5 ms·

This leads to anarchy or selective enforcement. Unjust laws should be removed.

matheusmoreira 8mo ago
> Unjust laws should be removed. Yeah, in an ideal world. Good luck with that. We live in a deeply unjust world where laws are literally bought and paid for by corporations. This age verification nonsense is just the latest example. They aren't going to sit idle if we attack their lobbying efforts, they're going to come after us. God only knows what a surveillance company like Meta can do to you if they really hate your guts.
- throw10920 8mo ago
  OK, so then you think the entire system is corrupt, and you should reform/replace it. Selective rejection of laws based on your own personal morals is wrong in every circumstance. Either you believe the system is just and you follow all the rules (and work through the system to changes the individual rules you believe are unjust), or you believe that the system is fundamentally unjust and you take drastic action to fix it. If you don't, then you're a hypocrite - you don't really believe that the system is unjust, you're just using that as an excuse to selectively ignore laws you disagree with.
  - matheusmoreira 8mo ago
    > you think the entire system is corrupt I do. > you should reform/replace it This is a way to reform it. If nobody obeys a law, is it really illegal? It's more like a custom. > Selective rejection of laws based on your own personal morals is wrong in every circumstance. So if your so called authorities passed a law saying you're required to participate in some atrocity such as genocide, you'd do it with a clean conscience? Okay. > you believe that the system is fundamentally unjust and you take drastic action to fix it I don't have the power to do so. Also, people who try "drastic" actions are called terrorists.
    - throw10920 8mo ago
      [flagged]
      - matheusmoreira 8mo ago
        This thread is devolving into insults and name calling, so I won't engage any further. Thanks for the discussion.
        throw10920 8mo ago
        Before edit: > You've started calling me names so I won't bother trying to engage any further. Thanks for the discussion. A note to future readers of this thread: observe the inconsistency between the poster's stated positions and decide whether you believe that their words are genuine (and their positions/advocacy are worth taking into consideration) in light of that.
        matheusmoreira 8mo ago
        Resolving inconsistencies between my ideas is the entire reason why I come here to discuss them. I'm just not willing to do it while being accused of bad faith and of having no reading comprehension.
        throw10920 8mo ago
        Factually, you do either have bad reading comprehension or are operating in bad faith, because otherwise you could not have made this statement: > So if your so called authorities passed a law saying you're required to participate in some atrocity such as genocide, you'd do it with a clean conscience? Okay. No need to respond. This is just documentation for future HN readers.
  - fwipsy 8mo ago
    There are many unjust laws on the books, and that will always be true: - some are backed by powerful interests - some have become load-bearing and are too difficult to replace - some just don't matter and aren't enforced - even if you fix some, new ones will be passed, because people are not perfect If I prove this to you, will you then take your own advice and "take drastic action" to replace the US government?
    - throw10920 8mo ago
