Should laws be enforced evenly?

[Madison320]

Should all laws be enforced evenly? Suppose pot was still illegal and a law was proposed to make it legal, but just for women. Would you consider that a move in the right direction? Is that a move towards more freedom? What if we had a flat tax of 30% but then a law was considered to make it 15% for those making less than 100K? Is that a move towards freedom? I say no.

I think laws should apply to everyone. We should all "share the pain". I think this keeps bad laws from being enacted in the first place. I asked this question here a couple of years ago and just about everyone disagreed with me. I've got what I think is a smoking gun argument that I didn't think of before, but I want to hear some replies first.

 

[pcosmar]

There ought to be a law

What is your point..? we have tons of bad laws.

should they be enforced evenly?? Should they be enforced at all?

 

[Acala]

The type of law makes a difference. Every dollar taken out of the private sector and put into the hands of government destroys wealth for everyone and increases government corruption. So any reduction in taxes, even if unfair, is better than none.

However, the uneven application of other laws creates factions and divide the people when they should be uniting against the government.

 

[nayjevin]

The type of law makes a difference. Every dollar taken out of the private sector and put into the hands of government destroys wealth for everyone and increases government corruption. So any reduction in taxes, even if unfair, is better than none.

However, the uneven application of other laws creates factions and divide the people when they should be uniting against the government.

Not at all sure I disagree with you, but somewhat uncomfortable with looking at it from the consequences, rather than the principles.

 

[Anti Federalist]

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

Anatole France, The Red Lily, 1894, chapter 7

 

[DamianTV]

There's NO Rule of Law... when the crime that is charged, not based upon what law was broken, but by who committed it.

^^^THAT^^^

(from another thread)

 

[Occam's Banana]

Should all laws be enforced evenly?

NO. Only just laws should be enforced. (As for the "evenly" thing, see below.)

Unjust laws should not be enforced at all - in fact, they should not even exist. But given that they DO exist and ARE enforced, it is ceteris paribus always preferable that they be applied to fewer people rather than to more.

Suppose pot was still illegal and a law was proposed to make it legal, but just for women. Would you consider that a move in the right direction? Is that a move towards more freedom?

If you accept that it is unjust to punish people for some reason X, then why should it be preferred that more rather than fewer people be punished for reason X?

Or to put it another way: other things being equal, if Law A will result in X number of people being subject to an unjust punishment for some unjust reason and Law B will result in Y number of people being subject to the same unjust punishment for the same unjust reason - where those are the only alternatives and X is greater than Y - then why should Law A be preferred to Law B?

If applying an unjust law "evenly" (whatever that might mean) will result in subjecting more people to injustice than would otherwise have been the case, why should any decent person desire "evenness" in the application of such laws? Why should a decent person not think that the more "uneven" the application of unjust laws, the better?

A "more even" application of unjust laws is NOT a "move towards more freedom" - it is a move towards more injustice.

What if we had a flat tax of 30% but then a law was considered to make it 15% for those making less than 100K? Is that a move towards freedom? I say no.

But why should a flat tax rate of 30% applied to everyone be considered "even?" Someone who makes $1,000,000 will be made to pay $300,000 while someone who makes $10,000 will be made to pay $3000. How is $300,000 vs. $3000 "even?" Does the richer man use tax-funded roads more than the poorer man? Is he that much better defended by a tax-funded military than the poorer man? Add to these kinds of questions (of which there are many more) the fact that $3000 is a MUCH bigger "hit" against a man who makes only $10,000 than $300,000 is against a man who makes $1,000,000. How is that "even?" (And using a constant dollar amount instead of a percentage rate won't make things any better. Taxing everyone at something like, say, $1000 won't be any more "even" - a man who makes only $10,000 will still be hit harder by it than a man who makes $1,000,000 will be.)

Taxation is unjust thievery (no matter how it is done) and should not occur at all. But given that it does occur, there is no way to make it "even" or "fair" or whatever other euphemism you might care to use. And that is exactly what the use of the notion of "evenness" is in the context of the application of unjust laws - a euphemism. It can only serve to obfuscate or conceal the inherent injustice of an unjust law by giving it the false veneer & illusory appearance of some kind of "fairness."

So again: An "even" application of an unjust law is NOT a "move towards freedom" - it is a move towards injustice.

I think laws should apply to everyone. We should all "share the pain".

Only just laws should apply to everyone - and with regard to such, there should be no need to add euphemisms such as "evenly." There should be no unjust laws at all - and thus, no talk of how "we should all 'share the pain'" of unjust laws. We should not. Instead, we should work towards the abolition of all unjust laws - or, barring that, the maximal reduction of the number of people to which they are applied.

IOW: We should work to maximize the "uneveness" - NOT the "evenness" - with which unjust laws are applied. We certainly should not desire or seek conditions under which unjust laws are applied "evenly" (which appears to mean, "either to everyone equally, or to as many as possible"). Rather, we should desire and seek conditions under which unjust laws are applied "unevenly" (by which I mean, "either to no one at all, or to as few as possible").

 

[LibertyEagle]

Should all laws be enforced evenly? Suppose pot was still illegal and a law was proposed to make it legal, but just for women. Would you consider that a move in the right direction? Is that a move towards more freedom? What if we had a flat tax of 30% but then a law was considered to make it 15% for those making less than 100K? Is that a move towards freedom? I say no.

I think laws should apply to everyone. We should all "share the pain". I think this keeps bad laws from being enacted in the first place. I asked this question here a couple of years ago and just about everyone disagreed with me. I've got what I think is a smoking gun argument that I didn't think of before, but I want to hear some replies first.

I would be pleased to have ALL the laws fully enforced for the following audience: Government employees of all types and double any penalties for our illustrious Congress and sitting King.

