4 ms·

I really dislike this logical fallacy. All three things were illegal. All three things were frowned upon. What you are actually saying is that there are man

by RC_ITR 1y ago

I really dislike this logical fallacy. All three things were illegal. All three things were frowned upon. What you are actually saying is that there are many people on the streets of San Francisco who are otherwise excluded from American society and therefore have almost 'nothing to lose.' Those people often break laws, largely because the social contract has excluded them from the benefits of society (for example, knowing you have access to indoor plumbing). This article is about a change for the fortunate ones like you and me who do feel like we get a fair shake from the social contract and therefore follow most laws (I assume).

scarmig 1y ago
The complaint is that laws are structured in a way that only affect people who have something material to lose. There's no law of nature that says laws have to be that way, and, historically and cross-culturally, they haven't been. Upgrading my windows to be double-paned without city approval should not result in a greater punishment from the government than attacking someone on the street.
- RC_ITR 1y ago
  I am really trying to understand what you're saying, but I disagree because I do think that today it is axiomatic that laws need enforcement to be useful and most legal enforcement involves negative consequences. I also thing that most negative consequences are either pain related (Contemporary morals have generally eradicated pain-based consequences) or restriction on access to material things. What I am ultimately trying to say is that the large majority of people on this forum see the symptom of a broken society (homelessness and drug addiction) and for whatever reason, refuse to believe that a complex network of problems is actually the thing that should draw our 'hacker' focus. Like sure, you clearly had a negative experience with permitting that caused you to have an expensive fine and feel resentment that other people do 'worse' things 'scot-free'. Would fining a homeless person more money actually solve your or the city's problems? No. The person would just not pay, because again, they have nothing to lose. Ultimately, I think where we agree is that the idea of law needs to evolve to include both punishment and state funded / enforced humanitarian care. The reason that I think this will never happen in America is because we are an inherently vengeful people with a dark history of race-based hatred and a fundamental disdain for paying taxes that fund public goods.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
  > Upgrading my windows to be double-paned without city approval should not result in a greater punishment from the government than attacking someone on the street. I agree with the statement if you mean that you should be punished more for the latter than for the former. But if you mean that you should be punished less for X and someone else should be punished more for Y (where Y is a greater crime than X), there simply are not enough details to know if I agree. I might think that you should be punished more when you are in a position to profit from the actions and therefore be more willing to continue despite the punishment (e.g. a restaurant owner refusing to make up the minimum wage difference for a server who didn't make enough in tips) whereas the other person committed their crime from opportunism in a desperate situation (e.g. a homeless person who robbed an unfortunate individual for money, including causing some minor injuries). If the same person were to commit both crimes, obviously the latter is worse; if different people commit the crimes, I'd be interested to know more about the perpetrators if I was asked to pass judgement. > The complaint is that laws are structured in a way that only affect people who have something material to lose. This is how it should be. Society should be structured such that every member of it has something material to lose.

by RC_ITR 1y ago

scarmig 1y ago

The complaint is that laws are structured in a way that only affect people who have something material to lose. There's no law of nature that says laws have to be that way, and, historically and cross-culturally, they haven't been. Upgrading my windows to be double-paned without city approval should not result in a greater punishment from the government than attacking someone on the street.

RC_ITR 1y ago
I am really trying to understand what you're saying, but I disagree because I do think that today it is axiomatic that laws need enforcement to be useful and most legal enforcement involves negative consequences. I also thing that most negative consequences are either pain related (Contemporary morals have generally eradicated pain-based consequences) or restriction on access to material things. What I am ultimately trying to say is that the large majority of people on this forum see the symptom of a broken society (homelessness and drug addiction) and for whatever reason, refuse to believe that a complex network of problems is actually the thing that should draw our 'hacker' focus. Like sure, you clearly had a negative experience with permitting that caused you to have an expensive fine and feel resentment that other people do 'worse' things 'scot-free'. Would fining a homeless person more money actually solve your or the city's problems? No. The person would just not pay, because again, they have nothing to lose. Ultimately, I think where we agree is that the idea of law needs to evolve to include both punishment and state funded / enforced humanitarian care. The reason that I think this will never happen in America is because we are an inherently vengeful people with a dark history of race-based hatred and a fundamental disdain for paying taxes that fund public goods.
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
> Upgrading my windows to be double-paned without city approval should not result in a greater punishment from the government than attacking someone on the street. I agree with the statement if you mean that you should be punished more for the latter than for the former. But if you mean that you should be punished less for X and someone else should be punished more for Y (where Y is a greater crime than X), there simply are not enough details to know if I agree. I might think that you should be punished more when you are in a position to profit from the actions and therefore be more willing to continue despite the punishment (e.g. a restaurant owner refusing to make up the minimum wage difference for a server who didn't make enough in tips) whereas the other person committed their crime from opportunism in a desperate situation (e.g. a homeless person who robbed an unfortunate individual for money, including causing some minor injuries). If the same person were to commit both crimes, obviously the latter is worse; if different people commit the crimes, I'd be interested to know more about the perpetrators if I was asked to pass judgement. > The complaint is that laws are structured in a way that only affect people who have something material to lose. This is how it should be. Society should be structured such that every member of it has something material to lose.