      > There are many unjust laws on the books, and that will always be true: > If I prove this to you, will you then take your own advice and "take drastic action" to replace the US government? No. You didn't actually read my comments before responding, and you're fundamentally misunderstanding my position. That's not "my own advice".
      - fwipsy 8mo ago
        Perhaps your comment didn't say what you believe, then.
        throw10920 8mo ago
        It does. Read it again: > Either you believe the system is just and you follow all the rules (and work through the system to changes the individual rules you believe are unjust) [...] I believe the system is just. That does not change in the presence of those unjust rules that you listed above, because those laws can be changed and are changed regularly, and because they're not egregious enough to constitute a failure of the system.
        fwipsy 8mo ago
        I understood you perfectly, but you didn't understand me. You're trying to create a false binary between "follow every law as written, until it gets changed" and "drastic action." Nobody wants to take drastic action, so (you say) we should follow the laws. You seem to agree that there are unjust laws, but you don't realize the scope of the problem. There are many unenforceable laws, with drastic consequences if they were enforced, which are not being fixed[0]. A just system would not perpetuate unjust laws indefinitely, and so under your framing, everyone who disagrees with these laws and is not willing to follow them should take "drastic action." In fact, there's no such binary. We live under a flawed system which contains unenforceable laws; we can just ignore those laws (which law enforcement already does) even if they are not changed, without needing to overthrow the system, emigrate, or whatever it is you meant to imply by "drastic action." [0]https://claude.ai/share/b5d93161-65f8-432e-b04e-af98d951038e https://claude.ai/share/b5d93161-65f8-432e-b04e-af98d951038e
- charcircuit 8mo ago
  Please review how laws are created. Meta can't write a check to the US Treasury and add a new law. That's not how it works at all.
  - matheusmoreira 8mo ago
    Of course. That would be too obvious. They write checks to lobbyists instead.
    - charcircuit 8mo ago
      Lobbyists can't send a check to the government to buy a law either.
      - matheusmoreira 8mo ago
        Lobbyists are quite literally people you pay to "influence" the lawmaking process. Through them you can essentially buy whatever laws you want. The exact methods they use are irrelevant, though I wouldn't discount the possibility that some politicians were corrupt enough to get literally bought with literal checks. Nobody asked for this age verification nonsense. The entire child protection angle is just a way to manufacture outrage and cover up the real nature of this law. This is purely a political move from Meta against Apple and Google. Apple cut off their data via iOS privacy controls, now Meta is striking back. Meta spent billions on lobbyists, then laws benefiting Meta and hurting its competitors were passed. If this is not evidence that you can buy laws, I don't know what is.
LordDragonfang 8mo ago
In the US, the process of removing unjust laws generally involves violating them, so that courts have the opportunity to legislate from the bench.
- charcircuit 8mo ago
  Laws can be removed in the same exact way they are passed. It's just in the commit instead of adding lines, you remove them.
  - LordDragonfang 8mo ago
    Correct, but in practice this is almost never done, because the way the US legislative system is set up it's almost always more convenient to have judges rewrite laws instead of legislators.

