Either there's some unstated sarcasm or the person above made the most hn libertarian-ass comment I seen in a while.
Yes I would like functional civil institutions that are able to protect me from the unethical behavior of others. Welcome to Civics 101 today we are reading John Locke.
"People should just stop" is never the right answer. You might as well be commanding an engine to stop overheating.
> Yes I would like functional civil institutions that are able to protect me from the unethical behavior of others.
This is the opposite of claiming that people should become more moral. This is setting rules. They shouldn't be set around "morality," they should be set around established civil liberties.
> "People should just stop" is never the right answer. You might as well be commanding an engine to stop overheating.
1) I don't understand this argument. As if we don't absolutely do this all the time. Theft as a concept is impossible to completely prevent yet we still know it to be illegal. Same with Vandalism. The supreme court just made it legal to prosecute the homeless. Hell there are countries were suicide is illegal.
2) You say this as if a room temp superconductor is something that endless dollars aren't spent on trying to achieve.
> They shouldn't be set around "morality," they should be set around established civil liberties.
These are not whole distinct things. They are two overlapping circles. No one but the most unscrupulous of lawyers conceive of these a 2 wholly distinct entities.
Unethical or "uncivil" behavior is something that happens and to act like we have are hands are tied and shouldn't adapt to address this because our hands are tied because there are unintended consequences is asinine and impractical.
Isn't that the definition of the rule of law? When operating a society under the rule of law, morality is meant to define the framework of rules and regulations by which we live our lives. If the law is immoral then there should be a mechanism to change it—as is the case here.
The government is the one contracting them out, seems fair for them to set a minimum standard of operation to prevent exploitation of a vulnerable population
Clearly not, since that's unenforceable and a bad idea anyway. Instead we pretty much have to play whac-a-mole by smacking regulation onto things when the industry can't or doesn't self-regulate itself. Just allowing competition isn't a fix. It might be better than not allowing competition, but that's not even guaranteed anyways, nothing is a panacea.
