Comment by w10-1

I hear the complaint but it's a bit of a trap to just seek protection.

Yes, the law on point is permissive. That goes with the evolution of law.

But assuming for the moment that we want not just avoid injury to ourselves but to create the world now and to come, what are we called to do?

- What exactly do you, or employees, want in this situation?

- What would Pave do if they wanted to take the high ground? Could that be a business differentiator?

- What law could you write and enforce, to protect what interest, without also damaging other interests that are socially beneficial?

I think the organizational evolution towards having loose laws with tightening enforcement, or tight laws with lax enforcement, give way too much latitude to policing/enforcement and create a corrupting political franchise of affected stakeholders taxed with managing regulators.

My hope would be that internet-scalable transactions have similarly scalable regulatory solutions: dead-simple to detect and assess, finely-tuned to the balance of interests, and so patent as to be indisputable. Then people can get stuff done without dealing with the shadows and forces of ambiguity.

Is something like that possible here? Could Pave be a champion of it?