4 ms·

You only love it because you have some perverted dream of 100% enforcement of whatever your rules are. In reality automated enforcement would cause an uproar a

You only love it because you have some perverted dream of 100% enforcement of whatever your rules are. In reality automated enforcement would cause an uproar and the rules would be changed to accommodate the status quo.

echelon 1y ago
> some perverted dream of 100% enforcement No illegally parked vehicles? The negative externalities of illegally parked vehicles charged to the source? I'll dream of that.
- hedora 1y ago
  I think you’ll find this leads to infinite fine revenue and higher congestion in pretty much all cities.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > think you’ll find this leads to infinite fine revenue and higher congestion in pretty much all cities How? Laffer curve will max out as behaviour adjusts. And that adjustment means folks parking legally or forgoing a car or the area in question, not driving around in circles for fun.
- potato3732842 1y ago
  That doesn't change the fact that the laws/rules/etc across all sorts of issues are all written half baked with the assumption that enforcers will be reasonable and all sorts of edge cases don't need to be supported. The reason illegally parked vehicles are illegal is not because they are illegal, that's circular and the peddlers of that sort of logic should be derided if not marginalized. We care about illegally parked vehicles, littering, and all manner of public nuisances because of the downside to the public of said nuisance. Absent the downside there is no reason to care. And if you automate perfect enforcement you will be inundated with tickets for situations that lack downsides that the enforcers were mostly ignoring.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > doesn't change the fact that the laws/rules/etc across all sorts of issues are all written half baked Illegal parking is pretty black and white. I wouldn’t support citizen policing for all violations. But parking seems like a good fit.
ruggeri 1y ago
I believe you are being downvoted because your comment violates the guidelines ("Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously... Edit out swipes."); anyway, that's why I downvoted. Your later comment that enforcement might benefit from latitude to be reasonable and accommodate nuance is not invalid, and you could have just said that rather than call the gp's aspiration "perverted." The expressed norm of guidelines is that your belief that the gp's logic is circular does not justify your derision. Anyway, you will probably be more convincing to others by being less insulting. If you don't want to contribute in adherence to the guidelines, what is the point of posting here at all?
- potato3732842 1y ago
  I'm being downvoted by being anything less then apologetically polite while expressing a viewpoint that isn't pro whatever the lowest common denominator wants. That's just how comment sections that keep "rightthink score" are.
  - spankalee 1y ago
    I couldn't downvote your direct reply to me, but if I could have I would have because you're being an ass. Calling me "perverted" because I don't think people should block bike lanes says way more about you than me.
    - potato3732842 1y ago
      Not wanting the bike lanes blocked is fine. The problem is that you want, as a means to this end, 100% enforcement of laws that were never written nor were their punishments apportioned with the expectation of such with zero regard for the consequences. That is a bad thing to be advocating for over such a mundane issue and I think it's belies a lack of moral character you often see in this subject of discussion (though you do see it in others and it's bad there too) wherein people want their preferred class of traffic prioritized using state force to the determent of all the others.
      - 1y ago
83542769854276 1y ago
[flagged]
Rebelgecko 1y ago
There's pilot programs to let busses self-enforce their lanes. No uproar I've seen, most people are supportive.
spankalee 1y ago
I would much, much rather have the rules changed to reflect what we actually want them to be than to have bad rules that we only tolerate because we don't enforce them. But on that note, I absolutely do think that people should pay to store their private property on public land, and that they shouldn't block bus lanes, bike lanes or cross walks, or run red lights, so I fully support those rules and automated enforcement of them. Why do you think those rules are bad?
- potato3732842 1y ago
  Of course, but bad rules enforced imperfectly and good rules enforced perfectly are both categorically and morally superior to bad rules enforced perfectly because some extremist has fantasies of everyone goose stepping in perfect line.

echelon 1y ago

> some perverted dream of 100% enforcement No illegally parked vehicles? The negative externalities of illegally parked vehicles charged to the source? I'll dream of that.

hedora 1y ago
I think you’ll find this leads to infinite fine revenue and higher congestion in pretty much all cities.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > think you’ll find this leads to infinite fine revenue and higher congestion in pretty much all cities How? Laffer curve will max out as behaviour adjusts. And that adjustment means folks parking legally or forgoing a car or the area in question, not driving around in circles for fun.
potato3732842 1y ago
That doesn't change the fact that the laws/rules/etc across all sorts of issues are all written half baked with the assumption that enforcers will be reasonable and all sorts of edge cases don't need to be supported. The reason illegally parked vehicles are illegal is not because they are illegal, that's circular and the peddlers of that sort of logic should be derided if not marginalized. We care about illegally parked vehicles, littering, and all manner of public nuisances because of the downside to the public of said nuisance. Absent the downside there is no reason to care. And if you automate perfect enforcement you will be inundated with tickets for situations that lack downsides that the enforcers were mostly ignoring.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > doesn't change the fact that the laws/rules/etc across all sorts of issues are all written half baked Illegal parking is pretty black and white. I wouldn’t support citizen policing for all violations. But parking seems like a good fit.

ruggeri 1y ago

I believe you are being downvoted because your comment violates the guidelines ("Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously... Edit out swipes."); anyway, that's why I downvoted. Your later comment that enforcement might benefit from latitude to be reasonable and accommodate nuance is not invalid, and you could have just said that rather than call the gp's aspiration "perverted." The expressed norm of guidelines is that your belief that the gp's logic is circular does not justify your derision. Anyway, you will probably be more convincing to others by being less insulting. If you don't want to contribute in adherence to the guidelines, what is the point of posting here at all?

potato3732842 1y ago
I'm being downvoted by being anything less then apologetically polite while expressing a viewpoint that isn't pro whatever the lowest common denominator wants. That's just how comment sections that keep "rightthink score" are.
- spankalee 1y ago
  I couldn't downvote your direct reply to me, but if I could have I would have because you're being an ass. Calling me "perverted" because I don't think people should block bike lanes says way more about you than me.
  - potato3732842 1y ago
    Not wanting the bike lanes blocked is fine. The problem is that you want, as a means to this end, 100% enforcement of laws that were never written nor were their punishments apportioned with the expectation of such with zero regard for the consequences. That is a bad thing to be advocating for over such a mundane issue and I think it's belies a lack of moral character you often see in this subject of discussion (though you do see it in others and it's bad there too) wherein people want their preferred class of traffic prioritized using state force to the determent of all the others.
    - 1y ago

83542769854276 1y ago

[flagged]

Rebelgecko 1y ago

There's pilot programs to let busses self-enforce their lanes. No uproar I've seen, most people are supportive.

spankalee 1y ago

I would much, much rather have the rules changed to reflect what we actually want them to be than to have bad rules that we only tolerate because we don't enforce them. But on that note, I absolutely do think that people should pay to store their private property on public land, and that they shouldn't block bus lanes, bike lanes or cross walks, or run red lights, so I fully support those rules and automated enforcement of them. Why do you think those rules are bad?

potato3732842 1y ago
Of course, but bad rules enforced imperfectly and good rules enforced perfectly are both categorically and morally superior to bad rules enforced perfectly because some extremist has fantasies of everyone goose stepping in perfect line.