3 ms·

> Murder vs manslaugher vs self defence vs execution vs being stabbed by a soldier is a good lens into law. (Or, to be provocative, eating meat.) Very good! I

> Murder vs manslaugher vs self defence vs execution vs being stabbed by a soldier is a good lens into law. (Or, to be provocative, eating meat.) Very good! I think these are all interpretations of the same type of event. Do you know the Russell conjugation?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> these are all interpretations of the same type of event Sure. But legally--and culturally--very different. If someone doesn't see that, they probably shouldn't be commenting on the law. (Practically speaking, they probably aren't.)
- verisimi 2y ago
  Right. We are talking about social conventions, not right or wrong. This is plain when we see that the same action can be legal in one country, and a serious crime in another. It's simply the rules of the game, no different to Scrabble or poker. How the individual engages with the culture/game is their business. Similarly, if an individual is able to direct the creation of rules in their favour, why shouldn't they?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > the same action can be legal in one country, and a serious crime in another Social constructs are socially constructed. Given social systems are heterogenous, this variation is far from profound. (It’s almost corollary.) > no different to Scrabble or poker In the way Duplos and dielectric physics are the same. > if an individual is able to direct the creation of rules in their favour, why shouldn't they? One usually can’t.
    - verisimi 2y ago
      > Social constructs are socially constructed. Given social systems are heterogenous, this variation is far from profound. (It’s almost corollary.) Not really. I imagine its fine to shoot a burglar in the US who breaks in your house, but you could go to jail for murder in the UK. Soldiers can kill civilians without consequences. So can governments (death row, in the US). >> if an individual is able to direct the creation of rules in their favour, why shouldn't they? > One usually can’t. I think most(/all?) law is created this way. Eg a pretty small collection of individuals that have the sway in a corporation use the corporation to pay lobbyists to draft laws to benefit them (creating a moat, force individuals to pay (health insurance), etc, etc). This is done in the name of serving the public interest. The political class then rubber stamps these proposals, in order to receive a seat on the board on retiring from politics.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> these are all interpretations of the same type of event Sure. But legally--and culturally--very different. If someone doesn't see that, they probably shouldn't be commenting on the law. (Practically speaking, they probably aren't.)

verisimi 2y ago
Right. We are talking about social conventions, not right or wrong. This is plain when we see that the same action can be legal in one country, and a serious crime in another. It's simply the rules of the game, no different to Scrabble or poker. How the individual engages with the culture/game is their business. Similarly, if an individual is able to direct the creation of rules in their favour, why shouldn't they?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > the same action can be legal in one country, and a serious crime in another Social constructs are socially constructed. Given social systems are heterogenous, this variation is far from profound. (It’s almost corollary.) > no different to Scrabble or poker In the way Duplos and dielectric physics are the same. > if an individual is able to direct the creation of rules in their favour, why shouldn't they? One usually can’t.
  - verisimi 2y ago
    > Social constructs are socially constructed. Given social systems are heterogenous, this variation is far from profound. (It’s almost corollary.) Not really. I imagine its fine to shoot a burglar in the US who breaks in your house, but you could go to jail for murder in the UK. Soldiers can kill civilians without consequences. So can governments (death row, in the US). >> if an individual is able to direct the creation of rules in their favour, why shouldn't they? > One usually can’t. I think most(/all?) law is created this way. Eg a pretty small collection of individuals that have the sway in a corporation use the corporation to pay lobbyists to draft laws to benefit them (creating a moat, force individuals to pay (health insurance), etc, etc). This is done in the name of serving the public interest. The political class then rubber stamps these proposals, in order to receive a seat on the board on retiring from politics.