4 ms·

How about we start with not making stuff illegal that we don't want to enforce?

alistairSH 4y ago
But society wants selective enforcement. Speeding laws are good when the stop that guy from endangering my kids. Or when they generate revenue from tourists. Those same laws are awful when they inconvenience me.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  I think one of our greatest failures as a species is that we have yet to architect a society in which these sorts of double standards of personal belief have sufficient consequences to prevent people from engaging in them with the fervor and frequency that they do.
  - CrazyPyroLinux 4y ago
    I think one of our greatest failures as a species is the hubris of _thinking_ that we can "architect a society"
    - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
      The organization of society is not outside our control. We've been architecting society for 1000s of years based on what has worked and what hasn't in years past. We aren't just along for the ride although that is a convenient excuse to do nothing and make no effort.
      - CrazyPyroLinux 4y ago
        I wasn't necessarily suggesting to "do nothing and make no effort" - That's a strawman and false dichotomy. Sure, we can generally try to do more of what works and less of what doesn't. But usually the type of people who want to "architect society" end up being the worst type of "rules for thee but not for me" tyrants.
        MichaelZuo 4y ago
        I think the Founding Fathers of the U.S. 'architected society' reasonably well in the 1770-1800 period?
        CrazyPyroLinux 4y ago
        Tip-of-the-hat to our founders, for sure! But I'd say they were architecting a government, not a society. That's a very important distinction, and without it you can end up with some really destructive Statist/Authoritarian stuff. Regarding those first 25 years or so: Jefferson's attempt to ban slavery in 1784 failed by 1 vote. Then there was the Whiskey Rebellion in 1791 and then the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. So, nothing's perfect I guess...
        MichaelZuo 4y ago
        I highly doubt they ignored considerations of how their envisioned government would affect future society and vice versa.
- BowBun 4y ago
  Maybe I'm just being contrarian to your comment, but I've always thought the US and other countries are silly for not automating basic traffic enforcement. Red light cameras should effectively catch 95%+ of people who blow through them. Speeding cameras (that are actually on, looking at you NYC) that are super visible are a known deterrent to speeding in Europe. Even parking - in some modern garages they have sensors to tell you when spots are full/empty. Why can't they use similar tech for parking tickets, street cleaning, etc? I feel like I wouldn't be upset about rule enforcement if I knew everyone was more or less following them. What makes me ignore rules is when I see people taking advantage of them over and over without repercussions. Then, introducing human elements where the cop gets to decide who to ticket adds a bunch of bias that we haven't been able to correct. It's one of the countless examples of humans over-complicating things to the point of dysfunction.
  - dwringer 4y ago
    A lot of places in the US have tried out automated speed traps and red light cameras. Some still use them AFAIK. But what's common is that infractions are so widespread that there's a massive backlash and the programs get cancelled. There was an automatic speed trap on the interstate just south of Pittsburgh a few months ago, set up along side some temporary construction with reduced speed limits. A few weeks later there was a headline that it had generated so many tens of thousands of tickets that they were considering it an error and throwing out the tickets.
    - pandemicsoul 4y ago
      Not to mention they also cause accidents. People who see a red-light camera flash often hit the brakes, causing people behind them to rear-end them. There were a number of red-light cameras removed in the U.S. once it became clear they were snarling traffic on a weekly basis because of that.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    We absolutely could do that. I don't know how US driving license work, but in the UK a speeding ticket gets you 3 penalty points on your license, where 12 points in 3 years gets you disqualified from driving: https://www.gov.uk/speeding-penalties https://www.gov.uk/speeding-penalties On this basis, the only people who would be allowed to drive a month after perfect enforcement starts, would be people who don't drive (plus the Queen because monarchy). (Outside the hypothetical, the imperfection of the UK's speed cameras is such that the only ticket I've received was for an event that happened six months after I sold the car).
ben_w 4y ago
Necessary but not sufficient. Weed is a category B drug in the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_the_United_Kingdom This means "with penalties for unlicenced dealing, unlicenced production and unlicenced trafficking of up to 14 years in prison, an unlimited fine, or both. The maximum penalty for possession of cannabis is five years in prison and an unlimited fine." The police absolutely try to enforce this: "In the survey-year ending March 2014, possession of cannabis offences accounted for 67% of all police recorded drug offences in the UK." Despite this, "In 2017, 7.2% of 16 to 59-year-olds reported using cannabis in the last year, making it the most commonly used illegal drug in the United Kingdom." If this law, all by itself, was perfectly enforced, the UK would bankrupt itself just on the extra spending in the prison system.
- wildmanx 4y ago
  > If this law, all by itself, was perfectly enforced, the UK would bankrupt itself just on the extra spending in the prison system. That conclusion ignores the interdependence of those effects. If people knew that it's going to be perfectly enforced, then almost nobody would do it anymore. (Not that I'm a proponent of this particular law; just pointing out a flaw in your argument. Somebody wrong on the internet -- gotta reply!)
- some_random 4y ago
  So that shouldn't be a law then, the argument goes.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    I think it shouldn't be a law partly for that reason, but it's definitely an example of needing to go further than just repealing the laws nobody can be bothered to enforce.

