A question (mostly) for AC'ers, about the rule of law.

[VarlosZ]

A few days ago the Welsh government slaughtered a (literal) sacred cow because it tested positive for tuberculosis. The Hindu temple that kept the cow protested the slaughter (in both the media and the courts), but lost its fight.

I take it as as a given that AC'ers don't think the state shoud be slaughtering people's livestock against their wishes. I also assume that some will agree with me that, by itself, sparing this particular cow would be +EV (weighing the risk presented by the disease against the unusual amount of anguish that would be caused by the slaughter).

Given that, would you prefer that the officials who carry out the law make an exception in this case and others like it, or would you prefer that they stick to the letter of the law?

It seems to me that, no matter how much you despise the law and the state that enforces it, you should want it to be uniformily enforced in this and other relatively minor cases. If the executors of the law are able to disregard it when you think it's a good idea, then they will also be able to disregard it when you think it's a bad idea -- and, significantly, this includes instances in which the officials are malicous, self-serving, or otherwise corrupt. Whatever its failures, government is much more odious without the rule of law, and sacrificing a cow that, on balance, should probably have been spared is a small price to pay to stay true to that ideal.

[MidGe]

Good post, VarlosZ,

It got my vote. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Of course AC'ers will not tolerate someone coming on your land, rightly owned, to cull your cattle, rightly owned, that threatens the rest of the world's cattle.

My guess is that it would never happen in an AC society. The market would ensure that it is so. A bit late maybe, but, hey, better later than never, unless it is too late that is! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[tomdemaine]

You can keep your cow but you are fully liable for any damage (read spreading TB) that it does up to and including taking away your fancy temple to pay the bills. We'll then see how sacred the cow really is.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
You can keep your cow but you are fully liable for any damage (read spreading TB) that it does up to and including taking away your fancy temple to pay the bills. We'll then see how sacred the cow really is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, but I'm not asking about the cow or the law mandating its slaughter. I'm wondering if you'd prefer adherence strict adherence to the rule of law by state officials, or if you'd rather that they make the occasional exception.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
You can keep your cow but you are fully liable for any damage (read spreading TB) that it does up to and including taking away your fancy temple to pay the bills. We'll then see how sacred the cow really is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fully liable... Cool, that means that under your scheme, GM crop that spoils their neighbors crop will be:
1) not able to claim royalty on crossbred species and
2) be able to be sued for crossbreeding results.

I am sure that many corporations would not like that one bit, let alone that by the time it is possible to sue them, it is too late. That is precisely the answer that AC does not give to real problems and issues in the world. I can modify my patch, my heart's content, until it infringes on my neighbor. Unfortunately that's too late.

[VarlosZ]

Please don't turn this into yet another thread debating AC. There are already tons of those.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Please don't turn this into yet another thread debating AC. There are already tons of those.

[/ QUOTE ]

??? "Re: A question (mostly) for AC'ers, about the rule of law."


I am not sure about what replies you would like, but mine is surely within your topic, based on your OP!?!

[VarlosZ]

Nielso: Yes, I know all that. I am not asking how you would prefer the law to be (or not be). I am wondering whether, given that the law and the state exist as they do, would you prefer that occasional exceptions are made in minor cases like the one in the OP.

MidGe: Read the topic again. It's a question about the rule of law, from a particular perspective. It's not about whether AC is stupid. If you want to talk about consistency, bureaucracy, and the rule of law from a different perspective, that's great. Just please don't turn this thread into a copy of half the other threads in this forum.

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
Please don't turn this into yet another thread debating AC. There are already tons of those.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL! You know the title of your thread is "A question (mostly) for AC'ers..." right?

Strangely enough, this is the 2nd time this week I've seen someone calling out an AC hijack, when ACists were directly addressed in the OP. Stop asking us questions if you don't want our answers.

[VarlosZ]

Copernicus:
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't there a problem in the original setup in that you are asking about exceptions to a law in ACland, but in ACland there are no laws. . .

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought that it was extremely obvious that the OP wasn't asking about exceptions to a law in AC land, but rather about exceptions to a law in the real world. Rereading now, it still seems extremely obvious to me, but given all of the confusion I must have written it poorly. I apologise.

Vagos:
[ QUOTE ]
LOL! You know the title of your thread is "A question (mostly) for AC'ers..." right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and I'm sure you know that not every thread that's related to AC in some way should turn into the same exact discussion about that philosophy's general worth. Obvisouly there's going to be some overlap with that debate, but the first few responses to the thread had nothing at all to do with the question posed in the OP.


Just to clarify once more: I'm wondering if AC'ers would prefer to see a (purportedly) unjust, freedom-limiting law occasionally disregarded by its executors when they feel it's prudent to do so (thus immediately increasing the amount of freedom to be had), or whether they'd rather see the unjust law uniformily applied in cases like the one referenced in the OP.