• theneverfox@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    You’re just expressing the core problem of liberalism… If you write clear boundaries, inevitably people will seek to exploit the rules

    That’s the other 20%. Enforcement.

    My rule didn’t have such a loophole. You made one up, and in doing so broke it several times over. Every holding company has a revenue over the limit, and they’re really all just one big company anyways

    A liberal would scramble to adjust the rules while ceeding ground, because they defend ownership like it’s a virtue

    I would say fuck you, you know you not only broke the rules but tried to cheat them, so not only are your companies getting split you’re losing all of them. Maybe jail time, maybe we just ban you from holding a corporate charter for life

    The law is only what you enforce, we can’t continue to have a legal system based on wordplay. It’s a cultural issue we need to fix

    • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      21 hours ago

      continue to have a legal system based on wordplay

      that’s exactly what we’re actually having today. i think the term for that is legalism, i.e. deciding what is right and what is wrong based on what is written in the law, without considering anything else like context or subjective opinion of the judge.

      • theneverfox@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        20 hours ago

        That’s right, I’d argue we’re even past that though… We’re at a place where the supreme Court is humoring grammar based arguments to create constitutional powers never mentioned anywhere

        It’s honestly civilization ending