Hacker News Reader

Comment by angersock | Hacker News Reader

Yeah, when the state can't even articulate the act, much less why it is wrong, it is really hard to respect their jurisprudence.

EDIT:

And before anyone counters with "Whether you respect it or not, it's the law (and they have the power to enforce it).", do consider that such an argument is basically saying that the rule of law boils down to men with guns.

I don't think that that is either noble or desirable--for a civilization, we must do better.

View on HN

The rule of law does boil down to men with guns.

http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm

The rule of law boils down to men with guns listening to the judgment of twelve of the most ordinary people that can be found. If you're unlikable, or if you're acting outside the social norms, that creates a problem for you.

In this country, the citizens have guns too. This is actually a pretty big reason for why the police are so heavily militarized here as compared to gun-prohibitionist nations like France or Germany.

But the law does not boil down to men with guns--it boils down to our voluntary consent to live by the laws by choosing to live here (immigrants) or to remain here (everyone else) as opposed to somewhere else, like the wonderfully law-free nation of Somalia.

> as opposed to somewhere else, like the wonderfully law-free nation of Somalia.

Ahh yes, the false dichotomy. Structure your argument to exclude all but two options, one of which is chosen to be extremely unpalatable.

Thanks for a textbook example.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com