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