undefined | Better HN

0 pointsTeever2y ago0 comments

What do you mean by that? Do you mean that law has a tendency to work the other way, in that it protects the big guy at the expense of the little guy because of extensive lobbying from the well moneyed big guy, or that justice is blind and it effects all equally?

If you're thinking the former I could agree with that on some level and would say that what I'm asking in my original comment is merely aspirational, but if you're suggesting the latter I'd merely point to the former and say that this is the status quo.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

Nevermark2y ago· 2 in thread

The law generally tries to create a level playing field (or more level playing field).

The alternative, creating two classes, those who the law helps and those it doesn't, gets incredibly complicated and easy to game: the powerful will get their version of the law.

In the name of protecting the weak, the law will protect the powerful. Making everything much worse.

TeeverOP2y ago

This isn't true.

I can think of many examples off the top of my head.

Tax brackets, accredited investors, professional regulation, varying classes of drivers licenses, voting ages, retirement age and pension eligibility... the list goes on and on.

Nevermark2y ago

You are right. The entire basis of those laws is the two classes.

I was referring to laws (such as copyright) that don't have an inherent class distinction dimension. Since separating classes is not a primary concern of copyright, having two classes creates an arbitrary line which will almost certainly end up where the rich want it.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse