3 ms·

"Most of society is going to not give a rats ass, and it will undermine the rest of the system because of it" suggests that nobody is going to stop doing someth

"Most of society is going to not give a rats ass, and it will undermine the rest of the system because of it" suggests that nobody is going to stop doing something they don't personally think is wrong just because a law is passed banning it, doesn't it?

lazide 4y ago
Nope, not what I meant at all with that! No one enforces the laws i’m referring to widely, and your average American rolls their eyes at it. Law enforcement doesn’t try to enforce them either normally. Though they do occasionally get used to harass someone they don’t like. So society doesn’t care, and it just gives more ammo to harass the occasional person they don’t like for other reasons. When society cares, then the law is followed more (and enforced more), and it matters for the putative reason the law was created. For instance, murder? People will murder someone sometimes, obviously, regardless of the law. When that happens, investigations happen, and people go to jail (when it all lines up, anyway). But also, laws against murder do stop people from murdering folks they otherwise would! Because they know it will be taken seriously. Interestingly, this effect can be seen from things like Serial killers and the victims they choose, who are often people society doesn’t seem to take murders of seriously, including runaways, prostitutes, women of color or natives, etc. A law against murder is stopping more harm than it causes, by a pretty large margin, near as I can tell. Putting more effort and focus into ensuring it’s investigated more thoroughly seems like it would pay clear dividends in many ways. That is not clear for plastic bag bans. Near as I can tell, plastic bag bans are causing more harm - environmentally, even.
- emodendroket 4y ago
  Well, doesn't that imply that, if I am convinced a driveway-wash ban is a good idea, it makes more sense to agitate for better enforcement than give up because enforcement is too spotty?
  - lazide 4y ago
    Yes. But no one does, generally, because they don’t care. At least after whatever original cause-of-the-month crusade got it in. In some cases, it may be a valid state, and it isn’t a problem now, but would be a problem if it was repealed. But that is a rare situation. In California, other examples off the top of my head include: - the nunchuck/throwing star/random scary weapon bans (went in during the 80’s because of ‘scary gangs’ in action movies, but it was an invented problem) - about 90% of common municipal recycling programs (aluminum and ferrous metals excluded) - federal anti-marijuana laws - a ton of vehicle modification rules/laws (though they are starting to get enforced now in some cases, which is good!) Therefore, having it on the books just gives ammo to folks trying to punish people they don’t like arbitrarily (instead of actually apply the law), and decreases overall faith in the system because it exists in that state. But folks get jerked around so much by panic-of-the-month, I’m not holding my breath.
    - emodendroket 4y ago
      I think recycling might be a bit more practical if we gave up on the ridiculous idea of single-stream recycling, which offers a small amount of convenience to people at the cost of obliterating whatever small margins recycling offered in the first place.
      - lazide 4y ago
        When someone tries non-single source recycling, it becomes clear how much of the current recycling dog and pony show is bullshit - because all except a small hard core of folks won’t do it unless they get paid! Which, frankly, is a really strong signal. For those folks, they’re just wasting their time, because it has to go through the same sorting process as single source does, as everyone’s recycling gets co-mingled, and most others just throw random trash in there. And that won’t scale for non-economic recycling (aka currently things that aren’t Aluminum and certain other metals). In a lot of the Bay Area (even Sunnyvale, Mountain View, and Santa Clara!) it’s normal for folks to go through every morning and raid everyones recycle bins for valuable recycling before the city trash vendor can arrive, then sell it. Everything else gets left of course, as it’s a cost, and usually just gets sent into the trash anyway.

lazide 4y ago

Nope, not what I meant at all with that! No one enforces the laws i’m referring to widely, and your average American rolls their eyes at it. Law enforcement doesn’t try to enforce them either normally. Though they do occasionally get used to harass someone they don’t like. So society doesn’t care, and it just gives more ammo to harass the occasional person they don’t like for other reasons. When society cares, then the law is followed more (and enforced more), and it matters for the putative reason the law was created. For instance, murder? People will murder someone sometimes, obviously, regardless of the law. When that happens, investigations happen, and people go to jail (when it all lines up, anyway). But also, laws against murder do stop people from murdering folks they otherwise would! Because they know it will be taken seriously. Interestingly, this effect can be seen from things like Serial killers and the victims they choose, who are often people society doesn’t seem to take murders of seriously, including runaways, prostitutes, women of color or natives, etc. A law against murder is stopping more harm than it causes, by a pretty large margin, near as I can tell. Putting more effort and focus into ensuring it’s investigated more thoroughly seems like it would pay clear dividends in many ways. That is not clear for plastic bag bans. Near as I can tell, plastic bag bans are causing more harm - environmentally, even.

emodendroket 4y ago
Well, doesn't that imply that, if I am convinced a driveway-wash ban is a good idea, it makes more sense to agitate for better enforcement than give up because enforcement is too spotty?
- lazide 4y ago
  Yes. But no one does, generally, because they don’t care. At least after whatever original cause-of-the-month crusade got it in. In some cases, it may be a valid state, and it isn’t a problem now, but would be a problem if it was repealed. But that is a rare situation. In California, other examples off the top of my head include: - the nunchuck/throwing star/random scary weapon bans (went in during the 80’s because of ‘scary gangs’ in action movies, but it was an invented problem) - about 90% of common municipal recycling programs (aluminum and ferrous metals excluded) - federal anti-marijuana laws - a ton of vehicle modification rules/laws (though they are starting to get enforced now in some cases, which is good!) Therefore, having it on the books just gives ammo to folks trying to punish people they don’t like arbitrarily (instead of actually apply the law), and decreases overall faith in the system because it exists in that state. But folks get jerked around so much by panic-of-the-month, I’m not holding my breath.
  - emodendroket 4y ago
    I think recycling might be a bit more practical if we gave up on the ridiculous idea of single-stream recycling, which offers a small amount of convenience to people at the cost of obliterating whatever small margins recycling offered in the first place.
    - lazide 4y ago
      When someone tries non-single source recycling, it becomes clear how much of the current recycling dog and pony show is bullshit - because all except a small hard core of folks won’t do it unless they get paid! Which, frankly, is a really strong signal. For those folks, they’re just wasting their time, because it has to go through the same sorting process as single source does, as everyone’s recycling gets co-mingled, and most others just throw random trash in there. And that won’t scale for non-economic recycling (aka currently things that aren’t Aluminum and certain other metals). In a lot of the Bay Area (even Sunnyvale, Mountain View, and Santa Clara!) it’s normal for folks to go through every morning and raid everyones recycle bins for valuable recycling before the city trash vendor can arrive, then sell it. Everything else gets left of course, as it’s a cost, and usually just gets sent into the trash anyway.