> Unjust laws should be removed. Yeah, in an ideal world. Good luck with that. We live in a deeply unjust world where laws are literally bought and paid for by corporations. This age verification nonsense is just the latest example. They aren't going to sit idle if we attack their lobbying efforts, they're going to come after us. God only knows what a surveillance company like Meta can do to you if they really hate your guts.

throw10920 8mo ago
OK, so then you think the entire system is corrupt, and you should reform/replace it. Selective rejection of laws based on your own personal morals is wrong in every circumstance. Either you believe the system is just and you follow all the rules (and work through the system to changes the individual rules you believe are unjust), or you believe that the system is fundamentally unjust and you take drastic action to fix it. If you don't, then you're a hypocrite - you don't really believe that the system is unjust, you're just using that as an excuse to selectively ignore laws you disagree with.
- matheusmoreira 8mo ago
  > you think the entire system is corrupt I do. > you should reform/replace it This is a way to reform it. If nobody obeys a law, is it really illegal? It's more like a custom. > Selective rejection of laws based on your own personal morals is wrong in every circumstance. So if your so called authorities passed a law saying you're required to participate in some atrocity such as genocide, you'd do it with a clean conscience? Okay. > you believe that the system is fundamentally unjust and you take drastic action to fix it I don't have the power to do so. Also, people who try "drastic" actions are called terrorists.
  - throw10920 8mo ago
    [flagged]
    - matheusmoreira 8mo ago
      This thread is devolving into insults and name calling, so I won't engage any further. Thanks for the discussion.
      - throw10920 8mo ago
        Before edit: > You've started calling me names so I won't bother trying to engage any further. Thanks for the discussion. A note to future readers of this thread: observe the inconsistency between the poster's stated positions and decide whether you believe that their words are genuine (and their positions/advocacy are worth taking into consideration) in light of that.
        matheusmoreira 8mo ago
        Resolving inconsistencies between my ideas is the entire reason why I come here to discuss them. I'm just not willing to do it while being accused of bad faith and of having no reading comprehension.
        throw10920 8mo ago
        Factually, you do either have bad reading comprehension or are operating in bad faith, because otherwise you could not have made this statement: > So if your so called authorities passed a law saying you're required to participate in some atrocity such as genocide, you'd do it with a clean conscience? Okay. No need to respond. This is just documentation for future HN readers.
- fwipsy 8mo ago
  There are many unjust laws on the books, and that will always be true: - some are backed by powerful interests - some have become load-bearing and are too difficult to replace - some just don't matter and aren't enforced - even if you fix some, new ones will be passed, because people are not perfect If I prove this to you, will you then take your own advice and "take drastic action" to replace the US government?
  - throw10920 8mo ago
    > There are many unjust laws on the books, and that will always be true: > If I prove this to you, will you then take your own advice and "take drastic action" to replace the US government? No. You didn't actually read my comments before responding, and you're fundamentally misunderstanding my position. That's not "my own advice".
    - fwipsy 8mo ago
      Perhaps your comment didn't say what you believe, then.
      - throw10920 8mo ago
        It does. Read it again: > Either you believe the system is just and you follow all the rules (and work through the system to changes the individual rules you believe are unjust) [...] I believe the system is just. That does not change in the presence of those unjust rules that you listed above, because those laws can be changed and are changed regularly, and because they're not egregious enough to constitute a failure of the system.
        fwipsy 8mo ago
        I understood you perfectly, but you didn't understand me. You're trying to create a false binary between "follow every law as written, until it gets changed" and "drastic action." Nobody wants to take drastic action, so (you say) we should follow the laws. You seem to agree that there are unjust laws, but you don't realize the scope of the problem. There are many unenforceable laws, with drastic consequences if they were enforced, which are not being fixed[0]. A just system would not perpetuate unjust laws indefinitely, and so under your framing, everyone who disagrees with these laws and is not willing to follow them should take "drastic action." In fact, there's no such binary. We live under a flawed system which contains unenforceable laws; we can just ignore those laws (which law enforcement already does) even if they are not changed, without needing to overthrow the system, emigrate, or whatever it is you meant to imply by "drastic action." [0]https://claude.ai/share/b5d93161-65f8-432e-b04e-af98d951038e https://claude.ai/share/b5d93161-65f8-432e-b04e-af98d951038e
charcircuit 8mo ago
Please review how laws are created. Meta can't write a check to the US Treasury and add a new law. That's not how it works at all.
- matheusmoreira 8mo ago
  Of course. That would be too obvious. They write checks to lobbyists instead.
  - charcircuit 8mo ago
    Lobbyists can't send a check to the government to buy a law either.
    - matheusmoreira 8mo ago
      Lobbyists are quite literally people you pay to "influence" the lawmaking process. Through them you can essentially buy whatever laws you want. The exact methods they use are irrelevant, though I wouldn't discount the possibility that some politicians were corrupt enough to get literally bought with literal checks. Nobody asked for this age verification nonsense. The entire child protection angle is just a way to manufacture outrage and cover up the real nature of this law. This is purely a political move from Meta against Apple and Google. Apple cut off their data via iOS privacy controls, now Meta is striking back. Meta spent billions on lobbyists, then laws benefiting Meta and hurting its competitors were passed. If this is not evidence that you can buy laws, I don't know what is.

LordDragonfang 8mo ago

In the US, the process of removing unjust laws generally involves violating them, so that courts have the opportunity to legislate from the bench.

charcircuit 8mo ago
Laws can be removed in the same exact way they are passed. It's just in the commit instead of adding lines, you remove them.
- LordDragonfang 8mo ago
  Correct, but in practice this is almost never done, because the way the US legislative system is set up it's almost always more convenient to have judges rewrite laws instead of legislators.