Should laws be enforced evenly?

[Madison320]

I probably should have added that this topic is not for anarchists.

 

[menciusmoldbug]

Not sure if that comment was directed at me, but I am literally the opposite of an anarchist. I am an archist.

You are asking a wrong question here. Only by understanding the cognitive algorithm that generates the perception of a question will you ever be able to dissolve this nonsense and begin to see the world as it actually is.

 

[pcosmar]

Will they, though?

Yes,, they will.
People will enforce law,,they have throughout time.. Breaking tribal taboos would get you banned from the tribe. exiled if not executed.
People will live together peacefully,,and even cooperatively,,but will accept common rules,, Murder and theft and generally frowned upon and punished.

There were no Police when this country was formed,, and they only came into existence many years later.
People became irresponsible,, and gave the responsibility to others.

 

[pcosmar]

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

I asked "Who Should?",, not who can or who does.

And as to the second statement,, the people should have the power,, the people should always retain the brute force of arms.
The People should always have the power to enforce their will.

They is what the Second Amendment was intended to guarantee.

 

[bunklocoempire]

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.



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.



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.



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").

^^^ Signature is required reading. ^^^

Or listening:

 

[james1844]

Bro...yeah laws should be enforced evenly. Thats whole part of the equal protection clause under the constitution.

 

[Henry Rogue]

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.

And chaos and tyranny will always be the norm.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

I probably should have added that this topic is not for anarchists.

Lol.

Why?

 

[mad cow]

Yes.
Unjust laws should be repealed,the utilitarian fact that fewer people were jailed back in the day for sitting at a lunch counter or the front of the bus because only blacks were targeted notwithstanding.

There is no question IMO that just laws should be enforced evenly,cops and civilians should be subject to the same laws and penalties when shooting dogs,for instance.

There is good reason that Themis,the Greek Goddess of Justice is always depicted wearing a blindfold.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Yes.
Unjust laws should be repealed,the utilitarian fact that fewer people were jailed back in the day for sitting at a lunch counter or the front of the bus because only blacks were targeted notwithstanding.

There is no question IMO that just laws should be enforced evenly,cops and civilians should be subject to the same laws and penalties when shooting dogs,for instance.

There is good reason that Themis,the Greek Goddess of Justice is always depicted wearing a blindfold.

In the pursuit of 'even' application of the 'law', more are unlawfully transgressed against than otherwise, even when considering the inequities of such a flawed model of 'justice' (certain demographics being targeted or unduly punished, that is).

For actual crimes, yes, the law should be evenly applied. For non-crimes, the more not charged the better. I understand the problems that arise when people lose respect for the 'law' but it really is of little issue (and could actually promote the repealing of said unjust bastardizations of the law). The so-called law enforcers need to act righteously. Giving someone thirty years for a gram of crack is akin to enslaving someone said thirty years. They should not be subjugated to such brutal and draconian extremes. If in the process certain folks lose their respect for the law, well, it is an unfortunate and predictable response to an unjust system. Hopefully, rather than advocate that everyone be tyrannized the same, they advocate that no one be tyrannized. That there would be the only just application of the law.

 

[mad cow]

For non-crimes, the more not charged the better.

Well,we disagree.I think that Harry Reid and Cliven Bundy should be subject to the same laws vis a vis desert tortoises even though I disagree with the law and Harry is one more person who will never go to jail or get killed because this law is enforced unevenly.
Same with Dem friendly PACs as opposed to those with Freedom,Liberty,Tea Party and such in their names.

There was a thread here a while back about the relatives of NJ cops getting 'get out of jail free' cards they would show at traffic stops to avoid punishment for many offenses that I think are unjust and I don't like that either,in spite of fewer people being punished overall.

Notice how an uneven enforcement of laws,just or unjust,seems to always benefit those holding the reins of power.
Funny,that.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Well,we disagree.I think that Harry Reid and Cliven Bundy should be subject to the same laws vis a vis desert tortoises even though I disagree with the law and Harry is one more person who will never go to jail or get killed because this law is enforced unevenly.
Same with Dem friendly PACs as opposed to those with Freedom,Liberty,Tea Party and such in their names.

There was a thread here a while back about the relatives of NJ cops getting 'get out of jail free' cards they would show at traffic stops to avoid punishment for many offenses that I think are unjust and I don't like that either,in spite of fewer people being punished overall.

Notice how an uneven enforcement of laws,just or unjust,seems to always benefit those holding the reins of power.
Funny,that.

Well that's definitely true.

 

[menciusmoldbug]

And chaos and tyranny will always be the norm.

Say true; civilization is a rebellion against the norm. It represents the elevation of men above the lot that nature set aside for them. The foundation is a single principle:

All men are not created equal​.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

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.



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.



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.



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").

This is the same case republicans were making about RP supporters and libertarians in general when Romney lost. The difference between the two wasn't huge granted but Romney surely supported less tax and regulation, defunding Obamacare, etc. And I think its true to a point-- i.e. if congress spontaneously voted to legalize marijuana for women tomorrow there would be no reason to protest the law to have it applied evenly-- but supporting something "less-bad" is still supporting something bad. If the scenario is as simple as looking at one law which can be applied in one of two ways, and one way is more libertarious, then its an easy scenario to decide... But as far as practicality I think it is often better to do the opposite of this; hold one's nose at the uneven application of laws (more specifically: some people's situation improving while others stay the same relating to government intrusion) and fight for just laws. Which is what most of the RPF community, including you I'm sure, did by voting for RP.

 

[Madison320]

Lol.

Why?

Because I didn't want to go down the anarchist path of "We shouldn't even have laws!"

 

[Madison320]

Crap. I just noticed that this thread got moved to the anarchist section. I started it off in General Politics.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Because I didn't want to go down the anarchist path of "We shouldn't even have laws!"

Did anyone suggest that?

Saying that we shouldn't have laws where there is no discernible victim is not the same as saying we shouldn't have laws.