Re:Interview with Paul Graham
by CaptArmchair on Wednesday March 04, 2020 @08:11AM
(#22483423)
So... Do you feel that the establishment of the Roman Empire was "illegal" as it imposed taxes and Roman rule on previously independent territories? As far as the Romans were concerned, their actions were entirely lawful.
Or how about the American Revolution which was literally a conflict about taxes? As far as the British Crown was concerned, sending an expeditionary force was all about enforcing the rule of law among rebellious subjects. And if the British had won, we would now consider a short-lived Congress just a bunch of irresponsible rebels.
How about the Civil War? Slave owners have balked for a long time over Abolition violating their rights; yet, today nobody in their right mind would consider slavery as something that should to be legalized once again.
What's "legal" or "illegal" has little to do with "The Contract" and everything with who gets to define the rules.
"Legal" is not a vague term. What is legal at the time the money was made is pretty clearly established (in the court of law, if necessary).
> That enforcement can happen in two ways.
The enforcement, under the Rule of Law, happens in only one way: through the state. If you don't believe in the Rule of Law, then all this discussion is pointless.
> You're appealing to a principle of fairness.
No, I am appealing to the principle of The Contract. Going back and changing the terms of a contract is illegal. Under the rule of law, of course.