Populations have a lifecycle too.
Forcing people to reproduce does not seem like a worthwile solution to me.
> So, Who defines or measures this?
It is self-organizing, for humans ideally by debate, since they can. Since you mention animals above: they are much more straight-forward about their laws than humans. We overcomplicate things, but if I can make a call, it would be to simplify laws to the most basic level and try to keep them clear of religion and cultural norms.
> Now If a drug dealer says his actions do affect him far more than his buyers, it should make sense for his opinion to outweigh the court's opinion because he's getting much more money hence his trade is affecting him much more than the little amounts he sells individually to people.
I think a better example would be a corporation that gives people cancer for profit, because in the case of the drug dealer it is not always clear if any harm was actually caused.
Just judging it by CancerCorp's profit would be obviously ignorant and binary, because it would not take the harm that was directly caused into consideration.
At the end, some kind of balance needs to be established.
This is what nature does, right?
Populations have a lifecycle too. Forcing people to reproduce does not seem like a worthwile solution to me.
> So, Who defines or measures this?
It is self-organizing, for humans ideally by debate, since they can. Since you mention animals above: they are much more straight-forward about their laws than humans. We overcomplicate things, but if I can make a call, it would be to simplify laws to the most basic level and try to keep them clear of religion and cultural norms.
> Now If a drug dealer says his actions do affect him far more than his buyers, it should make sense for his opinion to outweigh the court's opinion because he's getting much more money hence his trade is affecting him much more than the little amounts he sells individually to people.
I think a better example would be a corporation that gives people cancer for profit, because in the case of the drug dealer it is not always clear if any harm was actually caused. Just judging it by CancerCorp's profit would be obviously ignorant and binary, because it would not take the harm that was directly caused into consideration. At the end, some kind of balance needs to be established. This is what nature does, right?