But society wants selective enforcement. Speeding laws are good when the stop that guy from endangering my kids. Or when they generate revenue from tourists. Those same laws are awful when they inconvenience me.

throwaway0a5e 4y ago
I think one of our greatest failures as a species is that we have yet to architect a society in which these sorts of double standards of personal belief have sufficient consequences to prevent people from engaging in them with the fervor and frequency that they do.
- CrazyPyroLinux 4y ago
  I think one of our greatest failures as a species is the hubris of _thinking_ that we can "architect a society"
  - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
    The organization of society is not outside our control. We've been architecting society for 1000s of years based on what has worked and what hasn't in years past. We aren't just along for the ride although that is a convenient excuse to do nothing and make no effort.
    - CrazyPyroLinux 4y ago
      I wasn't necessarily suggesting to "do nothing and make no effort" - That's a strawman and false dichotomy. Sure, we can generally try to do more of what works and less of what doesn't. But usually the type of people who want to "architect society" end up being the worst type of "rules for thee but not for me" tyrants.
      - MichaelZuo 4y ago
        I think the Founding Fathers of the U.S. 'architected society' reasonably well in the 1770-1800 period?
        CrazyPyroLinux 4y ago
        Tip-of-the-hat to our founders, for sure! But I'd say they were architecting a government, not a society. That's a very important distinction, and without it you can end up with some really destructive Statist/Authoritarian stuff. Regarding those first 25 years or so: Jefferson's attempt to ban slavery in 1784 failed by 1 vote. Then there was the Whiskey Rebellion in 1791 and then the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. So, nothing's perfect I guess...
        MichaelZuo 4y ago
        I highly doubt they ignored considerations of how their envisioned government would affect future society and vice versa.
BowBun 4y ago
Maybe I'm just being contrarian to your comment, but I've always thought the US and other countries are silly for not automating basic traffic enforcement. Red light cameras should effectively catch 95%+ of people who blow through them. Speeding cameras (that are actually on, looking at you NYC) that are super visible are a known deterrent to speeding in Europe. Even parking - in some modern garages they have sensors to tell you when spots are full/empty. Why can't they use similar tech for parking tickets, street cleaning, etc? I feel like I wouldn't be upset about rule enforcement if I knew everyone was more or less following them. What makes me ignore rules is when I see people taking advantage of them over and over without repercussions. Then, introducing human elements where the cop gets to decide who to ticket adds a bunch of bias that we haven't been able to correct. It's one of the countless examples of humans over-complicating things to the point of dysfunction.
- dwringer 4y ago
  A lot of places in the US have tried out automated speed traps and red light cameras. Some still use them AFAIK. But what's common is that infractions are so widespread that there's a massive backlash and the programs get cancelled. There was an automatic speed trap on the interstate just south of Pittsburgh a few months ago, set up along side some temporary construction with reduced speed limits. A few weeks later there was a headline that it had generated so many tens of thousands of tickets that they were considering it an error and throwing out the tickets.
  - pandemicsoul 4y ago
    Not to mention they also cause accidents. People who see a red-light camera flash often hit the brakes, causing people behind them to rear-end them. There were a number of red-light cameras removed in the U.S. once it became clear they were snarling traffic on a weekly basis because of that.
- ben_w 4y ago
  We absolutely could do that. I don't know how US driving license work, but in the UK a speeding ticket gets you 3 penalty points on your license, where 12 points in 3 years gets you disqualified from driving: https://www.gov.uk/speeding-penalties https://www.gov.uk/speeding-penalties On this basis, the only people who would be allowed to drive a month after perfect enforcement starts, would be people who don't drive (plus the Queen because monarchy). (Outside the hypothetical, the imperfection of the UK's speed cameras is such that the only ticket I've received was for an event that happened six months after I sold the car).

ben_w 4y ago

Necessary but not sufficient. Weed is a category B drug in the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_the_United_Kingdom This means "with penalties for unlicenced dealing, unlicenced production and unlicenced trafficking of up to 14 years in prison, an unlimited fine, or both. The maximum penalty for possession of cannabis is five years in prison and an unlimited fine." The police absolutely try to enforce this: "In the survey-year ending March 2014, possession of cannabis offences accounted for 67% of all police recorded drug offences in the UK." Despite this, "In 2017, 7.2% of 16 to 59-year-olds reported using cannabis in the last year, making it the most commonly used illegal drug in the United Kingdom." If this law, all by itself, was perfectly enforced, the UK would bankrupt itself just on the extra spending in the prison system.

wildmanx 4y ago
> If this law, all by itself, was perfectly enforced, the UK would bankrupt itself just on the extra spending in the prison system. That conclusion ignores the interdependence of those effects. If people knew that it's going to be perfectly enforced, then almost nobody would do it anymore. (Not that I'm a proponent of this particular law; just pointing out a flaw in your argument. Somebody wrong on the internet -- gotta reply!)
some_random 4y ago
So that shouldn't be a law then, the argument goes.
- ben_w 4y ago
  I think it shouldn't be a law partly for that reason, but it's definitely an example of needing to go further than just repealing the laws nobody can be bothered to enforce.