Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Hmmm. Should the law really be based on whether the cost of enforcement exceeds the economic benefit? That strikes me as the wrong way to look at it. Surely the law should exist because it's wrong to download stuff without paying for it, shouldn't it?
So we shouldn't prosecute criminals because, as a result of their crimes, they have more disposable income?  |
You're applying a very specific theory of morality, one that isn't universal. The utilitarians (Benthem, John Stewart Mills, etc.) would say you shouldn't pass any law where the harm created by the law is greater than its benefit.
I would tend to agree [with the utilitarians]; why shouldn't the standard for a law be that it should bring a net benefit to society rather than a net detriment? How can you justify a law that is more damaging than helpful?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anamardoll
If the harm that a law causes outweighs the harm it is trying to prevent/correct/address, then that is a problem.
|
Apparently laws are proper if they enforce HenryT's specific values, regardless of whether they are harmful or not. Infringers should be tossed in jail; and maybe while we're at it we can bring back debtor prisons.