilty The context in this discussion is comparing the hypothetical of a homeless person dying due to a systemic failure to the hypothetical of a business going bankrupt (without being acquired) due to a systemic failure. This concept of presumed innocence ought to apply to this hypothetical homeless person: why not give them shelter (analogous to allowing M&A) by default, until someone decides it’s a problem? If a society is willing to accept this personal death, they should be willing to accept a business failure.