[fierarul]

I think society will soon discover that a certain % of rule breaking is absolutely necessary for it to function.

My car has a speed limiter, radio and a computer. Imagine a near future where speed limits are sent via radio then enforced by the car computer. No more infringement!

[konschubert]

If a law is bad when enforced, then the law needs to be changed, not the enforcement.

Arbitrary enforcement leads to discrimination and corruption.

Regarding the speed limit, I think the laws are just finde and should simply be enforced.

[callumlocke]

> If a law is bad when enforced, then the law needs to be changed, not the enforcement.

Useful as a rule of thumb but it's not always true. Models are never perfect, the map is not the territory. We are constantly figuring out what our shared values are, and it's a moving target. And the body of law itself is a complex beast with its own surprising dynamics. It's part of an ecosystem. You can't wave away its complexity with such a simplistic ideal.

A given law may be 'bad' (regrettable, even draconian/immoral) when enforced in certain cases, and yet it may also be unfeasible to change that law to add those cases as exceptions. This is why the law gives judges flexibility on sentencing, for example.

[closeparen]

In practice, it really never happens that we make the law more permissive through a deliberative process and then start doing the thing. We relax the law because we found that people didn't really respect it and enforcement was unpopular.

[t-writescode]

And then we only enforce it on people we don't like and can use it as an excuse and everyone will go "yeah, well, I mean, it is a law, after all. They should have known better. Everyone gets caught eventually."

[jdbernard]

I think the concern is not so much a desire for arbitrary enforcement as it is a fear of perfect enforcement at all times. I think some degree of freedom is a fundamental need of the human being, even from the rules we set for ourselves. We don't actually want all of our laws to be perfectly enforced all of the time, for a lot of reasons. For one thing, the laws themselves are unlikely to ever be perfect, even if perfect enforcement leads to more scrutiny and tweaking.

[bluntfang]

perfect enforcement sounds like it could be a great way to combat racism and other bias a police officer might have. laws being enforced imperfectly creates a class divide since the upper class won't feel the impact of bad laws on their communities.

[rozab]

It's a hell of a lot harder to have perfect laws than strict enforcement. Especially when revenue-raising is involved.

[toxicFork]

People would rip the limiter out.

Or they would chip/crack it.

[fierarul]

Some, but most would not since I assume that would be a felony.

[presentation]

Lots of places in the world where speed limits are enforced automatically and strictly, and society seems to work just fine.

[winter_blue]

> Imagine a near future where speed limits are sent via radio then enforced by the car computer.

I think if a law were passed that forced people to adopt that, there would be a backlash, and then the speed limits would very quickly be increased as well — to a far more reasonable level. I would imagine highway speed limits would rise to 110 mph (177 kmph) or something, which is far more reasonable considering how safe cars are today, and the sheer number of hours it would save in commuting times.

(If a road heavily used by commuters changed its speed limit from 55 mph to 110 mph, you’d be cutting each person’s commute time by up to half. That would add up to million of hours of time saved in a large-ish city, and not to mention, less road damage due to the lower amount of time cars are on the road, and probably less energy usage once car manufacturers optimize their engines/motors for maximum efficiency at the 110 mph point.)