There are two very large logical leaps you've made here: 1. You've leaped from "we haven't discussed what details would make this work" to "it's unworkable". A

There are two very large logical leaps you've made here: 1. You've leaped from "we haven't discussed what details would make this work" to "it's unworkable". As I said before: obviously details need to be worked out. Your answer to why people downvoted me is basically that I didn't draft fully-formed legislation before presenting the idea on HN. If you'd like to discuss details, I'd be happy to do so, but saying "it's unworkable" outright without hearing those details, or worse, downvoting without explanation, are not ways to continue that discussion. 2. You've leaped from "the edge cases are unworkable" to "all the cases are unworkable". Are you willing to admit that a law against the case we've both agreed is obvious would be workable?