Have you ever got into a conversation about this? Something that seems illegal based on commonly accepted norms, but is legal?
Is that an issue with the law, or our perception of what is considered good or moral?
It’s a very old problem, if problem it be. Read up on Malum prohibitum vs. Malum in se.
Well, even right here on the SDMB, I regularly see questions like, “Why is So-and-so allowed to say this-or-that on TV? Isn’t that hate speech?”
A surprising number of people seem to assume that “hate speech” is a crime.
Using another entity’s own money to fund a hostile takeover of it.
Securing the patents to a process somebody else developed and then suing that person for patent infringement.
Sure, there have been endless threads on the question of legality wrt the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for instance.
-XT
Nitpick: Hate speech is a crime in a lot of places.
I get this a lot of the time, but the I am a lawyer. Most of those are along the lines of “why is he allowed to do this”, when the “this” is something that is adverse to the persons interests. It does not necessarily have to be something a person thought was illegal, just something s/he thinks is unfair. For instance; after a successful trial, “what do you mean, he is appealing”.
Can you actually do this legally? You can use the entity’s money/credit to fund all the stuff you do after the takeover. I don’t understand how you could do it to fund the actual takeover, though.
The UK for instance. The FCC can determine that certain speech is unsuitable for broadcast too.
But more often you get the reverse: “let me interpret your outrage in the most narrow legalistic manner and try to shift the goalposts into pretending you were talking about whether it was legal rather than whether it was moral”.
Aw, c’mon, when have you ever seen anybody do that! Nobody round here is going to try to pull such a cheap trick.
Deleted
It’s also a question of who is writing the laws, under whose influence, in whose pay and for whose benefit.
Like kids being able to legally have sex at 16, drive at 17, vote at 18, but not drink til they’re 21 :smack:
My limited understanding is that Ivan Boesky, in his younger days, convinced a bank to lend him the money for a planned takeover using the target’s equity as collateral. I hope it’s illegal now, but it was apparently A-OK back in the 70s. I looked for a cite on Wikipedia but couldn’t find one. I recall reading about it in The Washington Post back in the 80s, when Boesky was becoming nationally well-known.
Would it be better to dump it all on them on one magical day? I kind of like the idea of transferring the trappings of adulthood to teenagers in a gradual fashion.
This is close to being reverse sensible order though. You are a lot more likely to do serious harm with irresponsible driving or sex, than with irresponsible drinking (without driving) or voting.
like reefer. Weed is in the same category. It is the only safe substance that you can get high off of yet, it is treated like cocaine by law enforcement and in some conservative circles it is viewed as dirty… (when they have nasty light beer in their hands)
This. You can also enlist at 18; does anyone anywhere think kids who are qualified to carry automatic weapons ansd grenades are not qualified to drink beer?
Plus, teenagers in other countries manage just fine with everything dumped at 18 (except sex, typically). It’s not as though you can’t learn to drive and vote at the same time.
The Wikipedia page on Leveraged Buyouts supports your claim. On reconsideration, I’m not sure how I feel about this.
When I get a car loan, I can use the value of the car as collateral, even though I don’t actually own the car yet. Of course, I have to come to an actual agreement with the current owner of the car. However, when a company goes public, it’s essentially agreeing to be bound by the will of the people with the voting shares. There are obviously nuances to consider, but the process doesn’t seem terrible on its face. If you want to control who can buy your company, stay private.