3 ms·

Creating laws doesn't make something moral/normative. The fact that a law exists and whether it's "good" are two different things. Breaking a "bad" law might be

Creating laws doesn't make something moral/normative. The fact that a law exists and whether it's "good" are two different things. Breaking a "bad" law might be a crime, but I'm not convinced that it's "bad". This is a country that is doing everything it can to create laws which increase the cost of transportation and reduce the ability to get a ride. It's a law that makes things less safe (there aren't enough taxis to properly service late night bars so people are forced to drive drunk - people die because of the law to protect a monopoly). We can look at the law and the reason for the law and ask if the price for protecting a government granted monopoly is worth the price (lives and money from increased transportation costs) paid.

gambiting 11y ago
"so people are forced to drive drunk - people die because of the law to protect a monopoly" Jesus christ this is literally the stupidest thing I have heard all day, and I have been following what is going on reddit since early morning. If anyone ever says they were "forced to drunk drive" by anything they deserve to be slapped and have their licence taken away, forever. If you go drinking, you don't bring your car with you!!!!!!
jarek 11y ago
> This is a country that is doing everything it can to create laws which increase the cost of transportation and reduce the ability to get a ride. Which country? The country Blablacar came out of?
mmarx 11y ago
> people die because of the law to protect a monopoly More like people die because they (or, quite possibly other people) choose to break the law against drunk driving?
- dllthomas 11y ago
  More like people die because they (or, quite possibly other people) choose to drive drunk. The presence of the law should help deter them from making that choice. But that doesn't establish that laws should always be followed or shouldn't be changed - it just supports the case that that law should be followed and should not be changed, which no one was arguing against. Other things also help decrease drunk driving. Healthy social norms can have a big impact. Convenient alternatives also has a big impact. What we're discussing here is a particular, especially convenient alternative. It is wrong to excuse people who put others' lives at risk because doing otherwise is inconvenient. But it is incorrect not to expect that some people will do so, and account for that as a part of the impact of laws.

gambiting 11y ago

"so people are forced to drive drunk - people die because of the law to protect a monopoly" Jesus christ this is literally the stupidest thing I have heard all day, and I have been following what is going on reddit since early morning. If anyone ever says they were "forced to drunk drive" by anything they deserve to be slapped and have their licence taken away, forever. If you go drinking, you don't bring your car with you!!!!!!

jarek 11y ago

> This is a country that is doing everything it can to create laws which increase the cost of transportation and reduce the ability to get a ride. Which country? The country Blablacar came out of?

mmarx 11y ago

> people die because of the law to protect a monopoly More like people die because they (or, quite possibly other people) choose to break the law against drunk driving?

dllthomas 11y ago
More like people die because they (or, quite possibly other people) choose to drive drunk. The presence of the law should help deter them from making that choice. But that doesn't establish that laws should always be followed or shouldn't be changed - it just supports the case that that law should be followed and should not be changed, which no one was arguing against. Other things also help decrease drunk driving. Healthy social norms can have a big impact. Convenient alternatives also has a big impact. What we're discussing here is a particular, especially convenient alternative. It is wrong to excuse people who put others' lives at risk because doing otherwise is inconvenient. But it is incorrect not to expect that some people will do so, and account for that as a part of the impact of laws.