[temujin]

The problem is, once the government chooses to not close a known loophole, the number of people who exploit it may increase by orders of magnitude. Without a willingness to add the other 1350 pages, you may end up with something like 70% fraud prevention, not 99.9%.

What's needed is more refactoring. This would benefit from more capacity to try different sets of regulations in parallel.

[DannyBee]

This is a generally true statement about any process. The solution to that is to enforce well enough that people don't think that's a good idea. I also did say you do have to refactor over time as compliance rate decreases. Past that, i don't think we actually disagree :)

If you have a speed limit sign, and it says "speed limit, 50 mph, enforced by satellite observation", most people will probably ignore it. Those that don't and get caught, yeah, they go looking for excuses for why they ignored it to post-justify it. Changing the regulation wording will not change this. You can make the sign much larger and say "speed limit 50 mph, even if you are really late for an appointment, etc" but honestly, it still will not help that. People ignore it because the enforcement mechanism makes them feel like it won't happen to them (and because it's not socially abhorrent, etc), not because of ignorance of the law

On the other hand, if you have a sign that says "speed limit 50mph, enforced by this guy, right here", and there is a smiling cop with a radar gun sitting next to the sign, enforcing it, most people will not ignore it. In fact, i'd bet you could write everything before "enforced by this guy" in small print people had to slow down to read, and most people would slow down and read it, because they believe the risk of enforcement is greater to them.

Will you get everyone to stop speeding there? Nope.

Even if you add spike strips, laser beams, whatever, someone is going to do it, and in fact, enforcing harder sometimes increases the rate (depending how low the rate is) based on the thrill some people get. 100% compliance is just pretty much impossible, no matter what words you use.

[azernik]

You cannot fix a loophole with better enforcement. By definition, the behaviors involved are allowed.

[Bartweiss]

I'm not convinced about that.

Some organizations do startlingly well with good enforcement and a rule against circumventing the rules. Yes, that's subjective and messy, but it can actually work quite nicely.

Hell, it's basically what financial structuring laws are: a rule saying "no using loopholes if you find them". With that in place, it becomes surprisingly easy to address loopholes by punishing everyone who employs them.