I really don't think immorality is sufficient basis for something being illegal, and I'm not sure anything should be illegal if it doesn't represent some sort of externality. Policy should be considered on the basis of non-internalized costs, and remedy should try to minimize
-
-
That's interesting
-
If people are free to associate then couldn't cessation of association represent enough violence to be an outlet for that impulse? Could probably argue it solves such that any overflow is acceptable
-
Also think that the mere existence of an externality doesn't necessitate that something be illegal. My impression is that a perfect legal system wouldn't fully monopolize violence
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Maybe people define morality in such a way as to provide justification for their use of violence; in that case, any substitute violence had better be *very* satisfying or else "morality" will find a way not to be captured by it.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
. Banned in Sweden. SubGenius, Zhuangist, white-hat troll. Defrocked mathematician. Brain problems.