4 ms·

Many laws, company policies, etc exist to prevent those 5% from causing damage to the rest of the population. So 95% of people have to live with restrictions an

Many laws, company policies, etc exist to prevent those 5% from causing damage to the rest of the population. So 95% of people have to live with restrictions and bureaucracy that merely exists for those small group.

woodruffw 4y ago
"Live with" is a weird framing, isn't it? If we accept the claim for a moment, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the restrictions exist to give the 95% the best chance at a reasonable, unmolested life?
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  Yes - at the price of restrictions that apply to all of us, not just to the 5%. The powers that be are trying to tune the restrictions to some kind of global maximum of organizational output. Rules hinder that - they slow you down. But the lack of rules increases the damage that the 5% can cause, which also slows you down. The hard part is, when something causes damage, it's easy to make a rule, but harder to see that the rule will cost more than the damage.
- Nevermark 4y ago
  Yes, but the balance point of restricted/unmolested has to move further into restriction territory to account for intransigent vs. bad-day molesters A higher level optimality can be achieved wherever truly nasty people can be pre-screened out of situations
- nine_k 4y ago
  What's weird about daily life? 100 - ɛ percent of the population have to lock their cars and homes so that the ɛ percent of people won't steal or vandalize their property. The ɛ may be small, but while ɛ > 0, they can deal disproportionate damage unless everyone implements restrictions.
LastTrain 4y ago
I'm not following. What are some specific sacrifices we have to make for the sake of the five percent?
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  Speed limits, building codes, the list goes on and on an on. And of course the wealth of society is sapped to pay for enforcement of all this stuff. Pretty much all civil regulation and the associated enforcement costs could be scaled way way way back if the single digit percentage of people who really suck didn't or the low double digit percentage of people who really get bent out of shape over these people got somewhat over it.
- jyap 4y ago
  Taking your shoes off for TSA
- lr4444lr 4y ago
  Ever get approved for a home loan? Much of that laborious process is to thwart fraud committed by a small percent of people. If everyone was trustable on good faith, computers could do most of the work almost instantaneously. How about the entire organized crime bureaus of police forces worldwide?
- SoftTalker 4y ago
  Firearm ownership regulations.
akira2501 4y ago
That might be the wrong way to look at it, or rather, it doesn't take into consideration the natural minimum. It may be that just 5% of people will continue to break the rules _despite_ the bureaucracy. So, how many of the 95% are following the rules _because_ of the bureaucracy? I suspect it's much higher than most people would care to admit.. just look what happens when the system or enforcement mechanisms break down.
- BeFlatXIII 4y ago
  How many of those 95% will find their own equilibrium outside of official laws? Do the laws only apply strictly-defined caps so everyone is on the same page as to what is or is not acceptable?

woodruffw 4y ago

"Live with" is a weird framing, isn't it? If we accept the claim for a moment, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the restrictions exist to give the 95% the best chance at a reasonable, unmolested life?

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
Yes - at the price of restrictions that apply to all of us, not just to the 5%. The powers that be are trying to tune the restrictions to some kind of global maximum of organizational output. Rules hinder that - they slow you down. But the lack of rules increases the damage that the 5% can cause, which also slows you down. The hard part is, when something causes damage, it's easy to make a rule, but harder to see that the rule will cost more than the damage.
Nevermark 4y ago
Yes, but the balance point of restricted/unmolested has to move further into restriction territory to account for intransigent vs. bad-day molesters A higher level optimality can be achieved wherever truly nasty people can be pre-screened out of situations
nine_k 4y ago
What's weird about daily life? 100 - ɛ percent of the population have to lock their cars and homes so that the ɛ percent of people won't steal or vandalize their property. The ɛ may be small, but while ɛ > 0, they can deal disproportionate damage unless everyone implements restrictions.

LastTrain 4y ago

I'm not following. What are some specific sacrifices we have to make for the sake of the five percent?

dsfyu404ed 4y ago
Speed limits, building codes, the list goes on and on an on. And of course the wealth of society is sapped to pay for enforcement of all this stuff. Pretty much all civil regulation and the associated enforcement costs could be scaled way way way back if the single digit percentage of people who really suck didn't or the low double digit percentage of people who really get bent out of shape over these people got somewhat over it.
jyap 4y ago
Taking your shoes off for TSA
lr4444lr 4y ago
Ever get approved for a home loan? Much of that laborious process is to thwart fraud committed by a small percent of people. If everyone was trustable on good faith, computers could do most of the work almost instantaneously. How about the entire organized crime bureaus of police forces worldwide?
SoftTalker 4y ago
Firearm ownership regulations.

akira2501 4y ago

That might be the wrong way to look at it, or rather, it doesn't take into consideration the natural minimum. It may be that just 5% of people will continue to break the rules _despite_ the bureaucracy. So, how many of the 95% are following the rules _because_ of the bureaucracy? I suspect it's much higher than most people would care to admit.. just look what happens when the system or enforcement mechanisms break down.

BeFlatXIII 4y ago
How many of those 95% will find their own equilibrium outside of official laws? Do the laws only apply strictly-defined caps so everyone is on the same page as to what is or is not acceptable?