← Back to context

Comment by 15155

1 day ago

Every legal allowance I disagree with is a "loophole", every legal allowance I take advantage of is intended functionality.

I think if it's working as intended and as designed then it's hard to call it a loophole. Loophole would be when dying your spirit purple would change the taxation, because someone codified the color of alcohol instead of it's content.

But of course as you say it's largely semantics.

  • > I think if it's working as intended and as designed then it's hard to call it a loophole.

    This assumes everyone acts in good faith.

    A popular one these days is the "gun show 'loophole.'"

    Rather than calling it "renegging on an explicitly-legislated compromise", it's a "loophole" that needs "closing."

    • You're assigning a single mind to a group of uncoordinated actors to create a hypocrisy that probably doesn't exist in any specific individual.

      It looks like a loophole, it could be in the textbook describing them. You have a law that establishes a rule, then creates a small exception that in effect opts out of the rule entirely. The people who want this provision eliminated don't know it was intended. That's pretty in the weeds of congress' internal negotiations

      3 replies →