4 ms·

> The latter have a lot of "Yes, you're technically in trouble under the guidelines the enforcement authority rules using but they're going to make an exception

> The latter have a lot of "Yes, you're technically in trouble under the guidelines the enforcement authority rules using but they're going to make an exception for you, for now" and the former have a lot of "Yes, the spirit was to block this kind of thing but the letter of the law is that you do get away with it". The latter system is what happens if you actually have rule of law. The law says X is illegal, you did not do X, therefore you cannot be prosecuted. Meanwhile anyone caught doing X is prosecuted or it's a scandal that they're seen getting away with it. The former is autocracy in a trench coat. Whether you're in violation of the law is irrelevant because the laws are so numerous and ambiguous that everyone is always in violation of the law and the only thing that matters is if the prosecutors want to charge you. Sadly the US is moving more towards the "traditional" system rather than the other way around.

leonidasrup 3mo ago
The US was moving in the wrong direction for a long time. Three Felonies a Day " Silverglate’s book first explains how law should work, and then demonstrates how federal law really works as he weaves through dozens of cases showing clear prosecutorial abuse. An ugly, recurrent feature is that prosecutors often manipulate the media. " https://fee.org/articles/three-felonies-a-day-how-the-feds-target-the-innocent/ https://fee.org/articles/three-felonies-a-day-how-the-feds-t...
arjie 3mo ago
Yes, I tend to agree. Understanding what forces brought it to be may help preserve it and bring it to more places. The US is moving in various ways, true, but certainly I think the diminishing of Chevron deference is a move towards clearer law. Agency actors have always acted in a capricious way but they’re now far more susceptible to capture than in prior eras (or at least it’s much more visible) so reducing their power offers more transparency.
stackghost 3mo ago
>Whether you're in violation of the law is irrelevant because the laws are so numerous and ambiguous that everyone is always in violation of the law and the only thing that matters is if the prosecutors want to charge you. This situation currently describes the USA.
- AnthonyMouse 3mo ago
  And that's bad, right?
  - arjie 3mo ago
    I think it’s a matter of belief and while I’d prefer adherence to the rule of law and enforcement in general I can see why people allow for not-that. As an example, here’s a post on /r/sanfrancisco https://old.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/1uvebed/blocked_sidewalks_getting_more_common/ https://old.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/1uvebed/block... You’ll see that a large number of people believe that while the letter of the law is violated, it’s not a big deal. I’m sure that applies all the way to the top.
    - AnthonyMouse 3mo ago
      > You’ll see that a large number of people believe that while the letter of the law is violated, it’s not a big deal. The correct way to deal with this is to make the law do what people actually want. It's entirely possible to draft a law where actually blocking the sidewalk is a violation but the nose of a car extending into it by a few inches isn't considered blocked. And the way to get that law is to enforce the existing law so that the people who don't like it will have it changed instead of having a law that everybody is violating but only the disfavored have it enforced against them.
      - arjie 3mo ago
        Well, that's a bit pie-in-the-sky, right? The 'correct' way is for no one to inconvenience someone else. I have no magic wand that can make that happen. I also have no magic wand that can make authorities enforce the law. The government is just a mechanism for people to share common resources in a way that enables groups to work together with some (aspired-low) degree of free-riding. So it's true that one level of depth is "enforce the law and unjust laws will be repealed", but the second level is "people prefer to not enforce the law" and "people decide the government" so it's meta-structures that determine outcomes here. As an example, some kinds of laws are more effective than others. The CIA Sabotage Manual offers some techniques to introduce stalling and sabotage good organization function but it seems like the opposite is a currently-unsolved problem.

leonidasrup 3mo ago

The US was moving in the wrong direction for a long time. Three Felonies a Day " Silverglate’s book first explains how law should work, and then demonstrates how federal law really works as he weaves through dozens of cases showing clear prosecutorial abuse. An ugly, recurrent feature is that prosecutors often manipulate the media. " https://fee.org/articles/three-felonies-a-day-how-the-feds-target-the-innocent/ https://fee.org/articles/three-felonies-a-day-how-the-feds-t...

arjie 3mo ago

Yes, I tend to agree. Understanding what forces brought it to be may help preserve it and bring it to more places. The US is moving in various ways, true, but certainly I think the diminishing of Chevron deference is a move towards clearer law. Agency actors have always acted in a capricious way but they’re now far more susceptible to capture than in prior eras (or at least it’s much more visible) so reducing their power offers more transparency.

stackghost 3mo ago

>Whether you're in violation of the law is irrelevant because the laws are so numerous and ambiguous that everyone is always in violation of the law and the only thing that matters is if the prosecutors want to charge you. This situation currently describes the USA.

AnthonyMouse 3mo ago
And that's bad, right?
- arjie 3mo ago
  I think it’s a matter of belief and while I’d prefer adherence to the rule of law and enforcement in general I can see why people allow for not-that. As an example, here’s a post on /r/sanfrancisco https://old.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/1uvebed/blocked_sidewalks_getting_more_common/ https://old.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/1uvebed/block... You’ll see that a large number of people believe that while the letter of the law is violated, it’s not a big deal. I’m sure that applies all the way to the top.
  - AnthonyMouse 3mo ago
    > You’ll see that a large number of people believe that while the letter of the law is violated, it’s not a big deal. The correct way to deal with this is to make the law do what people actually want. It's entirely possible to draft a law where actually blocking the sidewalk is a violation but the nose of a car extending into it by a few inches isn't considered blocked. And the way to get that law is to enforce the existing law so that the people who don't like it will have it changed instead of having a law that everybody is violating but only the disfavored have it enforced against them.
    - arjie 3mo ago
      Well, that's a bit pie-in-the-sky, right? The 'correct' way is for no one to inconvenience someone else. I have no magic wand that can make that happen. I also have no magic wand that can make authorities enforce the law. The government is just a mechanism for people to share common resources in a way that enables groups to work together with some (aspired-low) degree of free-riding. So it's true that one level of depth is "enforce the law and unjust laws will be repealed", but the second level is "people prefer to not enforce the law" and "people decide the government" so it's meta-structures that determine outcomes here. As an example, some kinds of laws are more effective than others. The CIA Sabotage Manual offers some techniques to introduce stalling and sabotage good organization function but it seems like the opposite is a currently-unsolved problem.