|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Aug 19, 2017 3:08:08 GMT -6
If you think literally everything should be subject to reasonable regulation why do you distinguish businesses? On page 3 you said "The interactions governed by this law are those in business and commerce. That's different than private interaction." I was thinking there was some objective difference you might be talking about, but I get now that the difference is that you think it's reasonable based on undefinable and totally subjective expectations about what "businesses" do.
We could have avoided this whole conversation if you'd just said "I think it's reasonable" instead of saying business and private interactions are different.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 19, 2017 7:01:58 GMT -6
Reasonable does not mean arbitrary or capricious or subjective.
The process of lawmaking may be imperfect but it provides a check on creation of such rules and a mechanism to correct errors that are made. That works as well as any system of social organization we know.
It is unreasonable to expect a perfect process. To avoid creating rules and recognizing norms because they are not mathematically precise is just silly.
It's an imprecise, imperfect world we live in not a libertarian utopia.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2017 11:58:12 GMT -6
Reasonable does not mean arbitrary or capricious or subjective. Oh bullshit, it means whatever anyone with political clout and an ax to grind wants it to mean. In fact the word is about as arbitrary and subjective as it gets. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 19, 2017 12:13:48 GMT -6
I guess it won't help to ask you to be reasonable then...
I do disagree, reasonable is a term used commonly in law with quite good results. Negligence law requires reasonable care for example.
|
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Aug 19, 2017 13:43:34 GMT -6
Reasonable does not mean arbitrary or capricious or subjective. The process of lawmaking may be imperfect but it provides a check on creation of such rules and a mechanism to correct errors that are made. That works as well as any system of social organization we know. It is unreasonable to expect a perfect process. To avoid creating rules and recognizing norms because they are not mathematically precise is just silly. It's an imprecise, imperfect world we live in not a libertarian utopia. Reasonableness is subjective. Why are you even talking about the lawmaking process? That's totally irrelevant to your finding the proposed regulation reasonable. And rules have to have a certain amount of precision or they aren't rules. I'm not sure how anyone could make this rule "mathematically" precise, but it would have to be precise enough to at least explain what being a business open to the public is, which you have failed to even come close to doing. We certainly don't live in a statist utopia either. |
|
