2 ms·

I'm thinking it through, and I've arrived at the puzzling conclusion we shouldn't make it too hard for people to break the law.

• dylan604 1y ago
  Isn't that precisely the point. If there are so many laws that are so easily broken, you have a reason to pickup anyone of interest at any time.
  • card_zero 1y ago
    Eh, I see what I wrote was ambiguous. I meant "not hard to defy the law", you're on "not hard to be tripped up by the law".
    • cwmoore 1y ago
      Same jail
• DicIfTEx 1y ago
  Not so puzzling; see also this classic post from Moxie Marlinspike, founder of Signal: https://moxie.org/2013/06/12/we-should-all-have-something-to-hide.html https://moxie.org/2013/06/12/we-should-all-have-something-to... > Over the past year, there have been a number of headline-grabbing legal changes in the US, such as the legalization of marijuana in CO and WA, as well as the legalization of same-sex marriage in a growing number of US states. > As a majority of people in these states apparently favor these changes, advocates for the US democratic process cite these legal victories as examples of how the system can provide real freedoms to those who engage with it through lawful means. And it’s true, the bills did pass. > What’s often overlooked, however, is that these legal victories would probably not have been possible without the ability to break the law.
• vkou 1y ago
  The optimal amount of fraud or lawlessness isn't zero.