A citizen in a democracy has a right to all information, and to decide for themselves. Any other system seems in conflict with “ignorance is not an excuse.”
How can I know what I am not allowed, or think your proper thoughts before they cross your mind to inform my ignorance.
I’m not sure you’re interpreting that phrase in the way other people are. I think the standard interpretation of “ignorance is not an excuse” is “not being aware of a crime being illegal is not a legitimate defence if you commit that crime”.
You seem to be thinking more about freedom of information, or education?
It is just a higher level of abstraction with the overlying ethical principles and morality, like a conversation with an autocrat where their word is law.
But what do you actually mean by “ignorance is no excuse”? You said that any system other tah democracy conflicts with the statement. But the standard meaning (the fact that you didn’t realise you were breaking the law isn’t an meaningful excuse in court) absolutely applies in autocracies or whatever. The point is certain actions are illegal and doing them will get you in trouble, whether you knew in advance or not.
I feel like you’ve got another meaning in mind, can you try and express it clearly?
Unfortunately it doesn’t seem to work that way in reality. While the criminal laws are all public, there’s other rules and regulations that may not be.
At least where I’m from as an example, the building code is a paid product you have to purchase from the government. Yet if you build a home and don’t follow it, they will not allow you to live in it.
That one really bugs me. Anything the government produces in terms of rules or regulations should be available to the public for free.
It is something I have never thought to question.
A citizen in a democracy has a right to all information, and to decide for themselves. Any other system seems in conflict with “ignorance is not an excuse.”
How can I know what I am not allowed, or think your proper thoughts before they cross your mind to inform my ignorance.
I’m not sure you’re interpreting that phrase in the way other people are. I think the standard interpretation of “ignorance is not an excuse” is “not being aware of a crime being illegal is not a legitimate defence if you commit that crime”.
You seem to be thinking more about freedom of information, or education?
It’s a legitimate defense to some crimes. For example, in Texas it’s illegal to own more than 6 dildos.
Ha, it seems to be legit:
https://onwardtexas.org/trending/is-it-illegal-to-own-more-than-six-dildos-in-texas-yes-it-is/
Some reddit thread mentioned that it’s a good way to make it hard to run a sex store. Anyone know of any other rationale?
It is just a higher level of abstraction with the overlying ethical principles and morality, like a conversation with an autocrat where their word is law.
But what do you actually mean by “ignorance is no excuse”? You said that any system other tah democracy conflicts with the statement. But the standard meaning (the fact that you didn’t realise you were breaking the law isn’t an meaningful excuse in court) absolutely applies in autocracies or whatever. The point is certain actions are illegal and doing them will get you in trouble, whether you knew in advance or not.
I feel like you’ve got another meaning in mind, can you try and express it clearly?
Unfortunately it doesn’t seem to work that way in reality. While the criminal laws are all public, there’s other rules and regulations that may not be.
At least where I’m from as an example, the building code is a paid product you have to purchase from the government. Yet if you build a home and don’t follow it, they will not allow you to live in it.
That one really bugs me. Anything the government produces in terms of rules or regulations should be available to the public for free.