3 ms·
1. Law is passed to reduce fraud. 2. An incident of fraud occurs under the new law. 3. Law is pointless and should be repealed. 1+2 do not imply 3. I don't kn
by khuey 14y ago
1. Law is passed to reduce fraud.
2. An incident of fraud occurs under the new law.
3. Law is pointless and should be repealed.
1+2 do not imply 3.
I don't know much about the California MTA. It may very well be a terrible piece of legislation that prevents desperately needed innovation. But the argument presented here is laughable.
- thinkcomp 14y agoIt's more like... 1. Paid lobbyist writes law to protect enormous clients, convinces consumer advocates and legislators that it's in the best interest of the public and that there is "industry consensus" (actual words used). 2. Many incidents of fraud occur under the new law, including one that is nationwide to the tune of $120 million (settled for $100 million in three weeks to avoid an admission of guilt) involving one of the paid lobbyist's clients, whose license for some reason is not revoked. 3. Law is protectionist and not in the public's interest and should be repealed. Issues like this are complex and deserve our attention. The argument isn't laughable, it's just the tip of a very complicated iceberg.
- khuey 14y agoIf the issue is complex the author shouldn't try to dumb it down as far as he did.