3 ms·

No doubt some Karen complaining. That's an example, but the reality is that laws are tremendously extensive. Yet generally unenforced. When the government can

No doubt some Karen complaining. That's an example, but the reality is that laws are tremendously extensive. Yet generally unenforced. When the government can start enforcing. Government will grow even larger and more specific.

ardy42 6y ago
> No doubt some Karen complaining. I have some doubt about that. > That's an example, but the reality is that laws are tremendously extensive. Yet generally unenforced. When the government can start enforcing. Government will grow even larger and more specific. I'm pretty confident that the current cost of the above-cited ordinance is zero, and at one point in the past the value it provided was a small positive. I just Googled the law, and it shows up on a bunch of lists "dumb law" lists. It's way too specific and obscure to probably find any reasoning behind it without going through decades of meeting minutes of the Little Rock City Council. Here's another one that showed up on many of those lists: > 3. bear wrestling matches are prohibited. – Alabama (Acts 1996, No. 96-468, p. 581, §1.) Sounds pretty dumb, right? However, Bear wrestling matches are (or were) a thing, and it seems like it came to be (rightly) considered a form of animal mistreatment: https://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/national/story/2019/aug/12/history-bear-wrestling-and-when-it-was-outlawed/790293/ https://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/national/story/2019/au... > Bears used in wrestling were usually defanged and declawed, as well as kept in small trailers and fed poor diets, according to previous reports.... > Even at the start of the 1992 legislative season, bear wrestling was still reportedly legal in some parishes. But by the end of it, the activity was outlawed in every corner of Louisiana by the means of state law with little debate from lawmakers. > "It was just a poor form of entertainment that was at the expense of the animals," Jeff Dorson, Louisiana Humane Society director, told The Times in a 2011 report. Dorson lobbied for the bill in 1992. > "The state congress was surprisingly sympathetic to the bill after we showed them videotape and pictures of the animals," Dorson said. > The law came as an addition to the state's cruelty to animals criminal codes, and after three years of complaints on how traveling side show owners were treating their bears.
- sleepysysadmin 6y ago
  >I'm pretty confident that the current cost of the above-cited ordinance is zero, and at one point in the past the value it provided was a small positive. What I was trying to say in my first post was that it's not the current enforcement. It's just an example of the government becoming too large and the robot police force of the future will use these dead laws to enforce. This will lead to disenfranchisement. >Sounds pretty dumb, right? However, Bear wrestling matches are (or were) a thing, and it seems like it came to be (rightly) considered a form of animal mistreatment: Personally I like said bear law. This isn't about silly laws, it's about how unenforced laws have become. The size of government wants to grow, but right now the resources of the law enforcement dictate the size. In the near future the resources of law enforcement will quickly allow growth of government again. Another example is grass. In many cities it's illegal to have long grass. However, enforcement is non-existent or at least requires someone snitching on you. In the future there will be robot cops who will go around and inspection the entire city on a regular basis providing fines. Or snow, you have laws normally that say, you have until 10am to clear the snow from the city's sidewalks and keep it free of snow and ice for the remaining day. You are typically in constant violation if you arent actively cleaning it all day long. Out of curiousity, do you think there will be cities that have robots that cut everyone's grass or shovel to snow? Or will they be punitive with $500 fines.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > What I was trying to say in my first post was that it's not the current enforcement. It's just an example of the government becoming too large and the robot police force of the future will use these dead laws to enforce. This will lead to disenfranchisement.... > ...This isn't about silly laws, it's about how unenforced laws have become. The size of government wants to grow, but right now the resources of the law enforcement dictate the size. In the near future the resources of law enforcement will quickly allow growth of government again. > Another example is grass. In many cities it's illegal to have long grass. However, enforcement is non-existent or at least requires someone snitching on you. In the future there will be robot cops who will go around and inspection the entire city on a regular basis providing fines. I think you're making a false assumption that the government is totally unresponsive to its citizens and will engage in infinite make-work enforcement to allow itself to grow maximally even if that means everyone else bears an unbearable burden. IMHO, the existence of these "dumb" laws is actually a disproof of that. These laws remain on the books because it's basically free to leave them there. Once they start to become a burden, they'll be rewritten to be less onerous or removed completely. I'm also 100% confident that, in our lifetimes, we won't be seeing AGI cops diligently enforcing the letter of the laws all the time.

