3 ms·

You always need the threat, though, otherwise people can just ignore minor punishments. Why pay fines if it can't be enforced to the last consequences? Just esc

You always need the threat, though, otherwise people can just ignore minor punishments. Why pay fines if it can't be enforced to the last consequences? Just escalate things until the other side gives up. You are effectively, though not directly, threatening every law breaker with the possibility of being killed by a police officer.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
Every lawbreaker who is willing to try to keep escalating until the other side gives up, yes. But then the problem isn't really the particular law that they first broke, it's the attitude of "you can't make your rules apply to me, and I'll fight you to the death to make sure you can't". And sometimes, it winds up literally being "to the death". But someone with that attitude, that approach to life, if it wasn't this rule that was the issue, it would be another one. So your options are "don't have any rules against ordinary stuff like trespassing, false advertising, petty theft, etc.", or "have rules but don't enforce them if the person resists", or "have rules and enforce them, even if some people wind up fighting the police after breaking that rule, and get killed for it". I really don't think that the society with no rules against "not absolutely major" stuff would be a very good society to live in. But then you have situations like selling loose cigarettes. Was that the fault of the rule, or was it the fault of the cop? Well, you may say, without the rule, the cop wouldn't have been in that particular interaction. True. So what would he have been doing? Interacting with someone else, with the same heavy-handedness.
- necessity 10y ago
  It is not necessary to keep escalating things until the other side gives up in order to get killed, the possibility is always there when you allow someone (a cop) to use violence to enforce a law (which is necessary for every law), since there is no perfect system of law enforcement which always uses "the right amount" of violence. Thus, the author arguments for the reduction in the number of laws, not their extinction. I don't think there should be 'no rules against "not absolutely major" stuff'. I just think people should realize the threat that is implied in law enforcement and rethink some laws.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    Fair enough. Is too much stuff illegal? Yes. (And, are there too many loopholes in existing laws? Also yes, and it gives the law an appearance of unfairness, which lowers respect for the law and increases attempts at escaping from it.) And in fact, decriminalizing pot nation-wide might be the big step to help with a lot of this. I'm not sure it would be free from other consequences, though...
- ricksplat 10y ago
  There are alternatives to allowing a situation to escalate. Firstly a well-trained police officer can manage a situation such that it doesn't escalate. Then restraint can be exercised. Admittedly these strategies are much easier in a society that isn't awash with guns.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

Every lawbreaker who is willing to try to keep escalating until the other side gives up, yes. But then the problem isn't really the particular law that they first broke, it's the attitude of "you can't make your rules apply to me, and I'll fight you to the death to make sure you can't". And sometimes, it winds up literally being "to the death". But someone with that attitude, that approach to life, if it wasn't this rule that was the issue, it would be another one. So your options are "don't have any rules against ordinary stuff like trespassing, false advertising, petty theft, etc.", or "have rules but don't enforce them if the person resists", or "have rules and enforce them, even if some people wind up fighting the police after breaking that rule, and get killed for it". I really don't think that the society with no rules against "not absolutely major" stuff would be a very good society to live in. But then you have situations like selling loose cigarettes. Was that the fault of the rule, or was it the fault of the cop? Well, you may say, without the rule, the cop wouldn't have been in that particular interaction. True. So what would he have been doing? Interacting with someone else, with the same heavy-handedness.

necessity 10y ago
It is not necessary to keep escalating things until the other side gives up in order to get killed, the possibility is always there when you allow someone (a cop) to use violence to enforce a law (which is necessary for every law), since there is no perfect system of law enforcement which always uses "the right amount" of violence. Thus, the author arguments for the reduction in the number of laws, not their extinction. I don't think there should be 'no rules against "not absolutely major" stuff'. I just think people should realize the threat that is implied in law enforcement and rethink some laws.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  Fair enough. Is too much stuff illegal? Yes. (And, are there too many loopholes in existing laws? Also yes, and it gives the law an appearance of unfairness, which lowers respect for the law and increases attempts at escaping from it.) And in fact, decriminalizing pot nation-wide might be the big step to help with a lot of this. I'm not sure it would be free from other consequences, though...
ricksplat 10y ago
There are alternatives to allowing a situation to escalate. Firstly a well-trained police officer can manage a situation such that it doesn't escalate. Then restraint can be exercised. Admittedly these strategies are much easier in a society that isn't awash with guns.