The propensity to unwarranted violence is independent of available tools. Violence prevention should focus on the motives for violence more than on the tools, for we have seen no method by which the evil can be reliably disarmed without affecting the good disproportionately.
Some violence is instrumental: drug cartels are the prime example. They use force to achieve certain results. Some violence is expressive: mass murderers usually do it for the emotional experience. Neither can be substantially reduced except through changing the culture of the individuals involved, changing the incentives, and occasionally defeating the remaining violent actors in battle.
Laws take effect on certain dates. So we all agree that something is going to be legal after the date X, but still arrest and prosecute people for doing that exact thing on date X-1. Laws have nothing to do with ethics, and that’s an important distinction.
The same applies to geography: if you can become a felon just by crossing a street between two states, the action or the object that’s illegal just might be arbitrarily designated by the more restrictive jurisdiction. Morality has little to do with laws.
If a journalist or an official can handle illegal items on TV and not be arrested, while an average person gets raided on mere suspicion of possession, morality isn’t in play at all.
Posted inUncategorized|Taggedethics, law|Comments Off on “Legal” does not equal “moral”.
These two charges are usually leveled at successful entrepreneurs.
A person who hoards money is literally being selfless: they provided a service or produced goods for which they money were given, then proceeded to hold onto these *tokens of value* without receiving any reciprocal services or goods in exchange. In short, they make everyone else’s money just a little more valuable by reducing the supply of cash in circulation. For instance, a tourist who swaps dollars for euros and brings back the balance as souvenirs, never claims those euros’ worth of goods and services and, in effect, gifts their value to the people of the EU.
That said, *successful* people do not hoard money. They either invest them in their own business or in some else’s. So the value they received is immediately put to use for creating more valuable services or goods. They either invest in equipment or training to improve their own productivity, or create jobs for others.
Either hoarding or investing provide a benefit, so long as the money was received through voluntary trade and not through coercion like taxes.
Blind respect for the rule of law is one of the downfalls of civilization. Imagine, if you will, an unelected regulatory agency that bans the use of the color blue in clothing. People who wear blue get charged with felonies, lose voting rights, and the ability to wear clothing at all upon release from prison. The prosecutors continually stretch the definition of “blue” to include teal and purple. They stretch the meaning of “clothing” to include shoes, hats, and handbags. The laws are enforced unevenly, with a pass given to certain politicians and bureaucrats.
Under those conditions, how does respect and cooperation with any part of the enforcement mechanism advance the cause of human rights and personal freedom? Now consider that laws and regulations passed on most aspects of our lives are as arbitrary, as ridiculous, and as viciously enforced. Make your own conclusions from that.
