At some point, the contradiction of "law as something impartial" and "law bends to the whims of power" will need to be resolved.

▲

postepowanieadm 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Bad news, it's already been resolved.

▲

senko 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Wholly agreed.

The way Disney &co coopted law to pack their coffers is a travesty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

▲

armchairhacker 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Everything bends to power, by definition. And laws can’t be impartial because they’re not based in hard science: terms like “murder”, “assault”, “theft”, etc. are ambiguous thus up to interpretation (e.g. is a scam theft? If so, what defines a scam? If “lying”, what’s the difference from “misleading”, or if there’s no difference, what defines “misleading”…)

My best idea for a solution is better education, so people don’t make bad laws then badly enforce them.

	▲	gzread 11 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Right problem, wrong solution. You can't build something that doesn't bend to power, by definition. You have to take away the power.

▲

y0eswddl 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"the law" has always only been the whims of the powerful aa a threat of violence against the powerless if they don't follow