3 ms·

No. You missed the point entirely. There is no profound difference. No one is stating that the laws are perfectly paralleled. Nothing of this nature is perfect

by aric 13y ago

No. You missed the point entirely. There is no profound difference. No one is stating that the laws are perfectly paralleled. Nothing of this nature is perfectly paralleled. You're failing to appreciate that law is entirely arbitrary and worthless compared to an individual's opinion of the level of corruption surrounding that law. Your points A, B, C are meaningless to a person's opinion of the underlying validity and righteousness of those points.

marshray 13y ago
Reads to me like that person's opinion of the law is that systemic inconsistencies have "profound" implications (on the underlying validity etc.)
- aric 13y ago
  I don't think it was. Above the person writes... > "PG is off the mark here. Companies like Uber explicitly ignore the existing laws and regulations. In the case of Tesla, the ruling just passed." This indicates to me that the "profound" differences to him/her regarding "validity" is whether a law previously exists. (...Seemingly completely oblivious to the notion that much of what is made into law is insidious, vile, and of a precedence worth objecting.) If the point was only about systemic inconsistencies, that wan't clear.
npizzolato 13y ago
I (and the GP) believe there's a profound difference in starting a company knowing that you'll be breaking laws (Uber) and running an established company that just had a law passed that negatively impacts your business (Tesla). You're failing to address that besides saying that all law is completely arbitrary.
- aric 13y ago
  The distinction of precedence has (or should have) no profound difference to a person's opinion of what constitutes validity or corruption, regardless of a status quo. That is my point. There is only "profound difference" to the circular reasoning of law itself. There was no reason for me to address that. Legal frameworks are inherently rigid and without much individual conscience.

by aric 13y ago

marshray 13y ago

Reads to me like that person's opinion of the law is that systemic inconsistencies have "profound" implications (on the underlying validity etc.)

aric 13y ago
I don't think it was. Above the person writes... > "PG is off the mark here. Companies like Uber explicitly ignore the existing laws and regulations. In the case of Tesla, the ruling just passed." This indicates to me that the "profound" differences to him/her regarding "validity" is whether a law previously exists. (...Seemingly completely oblivious to the notion that much of what is made into law is insidious, vile, and of a precedence worth objecting.) If the point was only about systemic inconsistencies, that wan't clear.

npizzolato 13y ago

I (and the GP) believe there's a profound difference in starting a company knowing that you'll be breaking laws (Uber) and running an established company that just had a law passed that negatively impacts your business (Tesla). You're failing to address that besides saying that all law is completely arbitrary.

aric 13y ago
The distinction of precedence has (or should have) no profound difference to a person's opinion of what constitutes validity or corruption, regardless of a status quo. That is my point. There is only "profound difference" to the circular reasoning of law itself. There was no reason for me to address that. Legal frameworks are inherently rigid and without much individual conscience.