2 ms·
> But I notice that we are talking not about murder, not about rape and not about theft. I noticed that you literally began your argument with the claim that l
by clipsy 1y ago
> But I notice that we are talking not about murder, not about rape and not about theft.
I noticed that you literally began your argument with the claim that legislation is aggression ("Legislation is aggression") and ended it with an invitation to disagree ("Or probably you might argue that legislation is not an agression[sic]?"). So I responded by presenting cases in which I believe legislation is not aggression.
- eimrine 1y agoLegislation (in your cases) is when some nanny state doing two agressive things simultaneusly: 1. Punish the aggressive actor by another aggression 2. Make a monopoly of punishing and choosing what to punish. [1] is the action which will be done anyway, if nobody punish my neighbour murderer/scammer I will do it anyway because he is my neighbour. [2] is a sign of tyranny, lets remember what we are talking about - bets. Bets are not a scam, bets are not a steal. If you and me and the others permit some state to punish for bets, the governmont will see the ability to disallow something else by demagogic justification. I do not see anything non-agressive in disallowing bets. I understand that proprietary software does a big work towards making people to bet, I understand that the proprietary bet software might be in a hands of some kid who can easily lost all the family's earnings. But hear me please - agressive legislation of non-agressive behaviour is not just agression, it is an opener for even more agression. Killing some murderer is agression which closes the door for futurer murders. The responses in this comment tree compares betting with murdering - why they are spreading such a demagogy? Does anybody really want a nanny state?