ardy42 6y ago

> No doubt some Karen complaining. I have some doubt about that. > That's an example, but the reality is that laws are tremendously extensive. Yet generally unenforced. When the government can start enforcing. Government will grow even larger and more specific. I'm pretty confident that the current cost of the above-cited ordinance is zero, and at one point in the past the value it provided was a small positive. I just Googled the law, and it shows up on a bunch of lists "dumb law" lists. It's way too specific and obscure to probably find any reasoning behind it without going through decades of meeting minutes of the Little Rock City Council. Here's another one that showed up on many of those lists: > 3. bear wrestling matches are prohibited. – Alabama (Acts 1996, No. 96-468, p. 581, §1.) Sounds pretty dumb, right? However, Bear wrestling matches are (or were) a thing, and it seems like it came to be (rightly) considered a form of animal mistreatment: https://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/national/story/2019/aug/12/history-bear-wrestling-and-when-it-was-outlawed/790293/ https://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/national/story/2019/au... > Bears used in wrestling were usually defanged and declawed, as well as kept in small trailers and fed poor diets, according to previous reports.... > Even at the start of the 1992 legislative season, bear wrestling was still reportedly legal in some parishes. But by the end of it, the activity was outlawed in every corner of Louisiana by the means of state law with little debate from lawmakers. > "It was just a poor form of entertainment that was at the expense of the animals," Jeff Dorson, Louisiana Humane Society director, told The Times in a 2011 report. Dorson lobbied for the bill in 1992. > "The state congress was surprisingly sympathetic to the bill after we showed them videotape and pictures of the animals," Dorson said. > The law came as an addition to the state's cruelty to animals criminal codes, and after three years of complaints on how traveling side show owners were treating their bears.

sleepysysadmin 6y ago
>I'm pretty confident that the current cost of the above-cited ordinance is zero, and at one point in the past the value it provided was a small positive. What I was trying to say in my first post was that it's not the current enforcement. It's just an example of the government becoming too large and the robot police force of the future will use these dead laws to enforce. This will lead to disenfranchisement. >Sounds pretty dumb, right? However, Bear wrestling matches are (or were) a thing, and it seems like it came to be (rightly) considered a form of animal mistreatment: Personally I like said bear law. This isn't about silly laws, it's about how unenforced laws have become. The size of government wants to grow, but right now the resources of the law enforcement dictate the size. In the near future the resources of law enforcement will quickly allow growth of government again. Another example is grass. In many cities it's illegal to have long grass. However, enforcement is non-existent or at least requires someone snitching on you. In the future there will be robot cops who will go around and inspection the entire city on a regular basis providing fines. Or snow, you have laws normally that say, you have until 10am to clear the snow from the city's sidewalks and keep it free of snow and ice for the remaining day. You are typically in constant violation if you arent actively cleaning it all day long. Out of curiousity, do you think there will be cities that have robots that cut everyone's grass or shovel to snow? Or will they be punitive with $500 fines.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > What I was trying to say in my first post was that it's not the current enforcement. It's just an example of the government becoming too large and the robot police force of the future will use these dead laws to enforce. This will lead to disenfranchisement.... > ...This isn't about silly laws, it's about how unenforced laws have become. The size of government wants to grow, but right now the resources of the law enforcement dictate the size. In the near future the resources of law enforcement will quickly allow growth of government again. > Another example is grass. In many cities it's illegal to have long grass. However, enforcement is non-existent or at least requires someone snitching on you. In the future there will be robot cops who will go around and inspection the entire city on a regular basis providing fines. I think you're making a false assumption that the government is totally unresponsive to its citizens and will engage in infinite make-work enforcement to allow itself to grow maximally even if that means everyone else bears an unbearable burden. IMHO, the existence of these "dumb" laws is actually a disproof of that. These laws remain on the books because it's basically free to leave them there. Once they start to become a burden, they'll be rewritten to be less onerous or removed completely. I'm also 100% confident that, in our lifetimes, we won't be seeing AGI cops diligently enforcing the letter of the laws all the time.