I don’t agree with this sentiment entirely, but I’m starting to wonder if we long ago hit an inflection point between what we can mandate/criminalize and what w

I don’t agree with this sentiment entirely, but I’m starting to wonder if we long ago hit an inflection point between what we can mandate/criminalize and what we can effectively enforce in a consistent or meaningful manner. It’s been on my mind lately, but it seems reasonable to think the thicker our codes of law with all the added complexity, the less useful the law might actually be. If that’s the case, it might be worthwhile to actually reconstitute our laws into a more useful system. The barriers to doing so would be: 1. Maybe it isn’t actually worthwhile, as of right now I cannot meaningfully make the case that it is worthwhile. 2. Even if it is worthwhile, there are many wealthy and/or rich interests that would run a counter-campaign to protect the status quo as it pertains to them. 3. Even if there wasn’t a counter-campaign, refactoring the law just isn’t a sexy endeavor, and in fact runs counter to some very entrenched traditions in Anglo-American law. Even opening this door for discussion would provide an opening to attack and place new limits on the natural rights of men which have been under a disgusting amount of strain as it is in the past few decades. That said, we can mandate things like recycling and composting, but it is a dead letter unless you have recycling facilities or people willing to take the compost. You can mandate privacy and use a heavy handed enforcement mechanism, but that isn’t actually a solid guarantee to your own privacy, and there isn’t really anything that can guarantee your privacy and information security anymore. Even living in the middle of nowhere puts you under the thumb of reconnaissance satellites, airplanes and drones.