Comment on [deleted]
artificialfish@programming.dev 3 months agolol what about all the lone actors who didn’t succeed. Don’t just cherry pick the losses.
Sure laws can be bad /c/im14andthisisdeep
Comment on [deleted]
artificialfish@programming.dev 3 months agolol what about all the lone actors who didn’t succeed. Don’t just cherry pick the losses.
Sure laws can be bad /c/im14andthisisdeep
horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 3 months ago
No you’re not trying. You’re leaving everything up to the state. Which requires you to do nothing to maintain the status quo.
The purpose of the law is to protect property not you and not your rights. That’s pretty evident in Trump’s presidency.
artificialfish@programming.dev 3 months ago
I mean that’s your model. As far as it’s absolute, it’s wrong. There are good laws that don’t protect mere property: murder, rape, assault, etc. And we don’t want vigilante justice dealing with these things. Basically I can admit laws can be unjust, but you can’t admit laws can be just. In such a case, you need to meet your burden of proof.