2 ms·
It won't be good, as the definition of what's a crime and what is not changes due to political reasons (read corruption).
by shaky-carrousel 3mo ago
It won't be good, as the definition of what's a crime and what is not changes due to political reasons (read corruption).
- JumpCrisscross 3mo agoSure, which is why there is no such magic without surveillance. Which is why the hypothetical is silly.
- SiempreViernes 3mo agoBut to object to the statement made you need to think most laws are substantially wrong, not simply that some laws are problematic.
- sebastiennight 3mo agoWhat you're missing is that it is enough for one single law to be problematic. If we had a complete, utopian set of amazing laws that provide happiness to all, and I add just one law : "All citizens have to agree with every edict, statement or choice of SiempreViernes. Expressing disagreement or doubt is a crime, punishable by exile, lynching or lifetime imprisonment." All of a sudden this society just became a nightmare. Yes the majority of people can probably still live an OK life, but that single law has a gigantic downstream effect on happiness, stress levels of all, and life expectancy of free thinkers. Now add the idea that you're able to perfectly prevent crime, and you now have a totalitarian surveillance panopticon in place to prevent me from even writing any doubts into my personal journal.
- onraglanroad 3mo agoNot most, maybe just one. Consider a Schindler's List type scenario. It's a crime to help a Jew escape. Now mostly I believe in the rule of law and if I broke a law because I thought it was justified in that particular circumstance I would accept my punishment. But in that scenario, accepting my punishment would mean I couldn't help others.