• Crankenstein@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Just because it is codified into law doesn’t make it not abusive in nature. That just means the law is attempting to justify abuse.

    Almost as if something being a “law” is nothing more than those in power attempting to legitimize their oppression of the people under their authority.

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Just because it is codified into law doesn’t make it not abusive in nature. That just means the law is attempting to justify abuse.

      Are we really just having semantic arguments now?

      “Abuse of the law” I interpret as equal to “breaking the law”. Civil Forfeiture doesn’t break the law it is written from. Is it unjust? Absolutely! Do I agree it should be abolished? Absolutely!

      Almost as if something being a “law” is nothing more than those in power attempting to legitimize their oppression of the people under their authority.

      Again, I’ve clearly separated the concepts of “lawful” from “justice”. They ARE NOT always equal. This is a case where they aren’t.

      Are we done having arguments over grammar and semantics? You can keep going if you like, but I’m more interested in focusing on our world burning than arguing over something we both already agree should be abolished.