 

[unknown]

There ought to be a law

What is your point..? we have tons of bad laws.

should they be enforced evenly?? Should they be enforced at all?

My thoughts as well.

If the State passes a law, its legal but is it legitimate? Who or how is a law determined legitimate?

Compliance for one. Based on the prevalence of drugs/use, anti-drug laws are pretty much illegitimate.

Basic knowledge of freedom and individual liberties also allows us to evaluate the legitimacy of laws. We dont need the SCOTUS to tell us if a law is constitutional nor can they nor would they evaluate most laws and this is assuming assuming that they get it right.

The short answer is yes, laws should be enforced equally (which they are not). IMHO, the bigger issue is that there are way too many illegitimate laws on the books.

 

[Madison320]

I would be pleased to have ALL the laws fully enforced for the following audience: Government employees of all types and double any penalties for our illustrious Congress and sitting King.

That's my "smoking gun"!

If we had a flat tax of 30%, how many of you would support a reduction to 15% but only for the political class?

How many of you would support legalizing pot, but only for politicians?

Obviously nobody would. That's why laws should be enforced evenly, especially bad laws. That's what helps to keep bad laws off the books in the first place. If everyone knows they have to live with those laws, there's more chance the law won't get passed. Look at the minimum wage and how many politicians and liberal jounalists have unpaid interns, maybe if they had to pay their staff the minimum wage they wouldn't be so crazy about raising it.

 

[menciusmoldbug]

That's my "smoking gun"!

If we had a flat tax of 30%, how many of you would support a reduction to 15% but only for the political class?

How many of you would support legalizing pot, but only for politicians?

Obviously nobody would.

I would support this. Indeed I do support this. Thus what you call "obvious" is in fact false. You should update your priors and lower the confidence that you have in all of your other beliefs accordingly.

 

[Wooden Indian]

That's my "smoking gun"!

If we had a flat tax of 30%, how many of you would support a reduction to 15% but only for the political class?

How many of you would support legalizing pot, but only for politicians?

Obviously nobody would. That's why laws should be enforced evenly, especially bad laws. That's what helps to keep bad laws off the books in the first place. If everyone knows they have to live with those laws, there's more chance the law won't get passed. Look at the minimum wage and how many politicians and liberal jounalists have unpaid interns, maybe if they had to pay their staff the minimum wage they wouldn't be so crazy about raising it.

I know this is slightly off topic. My problem with the Flat Tax has always been that if the Federal Government would stick to their Constitutional Duties ONLY, we would not require an income tax at all. So, the Flat Tax is just another form of theft. Perhaps equal theft, but theft just the same.

 

[pcosmar]

That's why laws should be enforced evenly, especially bad laws. That's what helps to keep bad laws off the books in the first place.

Nope,,

Laws are written by Lawyers,, and they always have loopholes. Or they write another one right behind it to provide loopholes.

 

[Henry Rogue]

How can a law be enforced evenly if the law itself demands inequality? For example, a law that prevents anyone, but police from carrying arms in public places. The inequality is written into the law, therefore equal enforcement is impossible.

 

[Ronin Truth]

I propose that the government's laws (so called) all be repealed evenly.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

^^^THAT^^^

(from another thread)

Oh why thank you...

 

[Pericles]

That's my "smoking gun"!

If we had a flat tax of 30%, how many of you would support a reduction to 15% but only for the political class?

How many of you would support legalizing pot, but only for politicians?

Obviously nobody would. That's why laws should be enforced evenly, especially bad laws. That's what helps to keep bad laws off the books in the first place. If everyone knows they have to live with those laws, there's more chance the law won't get passed. Look at the minimum wage and how many politicians and liberal jounalists have unpaid interns, maybe if they had to pay their staff the minimum wage they wouldn't be so crazy about raising it.

A fundamental aspect of a civilized society is equal applicability of the laws. If there needs to be an exception to the law, then it is a bad law.

 

[pcosmar]

Who should enforce these laws?

In a free society there should be NO law that the people themselves will not voluntarily obey and universally enforce.

Such as a law against Murder, Rape , Theft, and Assault. The people themselves will enforce those,, and the vast majority will obey them.

 

[menciusmoldbug]

A fundamental aspect of a civilized society is equal applicability of the laws. If there needs to be an exception to the law, then it is a bad law.

Nonsense. Different people are different. Different groups are different. Any law that fails to acknowledge this fundamental fact of reality and instead pretends that people and groups are interchangeable(/equal) will find itself in conflict with said reality.

To speak of "exceptions" to the law is absurd. The law is the law; there are no "exceptions." If the law is that there will be a flat tax of 30% upon the incomes of all subjects who are not members of the "political class" (however defined) and a 15% tax upon members of the political class, then that is the law. If the law is that the possession or use of marijuana by subjects who are not members of the political class will be prohibited/punished but permitted for members of the political class, then that is the law. Different laws apply to different people. Subjects of the United States are not bound by the laws of Russia or vice versa. Which laws you are governed by depends on who and where you are. This is and has been always and everywhere the case. To rebel against this reality is fruitless; it will always be so.

 

[menciusmoldbug]

Who should enforce these laws?

To ask who "should" enforce the law is pointless. The law will be enforced by the people with the power to.

In a free society there should be NO law that the people themselves will not voluntarily obey and universally enforce.

Thank God we don't live in a free society then! Sounds like it would SUCK.

Such as a law against Murder, Rape , Theft, and Assault. The people themselves will enforce those,, and the vast majority will obey them.

Will they, though? But what of the fact that different people define these crimes differently? For example, some here seem to think of taxation as theft, and yet I do not see a large uprising of support for this position amongst "the people."